Loading...
Item P1BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: February 10, 2016 Department: Planning & Environmental Resources Bulk Item: Yes _ No X Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Mayte Santamaria 289-2562 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider an ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Amending the Monroe County Future Land Use Map from Industrial (I) to Commercial (COMM) for property located at approximate mile marker 9, described as four parcels of land in Section 21, Township 67 South, Range 26 East, Rockland Key, Monroe County Florida, having Real Estate Numbers 00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000 and 00121990.000000; and from Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) and Industrial (I) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC); creating Policy 107.1.6 Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1, to provide limitations on development and specific restrictions; for property located at approximate mile marker 9, described as a parcel of land in Section 21, Township 67 South, Range 26 East, Big Coppitt Key, Monroe County, Florida, having Real Estate Number 00120940.000100; as proposed by Rockland Operations, LLC and Rockland Commercial Center, Inc. (Legislative Proceeding) ITEM BACKGROUND: An application was originally submitted on May 18, 2012, on behalf of "Toppino Family Companies" to amend the Future Land Use Map for 25 parcels totaling approximately 84 acres on Rockland and Big Coppitt Keys from MCF and I to MC. Staff did not recommend approval of the original proposal and suggested the applicant consider the Commercial (COMM) FLUM category which does not include a residential component. In 2014, after the creation of the COMM FLUM, the applicant amended and reduced the request to amend the FLUM to five total parcels: on Rockland Key from I to COMM, and on Big Coppitt Key from MCF and I to MC, totaling approximately 44 acres (-15 acres MC and -29 acres COMM.). On December 10, 2014, the BOCC transmitted the draft ordinance for the proposed FLUM amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), which reviewed the proposal and issued an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, received by the County on March 23, 2015. The ORC report identified objections regarding increased potential residential development on the Big Coppitt portion of the property, and pointed out that although the applicant claims the proposed FLUM amendment will provide some relief to the affordable housing shortage currently faced by the County, there is no guarantee the site will be used for affordable housing. In response to the ORC, the applicant prepared a revised proposal for the FLUM amendment based on the ORC report; additional data and analysis, including excerpts from the Monroe County Year 2030 Technical Document, the County's 2015 Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, Key West's Affordable Housing White Paper dated September 14, 2015, and the requirements of Florida law. The revised proposal requested the same FLUM amendment from MCF and I to MC and COMM, but also included a Comprehensive Plan text amendment, to be adopted simultaneously to respond to the ORC objection, establishing a subarea policy for the Big Coppitt portion of the property restricting any residential use on the subject property to only affordable housing. Staff had also recommended including the following restrictions to the proposed subarea policy: restricting any residential use on the subject property to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 30% median, at least 30% low, and at least 30% very low income categories); eliminating all potential for market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the site; prohibiting new marinas; prohibiting dredging; prohibiting light industrial uses; prohibiting residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour; and requiring sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours. The public hearing on November 17, 2015 for above described FLUM and subarea policy was continued to the February 10, 2016 BOCC meeting because the applicant did not agree with the staff recommendation on the mix of affordable housing income categories (mix of at least 30% median, at least 30% low, and at least 30% very low income categories). On January 11, 2016, the applicant provided a revised subarea proposal (included in staff report and draft ordinance) indicating an alternative for the mix of affordable housing income categories (5% median, 20% low and very low combined and 75% moderate income categories) and included other amendments in an effort to address concerns from the surrounding community members. The applicant also held a community meeting on January 14, 2016 to offer information on the proposal and hear the surrounding community's concerns/input. Staff attended the community meeting to listen to the public input. Summary provided below. Concern with a congregation of hm, income neighbors coinraaaents related to potential scafet�, issues and property gaftte concerns (low rental rates and rraaa:a sales price craps could loiter vurroarrrding proper•tY values). Asked if. applicant aaould request inere medpolice patrols to the arca. Applicant described a proposed amendment to reduce the percentage of lower income groups proposed in the amendment: 5%rr median, 20% low and very low combined and 75% moderate income categories. The applicant also stated they hope to rent to police officers, teachers, nurses, etc. Concern sa�itta potential traffic congestion in the Big Cop itt neighborhood. e Applicant described a proposed amendment to the subarea policy to restrict the use of Puerta Drive and showed the community two other possible ingress and egress options for the proposed future affordable housing development; including the creation of direct route through Rockland Key. Concerned with nonresidential uses, such as restaurants, ivhich could increase traffic through the neighborhood. ,r Applicant described a proposed amendment to the subarea policy to eliminate nonresidential uses. Asked wh), the applicant was requesting inia;ed arse if they were nor pr•olaca.ving an nonresidential uses. • Applicant stated they requested this category because it provides sufficient density for an affordable housing project but was not the highest density available. For example, a FLUM designation of Residential High (RH) and Urban Residential (UR) zoning provides a density bonus for affordable housing of 25 dwelling units per buildable acre. A FLUM designation of Mixed Use (MC) and Mixed Use (MU) zoning provides a density bonus for affordable housing of 18 dwelling units per buildable acre. * Concerned at-ith the dea�elopinent (�f up to 213 affordable housing straits st?,nifrcam nuinbei of units - comp tent:6' related to potential so ety issues and hr"open}' i,alue concerns, Coinninninasked rf the det`elopinent ivould he mas nersltip or rental. • Applicant stated that the development has not been designed, as the map amendment is the I" step in the process. As such, a development plan is premature and the total number of units that could fit on the site has not been determined. Applicant noted that it may be lower than the max potential development. • Applicant stated that the project would be 100% rental. Asked about potential recreational facilities or access to the groper-tt• — inentioned nei?lhbors were previousl; allotted to access proper- to match the sunsra. • Applicant stated that if this project moves forward that their intention was to include some recreational facilities, possibly a club house, pool or something similar. Applicant stated that they appreciative of the comment and could work with the community on providing access to the recreational facilities. • Applicant described a proposed amendment to the subarea policy to eliminate nonresidential uses and allow residential accessory uses such as club house or recreational activities. Based upon the applicant's concern of obtaining financing to develop an affordable housing project with a majority of the units as the lower income categories and the surrounding community members expressed concern with having a large composition of the lower income categories adjacent to their neighborhood, staff recommends a few edits to the applicant's proposal. Staff recommends, in an effort to provide for the existing workforce, an increase of the proposed median income category (highest income group of the lower income groups) to provide for a little more mix in affordable housing income categories. The suggestion would result in a mix of 10% median, 20% low and very low combined and 70% moderate income categories. Based upon the revised subarea policy, the proposed FLUM amendment, as shown in the table below, would eliminate market rate residential and transient development potential, provide for an increase in affordable housing development potential, and eliminate nonresidential use development potential: Net Change in Development Proposed FLUM Amendment Alone Proposed FLUM Amendment with Proposed Revised Subarea Policy Residential (allocated): +27.1 du Market Rate Residential: 0 du Potential for Residential (max net): +122.6 du Affordable Residential (max net): +122.6 du [213 total] Total Site Transient: +222.5 rooms/spaces Transient: 0 rooms Nonresidential: (-204,013) SF Nonresidential: (474,710) SF Normally, the County has 180 days from the date of receipt of the ORC to adopt the FLUM amendment, adopt the FLUM amendment with changes or not adopt the FLUM amendment. The 180 day deadline for action by the County would be September 19, 2015; however, the County requested an extension to this deadline from DEO (as requested by the applicant). The new deadline for County action is March 15, 2016. The applicant has also proposed a corresponding Land Use District (Zoning) map amendment. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On December 10, 2014, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution #375-2014, transmitting to the state land planning agency an ordinance amending the FLUM for the subject property from MCF and I to COMM and MC. On July 15, 2015, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved sending a request to the State Land Planning Agency requesting an extension of time to adopt the Future Land Use Map amendments transmitted to the State Land Planning Agency on December 10, 2014 via Resolution 374-2014 (two parcels on Key Largo) and Resolution 375-2014 (for four parcels on Rockland Key and one parcel on Big Coppitt). On November 17, 2015, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the Board of County Commissioners continued the public hearing for the proposed FLUM amendment from MCF and I to COMM and MC and the corresponding subarea policy to February 10, 2016. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECONDIENDATIONS: Approval of one of the three options provided in the Ordinance (summaries provided below —changes underlined in Option 2 and 3): Option 1— initial proposed subarea policy: • restricting any residential use on the subject property to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 30% median, at least 30% low, and at least 30% very low income categories); • eliminating all potential for market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the site; • prohibiting new marinas; prohibiting dredging; prohibiting light industrial uses on the site; • prohibiting residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour; and requiring sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours. Option 2 — Applicant revision: • restricting any residential use on the subject property to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 5% median, at least 20% of low and very low combined); • eliminating all potential for market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the site; • prohibiting all potential for nonresidential uses on the site; allowing residential accessory uses; • prohibiting dredging; • prohibiting residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour; and requiring sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the [70 } 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours; and • restricting the use of Puerta Drive for ingress and egress for any development located within the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 Option 3- Staff recommended edits to Applicant revision: • restricting any residential use on the subject property to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 10% median, at least 20% of low and very low combined); • eliminating all potential for market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the site; • prohibiting all potential for nonresidential uses on the site; allowing residential accessory uses; • prohibiting dredging; • prohibiting residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour; and requiring sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours; and • restricting the use of Puerta Drive for ingress and egress for any development located within the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year APPROVED BY: County Att OMB/Purchasing Risk Management _ DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required_ DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ORDINANCE NO. -2016 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL (COMM) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS FOUR PARCELS OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, ROCKLAND KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000 AND 00121990.000000; AND FROM MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL FISHING (MCF) AND INDUSTRIAL (I) TO MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL (MC); CREATING POLICY 107.1.6 BIG COPPITT MIXED USE AREA 1, TO PROVIDE LIMITATIONS ON DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS; FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00120940.000100, AS PROPOSED BY ROCKLAND OPERATIONS, LLC AND ROCKLAND COMMERCIAL CENTER, INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Rockland Operations, LLC and Rockland Commercial Center, Inc. submitted an application for a Future Land Use Map amendment from Industrial (I) to Commercial (COMM) and from Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) and Industrial (I) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC); and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 29th day of April, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 27`l' day of August, 2014, for review and recommendation on the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment; and 1 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission made the following findings of 2 fact and conclusions of law: 3 1. The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely impact the community character of 4 the surrounding area; and 5 6 2. The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely impact the Comprehensive Plan 7 adopted Level of Service; and 8 9 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 10 Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and 11 12 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for 13 the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute; 14 and 15 16 5. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute; and 17 18 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P39-14 19 recommending transmittal of the proposed amendment; and 20 21 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 10`h day of December, 2014, the Monroe 22 County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the 23 proposed amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and public 24 participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted for 25 public participation in the planning process; and 26 27 WHEREAS, at the December 10, 2014, public hearing, the BOCC adopted Resolution 28 375-2014, transmitting the amendment to the State Land Planning Agency; and 29 30 WHEREAS, the State Land Planning Agency reviewed the amendment and issued an 31 Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report, received by the County on March 32 23, 2015; and 33 34 WHEREAS, the ORC report identified objections regarding increased potential 35 residential development on the Big Coppitt portion of the property, and pointed out that although 36 the applicant claims the proposed FLUM amendment will provide some relief to the affordable 37 housing shortage currently faced by the County, there is no guarantee the site will be used for 38 affordable housing; and 39 40 WHEREAS, the ORC report specifically states: The applicant makes the argument that 41 housing in Monroe county is in short supply, the cost of that housing is too high and therefore, 42 this amendment adds to the available affordable housing by re -designating 14.83 acres to mixed 43 use which can accommodate a multi family affordable housing development project of 44 significant size. However, there is nothing in the amendment which provides assurance that any 45 future residential development on this property will be for affordable housing; and 46 N 1 WHEREAS, the ORC report recommended that the BOCC either not adopt the 2 amendment, or revise the amendment to allow uses other than residential uses; and 3 4 WHEREAS, normally, the County has 180 days from the date of receipt of the ORC to 5 adopt the FLUM amendment, adopt the FLUM amendment with changes or not adopt the FLUM 6 amendment, which would have given the BOCC a deadline of September 19, 2015; and 7 8 WHEREAS, the County requested and was granted an extension to the deadline from 9 DEO, which gives the BOCC a new deadline of March 15, 2016 to adopt the FLUM amendment, 10 adopt the FLUM amendment with changes or not adopt the FLUM amendment; and 11 12 WHEREAS, in response to the ORC, the applicant prepared a revised proposal for the 13 FLUM amendment based on the ORC report, additional data and analysis, and the requirements 14 of Florida law. The revised proposal requested the same FLUM amendment from MCF and I to 15 MC and COMM, but also included a Comprehensive Plan text amendment, to be adopted 16 simultaneously to respond to the ORC objections, establishing a subarea policy for the Big 17 Coppitt portion of the property restricting any residential use on the subject property to only 18 affordable housing; and 19 20 WHEREAS, staff had also recommended including the following restrictions to the 21 proposed subarea policy: restricting any residential use on the subject property to affordable 22 housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 30% median, at least 30% low, and at least 30% 23 very low income categories); eliminating all potential for market rate permanent residential 24 and/or transient uses on the site; prohibiting new marinas; prohibiting dredging; prohibiting light 25 industrial uses; prohibiting residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound 26 Level) noise contour; and requiring sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within 27 the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours; and 28 29 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on 17t' day of November, 2015, the 30 BOCC continued the public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed FLUM amendment and 31 subarea policy because the applicant did not agree with staff recommendation on the mix of 32 affordable housing income categories (mix of at least 30% median, at least 30% low, and at least 33 30% very low income categories); and 34 35 WHEREAS, On January 11, 2016, the applicant provided a revised subarea proposal 36 indicating an alternative for the mix of affordable housing income categories and included other 37 amendments in an effort to address concerns from the surrounding community members; and 38 39 WHEREAS, based upon the applicant's concern of obtaining financing to develop an 40 affordable housing project with a majority of the units as the lower income categories and the 41 surrounding community members expressed concern with having a large composition of the 42 lower income categories adjacent to their neighborhood, staff recommends in effort to provide 43 for the existing workforce, an increase of the proposed median income category (highest income 44 group of the lower income groups) to provide for a little more mix in affordable housing income 45 categories. The suggestion would result in a mix of 10% median, 20% low and very low 46 combined and 70% moderate income categories. 3 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 2 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 3 4 Section 1. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is 5 hereby amended as follows: 6 7 The property described as four parcels of land on Rockland Key, having Real 8 Estate Numbers 00122080-000000, 00122081-000200, 00122010-000000, and 9 00121990-000000 is changed from Industrial (I) to Commercial (COMM), and a 10 parcel of land on Big Coppitt Key, having real estate number 00120940-000000 is 11 changed from Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) and Industrial (I) to Mixed 12 Use/Commercial (MC), as shown on Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated 13 herein. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Section 2. The text of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as follows: Policy 107.1.6 Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 -To Provide Limitations on Development and Specific Restrictions Development in the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall be subject to regulations applicable to the Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) Future Land Use Designation as well as an additional restriction set out below: 1. Residential units developed on the Big CCODDitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall be restricted to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 30% median, at least 30% low, and at least 30% very low income categories) and subject to affordable housing regulations pursuant to Section 130-161 of the Monroe County Code of Ordinances. 2. There shall be no market rate or transient residential units. 3. There shall be no new marinas. 4. There shall be no dredging. 5. There shall be no light industrial uses. 6. All habitable buildings located within the 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour pursuant to the 2013 Navy Environmental Impact Statement shall be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 25 decibels. 7. No residential buildings shall be located within the 70-74 DNL. 8. All habitable buildings located within the 70-74 DNL noise contour pursuant to the 2013 Navy Environmental Impact Statement shall be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 30 decibels. The Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1, with Real Estate No. 00120940-000100 is approximately_ 14.8 acres of vacant land and is legally described as: n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Policy 107.1.6 Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 -To Provide Limitations on Development and Specific Restrictions Development in the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall be subject to regulations applicable to the Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) Future Land Use Designation as well as an additional restriction set out below: 1. Residential units developed on the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall be restricted to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 5% median and at least a 20% combination of low, very low income categories) and subject to affordable housing regulations pursuant to Section 130-161 of the Monroe County Code of Ordinances. 2. There shall be no nonresidential uses. Accessory uses to the residential development such as a club house or recreational activities are permitted. 3. There shall be no market rate or transient residential units. 4. There shall be no dredging. 5. All habitable buildings located within the 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour pursuant to the 2013 Navy Environmental Impact Statement shall be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 25 decibels. 6. No residential buildings shall be located within the 70-74 DNL. 7. Any development located within the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall not utilize Puerta Drive for ingress and egress. The Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1, with Real Estate No. 00120940-000100 is approximately 14.8 acres of vacant land and is legally described as: 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Policy 107.1.6 Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 -To Provide Limitations on Development and Specific Restrictions Development in the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall be subject to regulations applicable to the Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) Future Land Use Designation as well as an additional restriction set out below: 1. Residential units developed on the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall be restricted to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 10% median- and at least a_ 20% combination of low -very low income categories) and subject to affordable housing regulations pursuant to Section 130-161 of the Monroe County Code of Ordinances. 2. There shall be no nonresidential uses. Accessory uses to the residential development such as a club house or recreational facilities are permitted. 3. There shall be no market rate or transient residential units. 4. There shall be no dredging 5. All habitable buildings located within the 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour pursuant to the 2013 Navy Environmental Impact Statement shall be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 25 decibels. 6. No residential buildings shall be located within the 70-74 DNL. 7. Any development located within the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall not utilize Puerta Drive for ingress and egress. 8. All habitable buildings located within the 70-74 DNL noise contour pursuant to the 2013 Navy Environmental Impact Statement shall be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 30 decibels. The Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1, with Real Estate No. 00 120940-000 100 is approximately 14.8 acres of vacant land and is legally described as: 21 2 PARCEL "A" 3 A arcel of land as described in Official Records Book 1884 Pa a 1226 of the Public Records of 4 Monroe County, Florida being a part of Government Lot 1, Section 21 Township 67 South 5 Range 26 East on Big Coppitt Key, Monroe County, Florida described as follows: 7 BEGIN at the southwest corner of Block 9 of "GULFREST PARK PLAT NO 2" according to 8 the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 157 of the Public Records of Monroe County, 9 Florida and run thence South a distance of 390 feet; thence run West for a distance of 300 feet; 10 thence run North for a distance of 1004.13 feet: thence run East for a distance of 300 feet to a 11 point; thence run South for a distance of 614.13 feet back to the POINT OF BEGINNING 12 13 TOGETHER WITH: 14 15 PARCEL "B" 16 A parcel of land as described in Official Records Book 1884 Page 1226 of the Public Records of 17 Monroe County, Florida being a part of Government Lot 1 Section 21 Township 67 South 18 Range 26 East on Big Coppitt Key, Monroe County Florida described as follows: 19 BEGIN at the southwest corner of Block 9 of "GULFREST PARK PLAT NO. 2" according to 20 the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 157 of the Public Records of Monroe County, 21 Florida and run thence East a distance of 185 feet to a point,• thence South 45 degrees 00 22 minutes, 00 seconds West a distance of 70.71 feet to a point - thence West a distance of 135 feet 23 to a point, thence at right angles North 50.0 feet to the said southwest corner of said Block 9 and 24 the POINT OF BEGINNING. 25 26 TOGETHER WITH: 27 28 PARCEL "C" 29 A parcel of land as described in Official Records Book 2237 Page 2259 of the Public Records of 30 Monroe County, Florida being a part of Government Lot 1 Section 21 Township 67 South 31 Range 26 East on Big Coppitt Key, Monroe County Florida described as follows: 32 COMMENCE at the southwest corner of Block 9 of "GULFREST PARK Plat No 2" accordin 33 to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 157 of the Public Records of Monroe 34 County, Florida and run thence North for a distance of 614.13 feet to the POINT OF 35 BEGINNING of the parcel of land herein being described,• thence run West for a distance of 300 36 feet to a point, thence run North for a distance of 1063 feet more or less to a point on the north 37 boundary line of T.I.I.F. Deed #24002, thence run East along the said north boundary line of said 38 T.I.I.F. Deed #24002 for a distance of 100 feet to the north boundary line of said Government 39 Lot 1; thence run Southeasterly along the north boundary line of said Government Lot 1 for a 40 distance of 233 feet, more or less to the northwest corner of the said Block 9• thence run South I along the west boundary line of the said Block 9 for a distance of 942.78 feet back to the POINT 2 OF BEGINNING. 4 TOGETHER WITH: 6 PARCEL "D" 7 A parcel of land lying adjacent to the lands described in T.I.I.F. Deed #24002 on the Gulf of 8 Mexico in Government Lot 1, Section 21, Township 67 South Range 26 East on Big Coppitt 9 Key, Monroe County, Florida, said parcel being more particularly described by metes and 10 bounds as follows: 11 COMMENCE at the southwest corner of Block 9 of "GULFREST PARK PLAT NO. 2" 12 according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 157 of the Public Record: of 13 Monroe County; Florida, and run thence North and along the westerly boundary line of the said 14 Block 9 for a distance of 614.13 feet: thence run West for a distance of 300.00 feet,• thence run 15 North for a distance of 1062.78 feet to a point on the north boundary line of T.I.I.F. Deed #24002 16 as described in Official Records Book 346 at Page 580 of the said Public Records said point 17 being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence run West and along the north line of said T.I.I.F. 18 Deed #24002 for a distance of 1331.95 feet; thence run North for a distance of 186 feet more or 19 less, to a point on the waterward boundary line as of July 1 1975• thence meander said 20 waterward boundary the following twenty-four (24) courses: N 88°53'56" E for a distance of 21 39.47 feet; N 65°36'56" E, a distance of 71.66 feet, S 88° 16'S7" E for a distance of 75.93 feet-, N 22 77°38'10" E, a distance of 44.29 feet, S 76011'41" E for a distance of 76.54 feet; N 88°33'56" E 23 a distance of 82.11 feet, N 85°40'47" E. for a distance of 103.42 feet; S 75°35'07" E a distance 24 of 43.33 feet; N 77°23'10" E, for a distance of 41.16 feet,• S 84°42'40" E a distance of 110.45 25 feet, S 87°26'54" E, for a distance of 85.16 feet; S 79°07'09" E for a distance of 28.70 feet-, N 26 79°46'31" E, for a distance of 73.24 feet; S 77°57'45" E for a distance of 41.56 feet,• N 7713'36" 27 E, for a distance of 53.90 feet; S 84°23' 12" E, for a distance of 121.58 feet,• N 80°09'47" E for a 28 distance of 54.28 feet; S 82°09'00" E, for a distance of 63.88 feet,• S 79°34'01" E for a distance 29 of 42.16 feet; N 86010'05" E. for a distance of 98.91 feet,• N 88042'12" E for a distance of 49.04 30 feet; S 82°47'37" E. for a distance of 59.12 feet,• S 84° 16'22" E for a distance of 85.04 feet; S 31 47°39'01" E. for a distance of 15.58 feet to a point said point being the Point of Terminus of the 32 Waterward boundary line as of July 1 1975• thence S 29°03'59" E and leaving the said 33 Waterward boundary line as of July 1 1975 for a distance of 197.97 feet to a point said point 34 being 200.00 feet East of the POINT OF BEGINNING of the said T.I.I.F. Deed #24002• thence 35 run West and along the North line of said T.I.I.F. Deed #24002 and Easterly extension thereof 36 for a distance of 300.00 feet back to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 37 38 ALSO DESCRIBED AS: 39 (Description to incorporate current Mean High Water Line as located on May 16 2013) 1 A parcel of land being a part of Government Lot 1, Section 21, Township 67 South, Range 26 2 East on Big Coppitt Key, Monroe County, Florida described as follows: 3 BEGINNING at the southwest corner of Block 9 of "GULFREST PARK PLAT NO. 2" 4 according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 157 of the Public Records of 5 Monroe County, Florida; thence S 89°46'50" W along the south line of said Block 9 and its 6 easterly extension being the south right-of-way line of Puerta Drive, said bearing referenced to 7 the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83), of the Florida State Plane Coordinate System, 8 East Zone with all subsequent bearings referenced thereto, a distance of 185.00 feet; thence S 9 45013'01" W, 70.71 feet, thence N 89046'50" W, 135.00 feet, thence S 00013'10" W, 340.00 feet; 10 thence N 89°46'50" W. 300.00 feet, thence N 00013'10" E, 2067.13 feet to the north line of the 11 Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (T.I.I.T.F.) Deed Number 24002; thence N 12 89046'50" W along said north line, 1331.95 feet, thence N 00° 13' 10" E, 199.38 feet to the Mean 13 High Water Line of the Gulf of Mexico, being coincident with the boundary of the State of 14 Florida sovereign lands as located on May 16, 2013, having an elevation of (-) 0.1 feet of the 15 North American Vertical Darum of 1988 (NAVD 88), thence meandering along said Mean High 16 Water Line for the following forty-three courses and distances: S 75010'03" E, 17.09 feet; thence 17 N 78039'05" E, 68.25 feet; thence N 89°30'17" E, 15.01 feet; thence N 75°15'14" E, 51.14 feet; 18 thence S 86°12'34" E, 48.68 feet; thence N 86018'20" E, 42.61 feet, thence S 78003'36" E, 20.90 19 feet, thence N 82°55' 14" E. 20.68 feet; thence S 79°58' 18" E, 26.68 feet; thence N 82'01' 16" E, 20 34.71 feet, thence S 88°07'27" E, 19.05 feet, thence S 81°24'47" E, 18.37 feet; thence N 21 83 ° 19'58" E, 37.65 feet, thence N 88° 17' 12" E, 46.14 feet; thence N 37019' 14" E, 3.92 feet; 22 thence S 82012' 13" E, 41.59 feet; thence N 81 ° 17'41" E, 29.36 feet; thence S 72°56'29" E, 14.22 23 feet, thence N 85048'46" E, 48.07 feet; thence S 89000'58" E, 37.88 feet, thence S 74000'33" E, 24 20.67 feet; thence S 88°24'32" E. 37.19 feet, thence S 84006,55" E, 54.34 feet; thence N 25 48034'35" E, 8.07 feet, thence S 63055'33" E, 23.21 feet; thence N 85006'05" E, 80.97 feet; 26 thence S 87042'46" E. 28.25 feet; thence S 87037'50" E, 46.30 feet; thence N 62°58'49" E, 26.73 27 feet; thence S 84054'29" E, 51.82 feet, thence S 74052'34" E, 59.48 feet; thence N 58022'57" E, 28 39.76 feet; thence S 7000244" E, 30.75 feet; thence S 89°09'25" E. 36.47 feet; thence S 29 81004'00" E. 76.75 feet, thence S 55035'02" E. 9.83 feet, thence N 87°43'55" E, 100.88 feet; 30 thence N 79034'18" E, 60.39 feet, thence S 30005'11" E, 16.62 feet; thence N 88049'49" E, 23.02 31 feet, thence S 86006'33" E, 23.01 feet, thence N 84°46'41" E, 25.37 feet, thence S 72052'03" E 32 47.43 feet; thence S 28°54'25" E departing said Mean High Water Line, 214.32 feet; thence N 33 89046'50" W along the easterly extension of said T.I.I.T.F. Deed Number 24002, a distance of 34 200.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of said Deed, said point also being on the north line of 35 Government Lot 1; thence S 58046'14" E along said north line, 233.35 feet to the northwest 36 corner of said Block 9, thence S 00°13'10" W along the west line of said Block 9, a distance of 37 1556.91 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 38 Said lands lying and being in Government Lot 1, Section 21, Township 67 South, Range 26 East 39 on Big Coppitt Key, Monroe County, Florida containing 952,363 square feet (21.86 acres) more 40 or less. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such validity. Section 4. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. Section 5. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. Section 6. Filing and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and after any applicable challenges have been resolved. Section 7. Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Map amendment shall be incorporated in the Future Land Use Map of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the text amendment shall be incorporated in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The numbering of the foregoing amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2016. (SEAL) ATTEST: AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK Mayor Heather Carruther Mayor Pro Tem s George Neugent Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage Commissioner David Rice Commissioner Sylvia Murphy BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA IM Mayor Heather Carruthers MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY ROVED A .FORM: STEVEN T. WILLIAMS ASSISTANT OUIIyyTY ATTORNEY 10 Date - ---- ! Exhibit 1 to Ordinance# -2016 The Monroe County Future Land Use Map is amended as indicated above. Proposal: Future Land Use change of five parcels of land on Big Coppitt Key having Real Estate Numbers: 00120940-000100, 00122080-000000, 00122081-000200, 00122010-000000 and 00121990-000000 from Industrial (1) toCommercial (COMM) and Mixed Use/Commercial (MC). To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners From: Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Date: January 24, 2016 Subject: Request by Rockland Operations, LLC and Rockland Commercial Center, Inc. to amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan from Industrial (1) and Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) to Commercial (COMM) and Mixed Use/Commercial (MC); and to create Policy 107.1.6 Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1, to provide limitations on development and specific restrictions for five parcels located on Rockland Key and Big Coppitt Key (File #2012-068 & #2015-114). Meeting: February 10, 2016 — continued from November 17, 2015 I. REQUEST Rockland Operations, LLC and Rockland Commercial Center, Inc. are requesting to amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan from Industrial (I) and Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) to Commercial (COMM) and Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) for five (5) parcels located on Rockland Key and Big Coppitt Key, having real estate numbers 00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000, 00121990.000000, and 00120940.000100; and to create Comprehensive Plan Policy 107.1.6 Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1, to provide limitations on development and specific restrictions for the Big Coppitt portion of the site. File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 1 of 33 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Information Location: MM 9-9.5, Rockland/Big Coppitt Keys, Gulf of Mexico Side Description: Parcels of land within Sections 21, Township 67 South, Range 26 East, Rockland Key and Big Coppitt Key. Real Estate Numbers: 00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000, 00121990.000000 (Rockland Key) and 00120940.000100 (Big Coppitt Key) Owner/Applicant: Rockland Operations, LLC and Rockland Commercial Center, Inc. Agents: Barton Smith and Bryan Hawks of Smith Oropeza Hawks Size of Site: 44.42 acres upland (1,925,787 SF) Current Land Use Districts: Commercial Fishing Area (CFA) & Industrial (I) Current FLUM Designations: Mixed Use / Commercial Fishing (MCF) & Industrial (I) Tier Designation: majority Tier III; small portion (half acre) Tier I Flood Zones: AE - EL 10; VE - EL 12; VE - EL 14; VE - EL 16 Existing Use: Light industrial and vacant land. Existing Vegetation/Habitat: Scarified Community Character of Immediate Vicinity: Adjacent land currently has zoning designations of Industrial (I), Improved Subdivision (IS), Urban Residential -Mobile Home (URM), and Commercial Fishing Area (CFA). The surrounding area includes a mix of uses, including but not limited to: commercial, office, heavy and light industrial, storage, warehouse, residential housing and commercial fishing uses. File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 2 of 33 The Big Coppitt portion of the subject property (RE# 00120940.000100) currently has FLUM designations of Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) and Industrial (I) and Land Use (Zoning) District (LUD) designations of Commercial Fishing Area (CFA) and Industrial (I). The Rockland Key portion of the subject property (RE#s 00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000, and 00121990.000000), currently has a FLUM designation of Industrial (I) and a LUD designation of Industrial (I). The Big Coppitt portion of the subject property was within a GU (General Use) district prior to 1986 when it was re -designated as CFA and I (the final adoption of the LUD map was in 1992). With the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan's FLUM in 1997, the Big Coppitt portion of the subject property was given its current FLUM designations of MCF and I. The Rockland Key portion of the subject property was within GU (General Use) and BU-2 (Medium Business Use) districts prior to 1986 when it was re -designated as I (the final adoption of the LUD map was in 1992). With the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan's FLUM in 1997, the Rockland Key portion of the subject property was given its current FLUM designation of I. According to the boundary survey provided by the applicant, the total upland area of the subject property is 44.42 acres (1,925,787 SF); 14.83 acres comprise the Big Coppitt portion of the property, and 29.59 acres comprise the Rockland Key portion of the property. Property Real Property Current Proposed Current Land Area Owner(s) )state Location FLUM FLUM Zoning Tier (upland acres Number (Key) per survey) y Rockland Operations, 0 000010 Big Coppitt I MC I Tier III 14.83 LLC -00100 &MCF &CFA Subtotal: Big Coppitt portion of property 14.83 acres Rockland Commercial 00122010 Rockland I COMM I Tier III 3.18 Center Inc. -000000 Rockland 00121990 3.05 Commercial Rockland I COMM I Tier III Center Inc. -000000 Rockland 00122080 Tier III Operations, -000000 Rockland I COMM I & 18.87 LLC Tier I Rockland Operations, 00122081 Rockland I COMM I Tier III 4.49 LLC -000200 Subtotal: Rockland Key portion of property 29.59 acres Total Upland Acreage 44.42 acres File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 3 of 33 III. PREVIOUS RELEVANT ACTIONS The application was originally submitted on May 18, 2012 on behalf of Rockland Operations, LLC, Frank P. Toppino Limited Partnership, Frank P. Toppino Land Trust No. 1, Rockland Recycling Center, Inc., Edward Toppino Family Limited Partnership, Edward Toppino Sr. Land Trust, Frank P. Toppino Family Limited Partnership, and Toppino Land Trust, LLC (collectively, "Toppino Family Companies"). The original request was to amend the Future Land Use Map for 25 parcels on Rockland and Big Coppitt Keys from Industrial (I) and Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC). The request was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) at their regularly scheduled meeting on November 27, 2012 with a recommendation of denial, due to the significant increase in potential residential (+364 dwelling units) and transient (+1,202 rooms/spaces) density, and related issues including limited ROGO allocations, potential increases to hurricane evacuation time, and the location of said density being within the 65+DNL (day -night average sound level) noise contour, which, based upon Navy documentation, includes recommendations to prohibit residential development. Staff at that time recommended the applicant consider the Commercial (COMM) FLUM category, as that category allows similar uses and intensity but does not include a residential component. The applicant amended the application to the current request by Rockland Operations, LLC and Rockland Commercial Center, Inc. to amend the FLUM for only five parcels on Rockland and Big Coppitt Keys from Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) and Industrial (I) to Commercial (COMM) and Mixed Use/Commercial (MC). Compared to the original application, the current request reduces the overall amount of land proposed for FLUM amendment from 84 acres to 44 acres; and reduces the amount of land proposed to be given an MC FLUM designation from 84 acres to approximately 15 acres of MC FLUM and 29 acres of COMM FLUM. During Applicant's revisions to the request, the Toppino Family Companies transferred several of the subject parcels from various entities to Rockland Operations, LLC for estate planning purposes. At its regularly scheduled meeting on April 29, 2014, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed and discussed the revised FLUM amendment proposal. At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 27, 2014, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing for review and consideration of the revised FLUM amendment proposal and recommended approval, as memorialized in Resolution P39-14 (Exhibit 1). On December 10, 2014, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the BOCC adopted Resolution #375- 2014 (Exhibit 2), transmitting to the state land planning agency an ordinance amending the FLUM for the subject property from Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) and Industrial (I) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) and Commercial (COMM). The draft ordinance was transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), which reviewed the proposal and issued an Objections, Recommendations and File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 4 of 33 Comments (ORC) report, received by the County on March 23, 2015. The ORC report with all state agency comments as well as the County's response to the ORC report is attached as Exhibit 3. The ORC report identified an objection regarding increased potential residential development on the Big Coppitt portion of the property, and pointed out that although the applicant claims the proposed FLUM amendment will provide some relief to the affordable housing shortage currently faced by the County, there is no guarantee the site will be used for affordable housing. Specifically, the ORC report stated (bold formatting added): The applicant makes the argument that housing in Monroe county is in short supply, the cost of that housing is too high and therefore, this amendment adds to the available affordable housing by re -designating 14.83 acres to mixed use which can accommodate a multi family affordable housing development project of significant size. However, there is nothing in the amendment which provides assurance that any future residential development on this property will be for affordable housing. The ORC report recommended that the BOCC either not adopt the amendment, or revise the amendment to allow uses other than residential uses. Normally, the County has 180 days from the date of receipt of the ORC to adopt the FLUM amendment, adopt the FLUM amendment with changes or not adopt the FLUM amendment. The 180 day deadline for action by the County would be September 19, 2015; however, the County requested an extension to this deadline from DEO (as requested by the applicant). The new deadline for County action is March 15, 2016. In response to the ORC, the applicant prepared a revised proposal for the FLUM amendment based on the ORC report; additional data and analysis, including excerpts from the Monroe County Year 2030 Technical Document (Exhibit 4), the County's 2015 Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report (Exhibit 5), Key West's Affordable Housing White Paper dated September 14, 2015 (Exhibit 6), and the requirements of Florida law. The revised proposal requested the same FLUM amendment from MCF and I to MC and COMM, but also included a Comprehensive Plan text amendment, to be adopted simultaneously to respond to the ORC objections, establishing a subarea policy for the Big Coppitt portion of the property restricting any residential use on the subject property to only affordable housing. Staff had also recommended including the following restrictions to the proposed subarea policy: restricting any residential use on the subject property to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 30% median, at least 30% low, and at least 30% very low income categories); eliminating all potential for market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the site; prohibiting new marinas; prohibiting dredging; prohibiting light industrial uses; prohibiting residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour; and requiring sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours. The proposed text amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, as presented at the November 17, 2015 public hearing reads: Policy 107.1.6 Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 -To Provide Limitations on Development and Specific Restrictions File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 5 of 33 Development in the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall be subject to regulations applicable to the Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) Future Land Use Designation as well as an additional restriction set out below: 1. Residential units developed on the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall be restricted to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 30% median, at least 30% low, and at least 30% very low income categories) and subject to affordable housing regulations pursuant to Section 130-161 of the Monroe County Code of Ordinances. 2. There shall be no market rate or transient residential units. 3. There shall be no new marinas. 4. There shall be no dredging. 5. There shall be no light industrial uses. 6. All habitable buildings located within the 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour pursuant to the 2013 Navy Environmental Impact Statement shall be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 25 decibels. 7. No residential buildings shall be located within the 70-74 DNL. 8. All habitable buildings located within the 70-74 DNL noise contour pursuant to the 2013 Navy Environmental Impact Statement shall be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 30 decibels. The Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1, with Real Estate No. 00120940-000100 is approximately 14.8 acres of vacant land and is legally described as:.... Update since November 17, 2015 BOCC meeting: The public hearing on November 17, 2015 for this item was continued to the February 10, 2016 BOCC meeting because the applicant did not agree with staff recommendation on the mix of affordable housing income categories (mix of at least 30% median, at least 30% low, and at least 30% very low income categories). On January 11, 2016, the applicant provided a revised subarea proposal indicating an alternative for the mix of affordable housing income categories and included other amendments in an effort to address concerns from the surrounding community members (revised draft provided below and attached as Exhibit 11). Applicant recommendation: and Specific Restrictions 4 the Mixed Use/CommercialrFuture Land Use Desi,,7 a ion as well as an additional restriction set out below: File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 6 of 33 1, Residential units developed on the igoppitt Mixed Use Area I shall be restricted to affordable housing qnIA_jwkh a minimum mix of at least % _rnedian3 and at least a 20% combination of to ✓ a, ' ° fi ' very low income cLate ories3 and _.subject to affordable housing regulations pursuant to Section 10-1611 of the Monroe County Code of Ordinances. 2. There shall be no nonresidential uses. Accessory uses to the residential development, such as a club house or recreational activities are permitted. 3. There shall be no market rate or transient residential units. 4 JMM shall be no new maFk4fis- 4,5-There shall, bgDD dredging. 5.6-. All habitable buildin s located within the 65-69 DNI,Lpay-Night Average SouLid.L gyel Oise cantour ursuarlt tc� the 2013 Navy nviron tall pact tatel ent s -ll e sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 25 decibels. 6.-7-. No residents buildings shall be located within the 70-74 NL. 7. Any development located within the Big Coppitt Mixed Use_ Area 1 shall not utilize Puerta Drive for ingress and egress. indoor- Noise Level Reduetion of at least;30 deeibels-. _,with Real Estate No. 00120940 14.8 acres of vacant land Additionally, the applicant held a community meeting on January 14, 2016 to offer information on the proposal and hear the surrounding community's concerns/input. Staff attended the community meeting to listen to the public input. Based on the meeting, the following includes the perceived main comments on the proposed FLUM amendment (public comment summarized in green italics below). Concern with ca congregation cif° los.1, incoine neighbors --- corrarrrews related to potential .safety issues and pr-operti7 mlite coaacerns° (Iona= rental rates and inax sales price c°cal?.s could lower surrounding propert), values). A.sked it'applicant stwuld request increased police palrols to they area. • County staff previously recommended a mix of 30% median, 30% low, 30% very low and 10% moderate income categories to provide a variety of affordable housing opportunities for the workforce. • Applicant described a proposed amendment to reduce the percentage of lower income groups proposed in the amendment: 5% median, 20% low and very low combined and 75% moderate income categories. The applicant also stated they hope to rent to police officers, teachers, nurses, etc. • It appeared the community was concerned with the very low and low income categories and with the lower rental rates that could be charged to those occupants. Concern of ith potential traffic congestion in the Big Coppitt neighborhood. File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 7 of 33 • Applicant described a proposed amendment to the subarea policy to restrict the use of Puerta Drive (red circle below) and showed the community two other possible ingress and egress options for the proposed future affordable housing development (approx. locations indicated in orange below); including the creation of direct route through Rockland Key. • The community still expressed concerns with potential congestion on 4t' Street and the ability to safely access U.S. 1 without excessive delays. • As a note, if the FLUM amendment is approved and the applicant moves forward with a proposed residential development, a traffic study will be required for the specific proposal to identify if any transportation improvements would be necessary (for example, potential need for right and/or left turn lane on U.S. 1). Concerned ri,ith nonresidential uses, such cis restastrants. liVzich could increase trajlic° through the neighborhood. File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 8 of 33 Applicant described a proposed amendment to the subarea policy to eliminate nonresidential uses. Asked vvhy the applicant ivas requesting rraixed use if the if ii,,e e not voposiIng any rrcrrare=side ntial uses, * Applicant stated they requested this category because it provides sufficient density for an affordable housing project but was not the highest density available. For example, a FLUM designation of Residential High (RH) and Urban Residential (UR) zoning provides a density bonus for affordable housing of 25 dwelling units per buildable acre. A FLUM designation of Mixed Use (MC) and Mixed Use (MU) zoning provides a density bonus for affordable housing of 18 dwelling units per buildable acre. Concerned rs,ith the deijelcrpnent c?f' up to 213 affbi-dable housing units -._ .srgnzficant rlrrrriberr caf units - ctarrrrnents related to lacrfenlital sqf ty issues candpropear t'y a able concerns. stated that the development has not been designed, as the map amendment is the ls` step in the process. As such, a development plan is premature and the total number of units that could fit on the site has not been determined. Applicant noted that it may be lower than the max potential development. C;tarrarllrrnitil tasked if the de?i,clopni nt avould be casvnership or rental. • Applicant stated that the project would be 100% rental. Asked rrl oul on -site ni an agenient for the caffo rd able housing rental te1°ejlcalarnent - coninae nts related to pole ttal saf !f,y issues, properti, value concerns as ivell as, the star age ref reahicle,s and boats. • Applicant stated that if this project moves forward that there would definitely be on -site management, conditions for background checks for potential tenants and rules for complex/development which could include "no boats or no storage of boats." Asked about potential recreational fticilitieA.s or access to the prol.wrtel r ientioned neil�hbor"sive'r"e previously allo. vge'G to access Prope'rtY to ivatch the sunset. • Applicant stated that if this project moves forward that their intention was to include some recreational facilities, possibly a club house, pool or something similar. Applicant stated that they appreciative of the comment and could work with the community on providing access to the recreational facilities. m Applicant described a proposed amendment to the subarea policy to eliminate nonresidential uses and allow residential accessory uses such as club house or recreational activities. Based upon the applicant's concern of obtaining financing to develop an affordable housing project with a majority of the units as the lower income categories and the surrounding community members expressed concern with having a large composition of the lower income categories adjacent to their neighborhood, staff recommends a few edits to the applicant's proposal. Staff recommends, in an effort to provide for the existing workforce, an increase of the proposed median income category (highest income group of the lower income groups) to provide for a little more mix in affordable housing income categories. The suggestion would result in a mix of 10% median, 20% low and very low combined and 70% moderate income categories. Staff also File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 9 of 33 recommends maintaining provision #8 of the subarea policy to ensure the proposal is consistent with the Navy Air Installation Compatibility Use Zones ("AICUZ") Land -Use Compatibility Recommendations and that potential habitat accessory structures are also sound attenuated. Staff recommendation: !Lnd Specir the Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) Future Land Use Designation as 'well as an additional restriction set out below: I , Residential units developed on the Big-Coppitt Mixed Use Area I shall be restricted to at -'fordable housing only I with_ a_rninimurn mix of at least -3010% inedian-, and a " t least a -3020% combination of low, low income categories) and subiect to affordable housiu regulations pqrsuqnt to eqtiop. 130-161 of the Monroe County Code of Ordinances. 2. There shall be no nonresidential uses. Accessory uses to the residential development, such as a club house or recreational facilities are pergl4tted. 3. I'here shall be no market rate or transient residential units,. 4. There shall be no new mar -inns. 4.-S-.-There shall be n.o..dredvinsx. S. There shall be no lieht indkastr-ial uses. 5.6—.All habitable buildiu-s located within the 65-69 DNL_CUqyi ht Average Sound Level) - noise contour pursuant to the 2013 Navy Environmental jn4c! 5_tgernent shall be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 25 decibels. 63-. No residential build i WS shall be located within the 70-74 DNL. 7. Any development located within the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall not utilize Puerta Drive for ingress and egress. 8. All habitable buildings located within the 70-74 DNL noise contour pursuant to the 2013 Navy Environmental Impact Statement shall be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 30 decibels. IN I 14.8 acres of vacant land and is le2aliv described as:.... All three options for the proposed subarea policy are included in the ordinance for the BOCC's consideration, direction and decision on the proposed amendment. File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 10 of 33 IV. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT A. Maximum Density and Intensity Big Coppitt portion of property Existing FLUM Type Adopted Standards Development Potential Mixed Use Residential Allocated Density Approx. 3 — 8 du Approx. 7 — 20 du /Commercial Fishing (M al) Residential Max Net Density 12 du/buildable acre 24 du Transient Allocated Density 0 rooms/spaces/acre 0 rooms/spaces 2.50 acres (108,900 SF) Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 0.25-0.40 FAR 27,225 — 43,560 SF Residential Allocated Density 1 du 12.3 du Industrial (I) Residential Max Net Density 2 du/buildable acre 19.7 du 12.33 acres Transient Allocated Density 0 rooms/spaces/acre 0 rooms/spaces (537,094 SF) Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 0.25-0.60 FAR 134,273 — 322,256 SF Existing Big Coppitt Residential Allocated Density Approx. 19.3 — 32.3 du Subtotal Residential Max Net Density 43.7 du 14.83 acres Transient Allocated Density 0 rooms/spaces (645,994 SF) Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 161,498 — 365,816 SF Proposed FLUM Type Adopted Standards Development Potential Mixed Use/ Residential Allocated Density 1-6 du/acre 14'889.0 du* market et rate** Commercial (MC) Residential Max Net Density 2-18 du/buildable acre 23.7 — 213.6 du* 14.83 acres (645,994 SF) Transient Allocated Density 5-15 rooms/spaces/acre * transient ** Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 0.10-0.45 FAR 64,599 290,697 SF SF** Rockland Key portion of property Existing FLUM Type Adopted Standards Development Potential _ w.._......... ........ _.. � ._._....._ ..__ ..._.. w .�. Residential Allocated Density 1 du 29.6 du Industrial (I) Residential Max Net Density 2 du/buildable acre 47.3 du 29.59 acres Transient Allocated Density 0 rooms/spaces/acre 0 roomstspaces (1,288,940 SF) Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 0.25-0.60 FAR 322,235 — 773,364 SF Proposed FLUM Type Adopted Standards Development Potential Commercial Residential Allocated Density 0 du/acre 0 du (COMM) Residential Max Net Density 0 du/buildable acre 0 du 29.59 acres Transient Allocated Density 0 rooms/spaces/acre 0 rooms/spaces (1,288,940 SF) Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 0.15-0.50 FAR 193,341— 644,470 SF File # 2012.068 & 2015-114 Page 11 of 33 Total Site Development Potential Existing FLUM Residential Allocated Density 48.9 — 61.9 du Total Residential Max Net Density 91 du 44.42 acres Transient Allocated Density 0 rooms/spaces (1,925,787 SF) Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 483,733—1,139,180 SF Ids good-* Residential Allocated Density Proposed FLUM market rate** Total Residential Max Net Density 23.7 — 213.6 du* 44.42 acres Transient Allocated Density s * 0 transient (1,925,787 SF) o3 Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 193,341— 644,470 l-0** Total Site Total Site Net Change in with Proposed Subaru Folic Development Residential (allocated): +27.1 du** Market Rate Residential: (®61:�1)*, ** Potential Residential (max net): s/spa s Affordable Residential max net • +122.6 du* Total Site Transient: +222.5 rooms/spaces* * ( )' ** Nonresidential: (-204,013) SF Transient® , transient Nonresidential: ( ) (- 74,7 **) SF Big Coppitt portion: MCF and I to MC Big Coppitt portion: MCF and I to MC Residential (allocated): +56.7 du* with Proposed Subarea Policy Residential (max net). +169.9 du* Market Rate Residential (-;3}*0 du ** Transient: +222.5 rooms/s * Affordable Residential (max net): +169.9 du* Net Change in PacesNonresidential: (-75,119) SF Transient: nwehmige* 0 transient ** Development Nonresidential ( (- 0,697**) SF Potential based on _ _. _. �m .............-.�..._...._...e .___....._.m. Key Rockland Key portion: I to COMM Residential (allocated):.. (.-29.6) du Residential (max net):. (47.3) du Transient: no change Nonresidential: (-128,894) S *Based on the initial proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment which will accompany the corresponding FLUM amendment, a subarea policy for the Big Coppitt portion of the property will restrict any residential use on the subject property to only affordable housing; eliminate all potential for market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the site; prohibit new marinas; prohibit dredging; prohibit light industrial uses on the site; prohibit residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour; and require sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours. **Applicant's proposed revision to the subarea policy eliminates all potential for nonresidential uses, market rate and transient residential uses. Note: The above table provides an approximation of the development potential for residential, transient and commercial development. Please note, Section 130-156 of the Land Development Code states: The density and intensity provisions set out in this section are intended to be applied cumulatively so that no development shall exceed the total density limits of this article. For example, if a development includes both residential and commercial development, the total gross amount of development shall not exceed the cumulated permitted intensity of the parcel proposed for development. File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 12 of 33 As shown in the table above, based on the proposed Comprehensive Plan subarea policy, the proposed FLUM amendment would result in zero density for market rate residential development; an increase in overall potential residential development (under max net density for affordable housing) of 122.6 dwelling units; zero density for transient unit development o; and a decrease in overall potential nonresidential development of 474,710 square feet of floor area. B. Maintaining Hurricane Evacuation & Discouraging Increases in Density/Intensity 1. Monroe County Rule 28-20.140, F.A.C. (ratified by the Legislature in 2011), includes Work Program tasks requiring hurricane evacuation clearance time analyses and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with the Division of Emergency Management, Monroe County, City of Marathon, Village of Islamorada, City of Key West, City of Key Colony Beach, and City of Layton regarding hurricane evacuation. The County and the other jurisdictions in the Keys regulate new residential growth through a permit allocation system. The basis for the permit allocation rate and distribution is the ability to maintain a 24-hour evacuation clearance time. Monroe County has created a staged evacuation process wherein mobile home residents, transient units and military personnel are required to evacuate prior to all other residential properties. Based upon recent analysis, the hurricane evacuation clearance time model runs, the County's hurricane Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Emergency Management, Department of Economic Opportunity and the incorporated jurisdictions within the County, and maximum build -out from the Work Program, the County received 1,970 allocations over the next 10 years, which places the residential evacuation time at approximately the 24-hour evacuation time limitation. Although the proposed FLUM amendment and subarea policy would result in an increase in potential affordable housing development of 122 dwelling units, the County has a bank of approx. 200 unused affordable housing allocations from past ROGO years available for new affordable dwelling units, as well as 710 additional affordable housing allocations as provided by the State (710 of the 1,970 allocations over the next 10 years are to be used for affordable housing). Therefore, the potential increase of 122 new residential units is within our ROGO allocation limit (1,970 total) and is not expected to cause the staged evacuation times to exceed the 24-hour limit. 2. On September 21, 2012, the Monroe County BOCC adopted Ordinance 028-2012, creating Policy 101.4.20 discouraging private applications for future land use changes which increase allowable density/intensity and creates a mechanism to allow increases in density and intensity with the donation of IS lots (1:1 basis) or acreage (2:1 basis) to the County that contains non -scarified native upland habitat or wetland habitat. This amendment was found in -compliance by the State Land Planning Agency and became effective upon the issuance of DEO's Notice of Intent on November 20, 2012. The adopted policy states that its provisions are applicable only to private applications "received after the effective date of this ordinance..." The initial application for the proposed FLUM amendment was received on May 18, 2012, prior to the effective date of the ordinance; therefore this policy does not apply to this FLUM amendment request. File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 13 of 33 C. Military Compatibility The DEO ORC report included: The entire amendment lies within the Military Installation Area of Impact (MIAI). The fifth parcel is within the 65-69 Day —Night Average Noise Level (DNL). Comprehensive Plan policy 108.2.6 adopts MIAI Land Use Table. The table contains "permitted uses allowed", "allowed with restrictions ", "uses generally incompatible (allowed with exceptions) ", and "uses not compatible and should be prohibited" for each DNL category. Within the 65-69 DNL, residential uses are listed as "uses generally incompatible (allowed with exceptions)" Some uses are allowed with restrictions. The DEO ORC also includes an attached letter from NASKW stating: ...[NASK-M is not in favor of any increased residential density in high noise areas 65 DNL and above. Per Naval instruction, residential use is discouraged in DNL 65 - 69 and strongly discouraged in DNL 70-74. The absence of viable alternative development options should be determined and an evaluation should be conducted locally prior to local approvals indicating that a demonstrated community need for the residential use would not be met if development were prohibited in these zones. Where the community determines that these uses must be allowed, measures to achieve an outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at l east 25 dB in DNL 65-69 and NLR of 30 dB in DNL 70-74 should be incorporated into building codes and be in individual approvals; for transient housing a NLR of at least 35 dB should be incorporated in DNL 75 - 79. On May 22, 2012, the County adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to address military compatibility criteria (Ord 012-2012). These Comprehensive Plan amendments require applicants for FLUM amendments within the MIAI (Military Installation Area of Impact) received after the effective date of the policies (July 19, 2012) to provide a supplemental noise study, based on professionally accepted methodology, if NASKW indicates the property is within a noise zone greater than 65 DNL. The initial application for the proposed FLUM amendment was received on May 18, 2012, prior to the effective date of the recently adopted Military Compatibility Policies; therefore these policies do not apply to this FLUM amendment request and it does not trigger any of the additional noise study requirements. The Navy issued the Record of Decision on October 31, 2013, for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Naval Air Station Key West Airfield Operations. In the Final EIS, the Navy approved "Alternative 2" as the preferred alternative, and the associated noise contours. The noise contours are shown in Figure 1 on the following page. The results of the EIS analysis produced a map of contours of the noise environment from NAS Key West airfield operations which identifies the subject properties within the 65-69 DNL (blue solid contour), 70-74 DNL (green solid contour) and 75-79 DNL (yellow solid contour). A magnified excerpt of the noise contours are shown in Figure 2 on the following page. The proposed FLUM amendment along with the restrictions in the proposed subarea policy would eliminate all potential residential uses on property located in the 75-79 DNL and 70-74 DNL, directing potential future residential uses onto property located within the 65-69 DNL File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 14 of 33 and requiring sound attenuation for all habitable buildings within the 65-69 DNL and 70-74 DNL. Note, the BOCC discussed and reviewed Policy 108.2.5 (policy which requires applicants requesting FLUM amendments within the MIAI to provide a supplemental noise study) and directed staff to eliminate the text which requires the supplemental noise study. As part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the BOCC transmitted the proposed amendments to Policy 108.2.5 to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) in February, 2015. On May 1, 2015, the County received DSO's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report regarding the proposed amendments. The ORC report did not include any objections or comments regarding the proposed amendment to Policy 108.2.5 eliminating the requirement for a supplemental noise study. The proposed amendments are anticipated to be considered by the BOCC for adoption in the spring of 2016. Residential Uses As can be readily ascertained from the Navy Air Installation Compatibility Use Zones ("AICUZ") Land -Use Compatibility Recommendations (see "Table G-l" from the EIS — shown on pages 15-18 of this staff report) residential uses are strongly discouraged in the 70- 74 DNL. Currently, approximately 3.7 acres subject to the proposed FLUM amendment already permit residential uses within this zone. Although the proposed FLUM amendment on its own would leave 1.1 acres open to potential residential uses within the 70-74 DNL, the additional restrictions in the proposed subarea policy would also prohibit residential buildings within the 70-74 DNL. The proposed amendment would remove any potential of residential uses from the 75-79 DNL and simultaneously permit the parcels located within a 65-69 DNL to increase their residential density. Therefore the potential residential density would be relocated from higher to lower DNL zones. File # 2012-068 & 2015.114 Page 15 of 33 Figure 1. Noise Contours Map (EIS "Alternative 211) Figure 2. Magnified Excerpt from Noise Contours Map (EIS "Alternative 2") File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 16 of 33 Additionally, according to the Navy's AICUZ Land -Use Compatibility Recommendations, residential uses are only discouraged in the 65-69 DNL (and strongly discouraged in the 70-74 DNL) and are recommended to be located in other areas unless a study is undertaken identifying the need for housing. Monroe County has already undertaken numerous studies, including its most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and the 2015 Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report (see Exhibit 5), which identifies the need for affordable housing in the lower Florida Keys. The proposed FLUM amendment could assist in addressing this need. As can be seen in the attached maps (Exhibit 8), there are limited locations in the Lower Keys for potential larger scale affordable housing developments. Moreover, the parcel proposed for an increase in potential density is nearly entirely within the 65-69 DNL and adjacent to an existing, developed residential subdivision within the Residential High future land use designation. The amendment to a Mixed Use/Commercial designation would allow a variety of affordable residential and commercial uses compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The proposed FLUM amendment along with the restrictions in the proposed subarea policy would result in a potential increase of up to 122 affordable residential dwelling units. Household units are strongly discouraged in the 70-74 DNL and discouraged in the 65-69 DNL; and household units are listed by the Navy as not compatible and should be prohibited in the 75-79 DNL. The proposed subarea policy would also prohibit residential buildings within the 70-74 DNL. The proposed amendment would therefore serve to move any potential residential units completely out of both the 70-74 DNL and 75-79 DNL, in accordance with NASKW compatibility recommendations. All potential residential development would be relocated to the 65-69 DNL, which is the lowest noise level on the subject properties, and sound attenuated to achieve an outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 25 decibels. Non -Residential Uses The application proposes to reduce the total potential nonresidential square footage by up to 474,710 square feet. Additionally, the properties subject to the requested FLUM amendment to Commercial (COMM) are located within the 70-74 DNL and 75-79 DNL. Commercial uses such as commercial retail, industrial and offices are all permissible within this noise level according to the Navy's AICUZ Land -Use Compatibility Recommendations, albeit with recommendations of measures to achieve an outdoor to indoor noise level reduction of 25-30 decibels for certain portions of these buildings. The proposed subarea policy to accompany the proposed FLUM amendment would require that all habitable buildings located within the 65- 69 DNL be sound attenuated to achieve an outdoor to indoor noise level reduction of at least 25 decibels, and that all habitable buildings located within the 70-74 DNL be sound attenuated to achieve an outdoor to indoor noise level reduction of at least 30 decibels. File # 2012.068 & 2015-114 Page 17 of 33 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Final Environmental Impact Statement Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Table G-1 Appendix G AICUZ land Use Compatibility Tables and Monroe County MIAI G-1 July 2013 File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 18 of 33 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Final Environmental impact Statement Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Table G-1 G-2 Appendix G AICUZ land Use Compatibility Tables and Monroe Count MIAI July 2013 File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 19 of 33 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Final Environmental Impact Statement Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Table G-1 Land -Use ComDatibilitw Recommendations ser- vices rr.' 1 vutgoor music snens, am- Y hitheaters 72.2 Outdoor sports arenas. Y s ectator sports 73 Amusements Y 74 Recreational activities (in- Y eluding golf courses, riding stables water rec.) 75 Resorts and group campsY 76 Parks Y 79 Other cultural, entertainment Y and recreation 80 Resource production and extras 81 Agriculture (except live- I Y resource SLUCM Key to Table G-1: Standard Land Use Coding Manual. U.S. Department of Transportation Y (Yes) Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions- N (No) Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. Y° (Yes with restrictions) The lend use and related structures are generally compatible. However, see notes indicated by superscript N` (No with restrictions) The land use and related structures are generally incompatible However, see notes indicated by superscript NLR (Noise Level Norse Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through Reduction) incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure. Appendbt G AICUZ Land Use Compatibility Tables and Monroe County MlAl G-3 July 2013 File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 20 of 33 NAS Key West Airfield Operations Final Environmental Impact Statement Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Table G-1 Land -Use ComDatibility Recommendations 25. 30, or 35 Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25. 30, or 35 must be incorporated into design and construction of structure. DNL Day -night average sound level. CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level (normally within a very small decibel difference of DNL Ldn Mathematical symbol for DNL). Notes for Table G-1: General a Although local conditions regarding the need for housing may require residential use in these zones, residential use is discouraged in DNL 65 to 69 and strongly discouraged in DNL 70 to 74 The absence of viable alternative devel- opment options should be determined and an evaluation should be conducted locally prior to local approvals Indicat- ing that a demonstrated community need for the residential use would not be met if development were prohibited in these zones, b. Where the community determines that these uses must be snowed measures to achieve and outdoor to In- door NLR of at least 25 Decibels (dB)in DNL 65 to 69 and NLR of 30 dS In DNL 70 to 74 should be Incorpo- rated into building codes and be in individual approvals, for transient housing a NLR of at least 35 dS should be incorporated in DNL 75 to 79. c. Normal permanent construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB. thus the reduction requirements are often stated as 5. 10 or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation, upgraded sound transmission class ratings in windows and doors and dosed windows year round. Additional consideration should be given to modifying NLR levels based on peak noise levels orvibrations, d. NLR criteria will net eliminate outdoor noise problems_ However. building location and site planning, design and use of berms and barriers can help mitigate outdoor noise exposure NLR particularly from ground level sources. Measures that reduce noise at a site should be used wherever practical in preference to measures that only protect interior spaces 2. Measures to achieve NLR of 25 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. 3. Measures to achieve NLR of 30 must be Incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received. office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. 4. Measures to achieve NLR of 35 must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these build- ings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level Is low. 5. If project or proposed development is noise sensitive. use indicated NLR if not, land use is compatible with- out NLR. 6. No buildings. 7. Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. S. Residential buildings require a NLR of 25 9,. Residential buildings require a NLR of 30 10. Residential buildings not permitted 11. Land use net recommended, but if community decides use is necessary hearing protection devices should be wom G-4 Appendix G AICUZ Land Use Compatibility Tables and Monroe Count MIAI July 2013 File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 21 of 33 D. Floodplain Regulations As discussed throughout this staff report, the proposed FLUM amendment would change the types of uses permitted on the property (for example, from heavy industrial uses to residential uses) and would change the maximum potential density ranges on the property for affordable housing. The proposed FLUM amendment (and its associated zoning amendment) is one step in the pursuit of developing the property, as the map amendments do not approve any site plans, building permits or floodplain development permits, and do not provide and County Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) allocations. The proposed FLUM amendment does not affect the floodplain regulations for the subject property. It does not waive nor reduce any floodplain requirements for any potential future development on the subject parcel(s). The Big Coppitt portion of the site is primarily within an AE Zone (EL 10') with the northern portion within a VIE Zone (EL 16% 14; and 12'). The applicant has indicated they plan to place the affordable housing on the portion of the site within the AE Zone; however, the County has not received any applications for development approval at this time. At the time the owner applies for development permits, they will be required to meet all floodplain regulations in the Monroe County Land Development Code (Chapter 122) and the Florida Building Code (FBC) as well as FEMA guidance, etc. E. Applicant's Amendment Basis and Data & Analysis for the Requested FLUM Amendment: The Amendment contemplates the previously discussed changing trends in the economy and regulatory environment. Furthermore, based on input from staff, and also review of the current adjoining uses surrounding the parcels, it has been determined that the proposed amendments allows the parcels to be utilized to their highest and best use with de minimis impacts on neighboring properties and the surrounding environment. Specifically, Rockland Key adjoins the Navy's Boca Chica military air installation base which is subject to high noise events. Part of Rockland Key is located within the Navy jet potential crash zone. Therefore, currently, Rockland Key is not suitable for residential development. The Industrial FLU permits residential development. The newly enacted Commercial FLU does not permit residential development, but permits non-residential, commercial uses compatible with military air installations. In contrast, Rockland Operations' property located on Big Coppitt Key is adjacent to a residential area that has a Future Land Use Map Designation Residential High (RH). Rockland Operations' Big Coppitt property is also located next to an old burrow pit that is compatible with residential uses. Currently, all studies identify a complete and total deficiency of scarified, undeveloped land suitable for future residential development in the lower keys close to the largest employment center of the lower keys, Key West. Specifically, land suitable for an affordable housing project. Rockland Operations desires to develop such a project. File # 2012.068 & 2015-114 Page 22 of 33 According to Florida Housing data compiled by the University of Florida the 2012 average home value price in unincorporated Monroe County was $551,485 [$478,985 per Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse] compared to a statewide average of $160,174. Monroe County's median gross rent for 2012 was $1,269 [$1,390 per 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates] compared to a statewide average of $981 [$954 per 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates]. In Monroe County, the HUD Fair Market Rent in 2012, representing rent for a typical modest apartment, was $946 for a studio apartment, $1152 for a one -bedroom, $1,419 for a two -bedroom, $2,065 for a three -bedroom, and $2,211 for a four - bedroom unit. More alarming is the percentage of households whose mortgages exceed the HUD threshold for being considered cost burdened due to their mortgage payments. According to HUD, "Cost -burdened" households pay more than 30% of income for rent or mortgage costs. This is also the standard used by the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. In 2009, 12,927 [5,848 unincorporated per Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse] Monroe County households (37%) pay more than 30% of income for housing. By comparison, 29% of households statewide are cost -burdened. 6,177 [2,795 per Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse] households in [unincorporated] Monroe County (18%) pay more than 50% of income for housing! Of the 12,226 [4,278 per Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse] renters, Cost burdened households exceeding 30% of income is 5,124 [1,794 per Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse], of which, 2,423 [846 per Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse] households spend over 50% [50% or more] of their income on rent. This equates to 42% of households being cost burdened by rent and of this 42%, 20% of all households pay in excess of 50% of their income towards rent. From 2000-2010, the housing inventory has only increased 3% whereas in the prior decade, 1990-2000, the housing inventory increased almost 15%. The drastic decline in new housing has led to higher home sales and rent prices leading to an ever increasing demand for affordable housing. During the 1990s, Monroe County averaged 509 building permits per year for residential homes, including averaging 96 building permits for multi family housing. From 2000-2010, multi family building permits issued per year decreased to an average of 7.8 per year. In unincorporated Monroe County for the year 2010, 60.9% of the total households are estimated to have incomes in the moderate range or below. As reported by the Monroe County Affordable Housing Report, dated November 2007, the County is the most cost burdened small -county in the State. Monroe County has the highest affordability gap of all counties in the State. An average of 5,545 households would need and qualify for affordable housing assistance. By the year 2030, the percentage will increase to 62.4%. Monroe County's adopted Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report ( "EAR ") recommends encouraging options for affordable housing. The EAR further recommends that the County should consider the vast majority of the available dwelling units for development as multi- family so as to provide affordable housing. The proposed FLUM amendment accomplishes this goal by rezoning 14 acres mixed use which can accommodate a multi family affordable housing development project of significant size. File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 23 of 33 F. Impact on Community Character As shown in Figure 3 below, parcels surrounding the subject property currently have FLUM designations of Industrial, Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing, Residential High, Residential Medium, Residential Conservation, Mixed Use/Commercial, and Military (across US 1). Land uses surrounding the subject property include residential to the east, and a mixture of light/heavy industrial and vacant land to the west and southwest. Land across US 1 to the south is vacant wetlands. Figure 3. Subject parcels with existing FLUM designations The portion of the site proposed for MU zoning, which would potentially allow affordable housing residential development, is adjacent to an existing residential area within an RH FLUM and URM Zoning district. The subject parcels are classified as "undeveloped land" and "water" (borrow pits) on the County's habitat type maps. The subject parcels are designated as habitat for one protected species, the brown pelican (listed as a State Species of Special Concern); however, the County does not have any adopted development controls relative to the brown pelican. As shown in Figure 4, most of the site has a tier designation of Tier III. A small portion (half an acre) on Rockland Key has a tier designation of Tier I. The majority of the site is scarified, consisting of pea -rock, gravel, borrow pits, and some grassy areas. File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 24 of 33 Figure 4. Tier Designations The proposed FLUM amendment is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on the community character of the area. G. Effects on Public Facilities Traffic Circulation (Policy 301.1.1) According to the 2015 US.1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, at the present time, US 1 is operating overall at a Level of Service (LOS) C. In the Lower Keys Area, the segments from the area of the request to Key West are operating at a LOS B or better and the segments from the area of the request to Big Pine Key are operating at a LOS C or better. The request is located in the area of Segments 2 and 3, which are operating at levels of service A and B respectively. • Segment 2 Boca Chica (4-LID) Key Haven Blvd. to Rockland Dr. (5,167 Reserve Trips) — LOS A • Segment 3 Big Coppitt (2-UU) Rockland Dr. to Boca Chica Rd. (1,292 Reserve Trips) — LOS B The applicant submitted a trip generation analysis prior to transmittal of the proposed FLUM amendment. URS (County consultant) reviewed the analysis and confirmed that the proposed FLUM amendment would result in a trip generation reduction of 7,933 trips per day. File # 2012.068 & 2015-114 Page 25 of 33 Consistent with the density and intensity analysis provided in this staff report, the trip generation analysis includes an increase of 1,613 daily trips from a 2.50 acre FLUM change from Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) with a maximum FAR of 0.40 to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) with a maximum FAR of 0.60; no change in daily trips resulting from a 12.33 acre FLUM change from Industrial (1) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) as both categories have the identical 0.60 maximum FAR; and a decrease of 9,546 daily trips from a 29.59 acre FLUM change from Industrial (I) with a maximum FAR of 0.60 to Commercial (COMM) with a maximum FAR of 0.50. Cumulatively these would result in a potential decrease of 7,933 vehicle trips per day. The full analysis is attached as Exhibit 9. (Note: the trip generation analysis used the maximum FAR of 0.60 for the MC FLUM, which is only applicable to Maritime Industries zoning; intensity analysis in this staff report used a maximum FAR of 0.45 for the MC FLUM, which corresponds to all other zoning categories under the MC FLUM. Trip generation using 0.45 FAR would result in an even greater decrease in potential traffic.) Therefore, the proposed FLUM amendment is not anticipated to negatively impact the traffic LOS. Traffic analysis for specific development proposals will be reviewed as part of the development approval process. Potable Water (Policy 701.1.1) FKAA's Water Treatment Facility in Florida City has a maximum water treatment design capacity of 29.8 million gallons per day (MGD). This consists of 23.8 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer through the primary conventional water treatment process and 6 MGD from the brackish Floridan Aquifer through the secondary Reverse Osmosis (RO) treatment plant. There are also two saltwater Reserve Osmosis (RO) plants, located on Stock Island and Marathon, which are able to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalination plants have design capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 MGD of water, respectively. The 2012 projection for annual average daily demand is 17.62 MGD which is well below FKAA's Water Use Permit amount of 23.98 MGD. Pursuant to Policy 701.1.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, the Level of Service standard for nonresidential potable water is 0.35 gallons per square foot per day. The proposed FLUM amendment decreases the site's maximum nonresidential development potential by 204,013 SF, which would decrease potential potable water demand. Pursuant to Policy 701.1.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, the Level of Service standard for residential potable water is 66.5 gallons per capita per day. The proposed FLUM amendment would increase the potential affordable residential development by 122 dwelling units, which would increase potential potable water demand by 18,173 gallons per day if developed to its maximum affordable residential potential. Currently there is sufficient capacity for such an increase. Solid Waste (Policy 801.1.1) Monroe County has a contract with Waste Management through September 30, 2024. The contract authorizes the use of in -state facilities; thereby, providing the County with approximately ten years of guaranteed capacity for the haul out and disposal of 95,000 File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 26 of 33 tons/year of solid waste not including yard waste. Under the proposed FLUM categories, the net increase in potential affordable residential units on the site is 122 dwelling units. Currently there is sufficient capacity for such an increase. Nonresidential solid waste is handled by private contract. Sanitary Sewer (Policy 901.1.1) The property will be served by the Big Coppitt Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Big Coppitt Wastewater Treatment Plant has a design capacity of 0.323 MGD. The current average daily flow is 0.130 MGD and therefore the plant has sufficient capacity for the increase in residential development potential associated with the proposed map amendment. H. Consistency with the provisions and intent of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101 Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Objective 101.4 Monroe County shall regulate future development and redevelopment to maintain the character of the community and protect the natural resources by providing for the compatible distribution of land uses consistent with the designations shown on the Future Land Use Map. Policy 101.4.5 The principal purpose of the Mixed Use/ Commercial land use category is to provide for the establishment of commercial land use (zoning) districts where various types of commercial retail and office may be permitted at intensities which are consistent with the community character and the natural environment. Employee housing and commercial apartments are also permitted. In addition, Mixed Use/Commercial land use districts are to establish and conserve areas of mixed uses, which may include maritime industry, light industrial uses, commercial fishing, transient and permanent residential, institutional, public, and commercial retail uses. This land use category is also intended to allow for the establishment of mixed use development patterns, where appropriate. Various types of residential and non-residential uses may be permitted; however, heavy industrial uses and similarly incompatible uses shall be prohibited. The County shall continue to take a proactive role in encouraging the maintenance and enhancement of community character and recreational and commercial working waterfronts. In order to protect environmentally sensitive lands, the following development controls shall apply to all hammocks, pinelands, and disturbed wetlands within this land use category: 1. only low intensity commercial uses shall be allowed; 2. a maximum floor area ratio of 0.10 shall apply; and 3. maximum net residential density shall be zero. File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 27 of 33 Policy 101.4.21 The principal purpose of the Commercial (COMM) future land use category is to provide for the establishment of commercial zoning districts where various types of commercial retail; highway -oriented sales and services; commercial recreation; light industrial; public, institutional and office uses may be permitted at intensities which are consistent with the community character and the natural environment. The commercial zoning districts established within this category are intended to serve the immediate vicinity or serve the Upper or Lower subarea. This category is not intended to accommodate transient or permanent residential development. In order to protect environmentally sensitive lands, the following development controls shall apply to all Tier I lands within this land use category: 1. only low intensity commercial uses shall be allowed; and 2. a maximum floor area ratio of 0.15 shall apply. Policy 101.4.22 Monroe County hereby adopts the following density and intensity standards for the future land use categories, which are shown on the Future Land Use Map and described in Policies 101.4.1 - 101.4.17: Future Land Use Densities and Intensities Future Land Use Category g Y Allocated Density cbl Y Maximum Net Density a cb1 c > > Maximum Intensity And Corresponding Zoning (per acre) (per buildable acre) (floor area ratio) Commercial (COMM) 0 du N/A 0.15-0.50 (C1 and C2 zoning) 0 rooms/spaces N/A Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) s 0.10-0.45 (SC, UC, DR, RV, MU and 1-6 du 2 -18 du (SC, UC, DR, RV, and MI zoning) 5-15 rooms/spaces 10-25 rooms/spaces MU zoning) 1 du (MI zoning) 2 du (MI zoning) 0.30-0.60 (MI zoning) I. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern designation. (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 28 of 33 (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5. Transportation facilities; 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. 0) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems. (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. (1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. (m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan. (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole. I The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: 163.3161(4), F.S. - It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 29 of 33 with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions. 163.3161(6), F.S. - It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have the legal status set out in this act and that no public or private development shall be permitted except in conformity with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof, prepared and adopted in conformity with this act. 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. 163.3177(6)(a)2., F.S. - The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. 163.3177(6)(a)8., F.S. - Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 30 of 33 a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. 163.3178(8)(a), F.S. - A proposed comprehensive plan amendment shall be found in compliance with state coastal high -hazard provisions if- 1. The adopted level of service for out -of -county hurricane evacuation is maintained for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale; or 2. A 12-hour evacuation time to shelter is maintained for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and shelter space reasonably expected to accommodate the residents of the development contemplated by a proposed comprehensive plan amendment is available; or 3. Appropriate mitigation is provided that will satisfy subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. Appropriate mitigation shall include, without limitation, payment of money, contribution of land, and construction of hurricane shelters and transportation facilities. Required mitigation may not exceed the amount required for a developer to accommodate impacts reasonably attributable to development. A local government and a developer shall enter into a binding agreement to memorialize the mitigation plan. 163.3194(1)(b), F.S. - All land development regulations enacted or amended shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, and any land development regulations existing at the time of adoption which are not consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, shall be amended so as to be consistent. If a local government allows an existing land development regulation which is inconsistent with the most recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, to remain in effect, the local government shall adopt a schedule for bringing the land development regulation into conformity with the provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof. During the interim period when the provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, and the land development regulations are inconsistent, the provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, shall govern any action taken in regard to an application for a development order. V. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan Amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC then holds a public File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 31 of 33 hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency. The amendment is transmitted to the State Land Planning Agency, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendments. VI. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan from Industrial (I) and Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) to Commercial (COMM) and Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) for five (5) parcels located on Rockland Key and Big Coppitt Key, having real estate numbers 00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000, 00121990.000000, and 00120940.000100; and to create Comprehensive Plan Policy 107.1.6 Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1, to provide limitations on development and specific restrictions for the Big Coppitt portion of the site, as described in detail in this staff report (three options described below): Option 1— initial proposed subarea policy: • restricting any residential use on the subject property to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 30% median, at least 30% low, and at least 30% very low income categories); • eliminating all potential for market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the site; • prohibiting new marinas; prohibiting dredging; prohibiting light industrial uses on the site; • prohibiting residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour; and requiring sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours. Option 2 — Applicant revision: • restricting any residential use on the subject property to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 5% median, at least 20% of low and very low combined); • eliminating all potential for market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the site; • prohibiting all potential for nonresidential uses on the site; allowing residential accessory uses; • prohibiting dredging; • prohibiting residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour; and requiring sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the [70 7 and} 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours; and • restricting the use of Puerta Drive for ingress and egress for any development located within the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 Option 3- Staff recommended edits to Applicant revision: • restricting any residential use on the subject property to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 10% median, at least 20% of low and very low combined); • eliminating all potential for market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the site; • prohibiting all potential for nonresidential uses on the site; allowing residential accessory uses; • prohibiting dredging; • prohibiting residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour; and requiring sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours; and File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 32 of 33 •� restricting the use of Puerta Drive for ingress and egress for any development located within the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 The FLUM amendment with the subarea restrictions would increase the site's potential for residential development (limited to affordable housing units) by 122 dwelling units [max potential of 213 du]. The amendment would serve to relocate these potential units to the lowest noise level areas on the subject properties and include measures to achieve noise level reductions of 25-30 decibels as recommended by the Navy's AICUZ Land -Use Compatibility Recommendations. Although these potential dwelling units would require ROGO allocations, the County has an excess of ROGO allocations specifically designated for affordable dwelling units and currently factored into hurricane evacuation time modeling. The proposed amendment also reduces the nonresidential development potential by approximately 474,710 square feet; The proposed amendment would also decrease the maximum potential trip generation by 7,933 vehicle trips per day. VI. EXHIBITS 1. Planning Commission Resolution P39-14 2. BOCC Resolution #375-2014 3. County response to ORC and ORC Report received March 23, 2015 4. Excerpts from Monroe County Year 2030 Technical Document 5. 2015 Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report 6. Key West Affordable Housing White Paper 7. Corresponding proposed LUD map amendment 8. Map series showing potential sites for large scale affordable housing development; location of existing affordable housing and CHHA boundaries 9. Trip generation analysis 10. Proposed FLUM amendment 11. Proposed Subarea Policy File # 2012-068 & 2015-114 Page 33 of 33 Exhibit Resolution 4 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. P39-14 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL (COMM) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOUR PARCELS OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, ROCKLAND KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00122080-000000, 00122081-000200, 00122010-000000 AND 00121990-000000, AND FROM MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL FISHING (MCF) AND INDUSTRIAL (I) TO MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL (MC) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00120940-000000 WHEREAS, an application was filed by Rockland Operations, LLC and Rockland Commercial Center, Inc. on May 18, 2012 to amend the Future Land Use Map designation from Industrial (I) to Commercial (COMM) and from Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) and Industrial (I) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) for property legally described as parcels of land within Section 21, Township 67 South, Range 26 East, on Rockland and Big Coppitt Keys, Monroe County Florida, having real estate numbers 00122080-000000, 00122081-000200, 00122010-000000, 00121990-000000 and 00120940-000000; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 29`h day of April, 2014; and WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 27 h day of August, 2014, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency, for review and comment, a proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and Resolution 039-14 File #2012-068 " WHEREAS, the Planning Commission review and discussion of the proposed FLUM amendment was based upon the proposed FLUM amendment and the Staff Report submitted to the Planning Commission; and N WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1. The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely impact the community character of the surrounding area; and 2. The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely impact the Comprehensive Plan adopted Level of Service; and 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute; and 5. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Monroe County Planning Commission recommends the Future Land Use Map of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan be amended as follows: The property legally described as four parcels of land within Section 21, Township 67 South, Range 26 East, on Rockland Key, Monroe County Florida, having real estate numbers 00122080-000000, 00122081-000200, 00122010- 000000, and 00121990-000000 is changed from Industrial (I) to Commercial (COMM) and the property legally described as a parcel of land within Section 21, Township 67 South, Range 26 East, on Big Coppitt Key, Monroe County Florida, having real estate number 00120940-000000 is changed from Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) and Industrial (I) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC), as shown on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein. Resolution 039-14 File #2012-068 N PASSED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION by the Monroe County Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of August, 2014. Chair Wiatt Commissioner Hale Commissioner Lustburg Commissioner Miller Commissip4er Werling Is PLANNING COMMIS 0 "William Wiatt, Chair Signed this 9 day of -q2aL-4- Monroe County Planning Commission Attorney ,Approved As To Form Date: FILED WITHTHE N,, " 9 2014 A03ENCY CLERK Resolution 039-14 File #2012-068 Exhibit 2 to Staff Report Resolution #375-2014 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION NO.3'K 2014 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY CO SSIONERS AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL (COMM) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS FOUR PARCELS OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, GE 26 EAST, ROC AND KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 0 00122080400000, 001=81-000200, 00122010-000000, and 001219904)00000, AND FROM MIXED USEICONEKERCL&L FISHNG (MCF) AND INDUSTRIAL (I) TO MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL (MC) FOR. PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00120940-000100. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal pursuant to the State Coordinated Review Process in Sec. 163.3184(4), F.S., to the State Land Planning Agency for objections, recommendations and comments, and to the other Reviewing Agencies as defined in Sec. 163.3184(1)(c), F.S., for review and comment on a proposed amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan as described above; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners support the transmittal of the requested future land use map amendment; NOW THE ORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: P. 1 of 2 Nm 2 Section 1: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the recommendation of 3 the Planning Commission to transmit the draft ordinance, attached as Exhibit A, 4 for review of the proposed text amendment. 5 6 Section 2. The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required 7 transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment in 8 accordance with the requirements of Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes. 9 10 Section 3. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this 11 resolution to the Director of Planning. 12 13 14 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, 15 Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 1 Oth day of December, 2014. 16 17 Mayor Danny L. Kolhage lS 18 Mayor Pro Tem Heather Carruthers y[S 19 Commissioner George Neugent 20 Commissioner David Rice f5 21 Commissioner Sylvia Murphy 22 23 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 24 25 BY ' 26 Mayor Danny L. Kolhage 27 28 29 30 31 (SEAL) 32 ATTEST: Amy Heavilin, Clerk 33 34 Deputy Clerk 35 36 Wo OE COUNTY ATTORNEY A P OVED A FORM: STEVEN T. WILLIAMS ASSISTANT CQUNTY ATTORNEY Date // /moo iy P. 2 of 2 Exhibit A 9 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY 10 COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY FUTURE 11 LAND USE MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL (CO 12 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, 13 DESCRIBED AS FOUR PARCELS OF LAND IN SECTION 21, 14 TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, ROCKLAND KEY, MONROE 15 COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NLrrvfflERS 16 00122080-000000,00122081-000200,00122010.000000 AND 00121990.000000, 17 AND FROM WXED USEICOMMERCLAL FISHING (MCF) AND 18 INDUSTRIAL (I) TO MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL (MC) FOR 19 PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, 20 DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 21 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, 22 FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00120940.000100, AS 23 PROPOSED BY ROCKLAND OPERATIONS, LLC AND ROCKLAND 24 COMMERCIAL CENTER, INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVE ILITY; 25 PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; 26 PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING 27 AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR 28 AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE P; PROVIDING FOR 29 AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 30 31 - 32 33 WHEREAS, Rockland Operations, LLC and Rockland Commercial Center, Inc. 34 submitted an application for a Future Land Use Map amendment from Industrial (I) to 35 Commercial (COMM) and from Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) and Industrial (I) to 36 Mixed Use/Commercial (MC); and 37 38 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the 39 proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 29th day of April, 2014; and 40 41 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 27`h 42 day of August, 2014, for review and recommendation on the proposed Future Land Use Map 43 amendment; and 44 45 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission made the following findings of 46 fact and conclusions of law: I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Exhibit A I. The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely impact the community character of the surrounding area; and 2. The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely impact the Comprehensive Plan adopted Level of Service; and 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute; and 5. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission passed Resolution No. P39-14 recommending transmittal of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 10`h day of December, 2014, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted for public participation in the planning process; and WHEREAS, at the December 10, 2014, public hearing, the BOCC voted to transmit the amendment to the State Land Planning Agency; and WHEREAS, the State Land Planning Agency reviewed the amendment and issued an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on , 2015, which did not identify any issues with the proposed amendment, and WHEREAS, the ORC report states as a response to the ORC Report, Monroe County and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as follows: 41 The property described as four parcels of land on Rockland Key, having Real 42 Estate Numbers 00122080-000000, 00122081-000200, 00122010-000000, and 43 00121990-000000 from Industrial (I) to Commercial (COMM), and a parcel of 44 land on Big Coppitt Key, having real estate number 00120940-000000 from 0 45 Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF) and Industrial (I) to Mixed 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (D 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Exhibit A Use/Commercial (MC), as shown on Exhibit 1; which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such validity. Section 3. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. Section 5. Filing and Effective Date., ate This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and after any applicable challenges have been resolved. Section 6. Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan The Future Land Use Map amendment shall be incorporated in the Future Land Use Map of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2015. (SEAL) ATTEST: AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK Mayor Danny L. Kolhage Mayor Pro Tem Heather Carruthers Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner David Rice Commissioner Sylvia Murphy BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA MR 3 Mayor Danny L. Kolhage NROE COUNTY OVEp ,� A'R'ORNEY FORM: 8TEVEN T. MgLL g .48818TgNT O NTY ATTORAIEY Date Exhibit O" ' - 7 4q; N N _%iv..u._w... 0012090-000100 00122080-00000P' The Monroe County Future Land Use Map is amended as indicated above. Proposal: Future Land Use change of five parcels of land on Big Coppitt Key having Real Estate Numbers: 00120W-000100, 00122080-000000, 00122081-000200, 00122010-000000 and 00121990-000000 from Industrial (1) toCommercial (COMM) and Mixed Use/Commercial (MC). Exhibit 3 to Staff Report ORC ResponseMonroe County Response to DEO ORC The Department of Economic Opportunity had the following objections and comments to the proposed FLUM (map) amendment (shown in blue throughout this report): To address this DEO objection, the applicant and County developed a sub -area policy that further limits development on the Big Coppitt portion of the amendment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment creating a subarea policy for the Big Coppitt portion of the property, which accompanies the FLUM ,amendment, restricts the residential uses on the subject property to only affordable housing; eliminates all market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the subject property; prohibits new nonresidential uses on the subject property; prohibits residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day - Night Average Sound Level) noise contour;, and requires sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours. The development potential with the proposed subarea policy is provided below (note no market rate or transient units or nonresidential uses would be permitted on Big Coppitt parcel): Big Coppitt portion of property Existing FLUM Type Adopted Standards Development Potential Mixed Use /Commercial Fishing (MCF) 2.50 acres (108,900 SF) Residential Allocated Density Approx. 3 — 8 du Approx. 7 — 20 du Residential Max Net Density 12 du/buildable acre 24 du Transient Allocated Density 0 rooms/spaces/acre 0 rooms/spaces Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 0.25-0.40 FAR 27,225 — 43,560 SF Industrial (I) 12.33 acres (537,094 SF) Residential Allocated Density 1 du 12.3 du Residential Max Net Density 2 du/buildable acre 19.7 du Transient Allocated Density 0 rooms/spaces/acre 0 rooms/spaces Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 0.25-0.60 FAR 134,273 — 322,256 SF Existing Big Coppitt Subtotal 14.83 acres (645,994 SF) Residential Allocated Density Approx. 19.3 — 32.3 du Residential Max Net Density 43.7 du Transient Allocated Density 0 rooms/spaces Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 161,498 — 365,816 SF Proposed FLUM Type Adopted Standards Development Potential Mixed Use/ Residential Allocated Density 1-6 du/acre Y�f.8 89.0 du * market rate - Commercial (MC) Residential Max Net Density 2-18 du/buildable acre 23.7 — 213.6 du* 14.83 acres (645,994 SF) Transient Allocated Density 5-15 rooms/spaces/acre * 0 trrrrts/ent ** Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 0.10-0.45 FAR 599-2nnF 64,0 SF` — Rockland ockland Key portion of property Existing FLUM Type Adopted Standards Development Potential Residential Allocated Density 1 du 29.6 du Industrial (I) Residential Max Net Density 2 du/buildable acre 47.3 du 29.59 acres (1,288,940 SF) Transient Allocated Density 0 rooms/spaces/acre 0 rooms/spaces Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 0.25-0.60 FAR 322,235 — 773,364 SF Proposed FLUM Type Adopted Standards Development Potential Commercial Residential Allocated Density 0 du/acre 0 du (COMM) Residential Max Net Density 0 du/buildable acre 0 du Transient Allocated Density 0 rooms/spaces/acre 0 rooms/spaces 29.59 acres (1,288,940 SF) Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 0.15-0.50 FAR 193,341— 644,470 SF Total Site Development Potential Existing FLUM Residential Allocated Density 48.9 — 61.9 du Total Residential Max Net Density 91 du 44.42 acres Transient Allocated Density 0 rooms/spaces (1,925,787 SF) Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 483,733—1,139,180 SF Residential Allocated Density 14.8 89.0du* Proposed FLUM €l market rate"I Residential Max Net Density 23.7 — 213.6 du* Total 44.42 acres Transient Allocated Density * (1,925,787 SF) 0 t'°rrar. ient '& ZX Nonresidential Maximum Intensity 193,341 �i1 / , µ rK Net Change in Total Site Residential (allocated): +27.1 du* Total Site % �Hl� ith Proposed �etmr�e a Po ict Development Residential (max net): +122.6 du* Market Rate Residential: )* , 0 du Potential Transient: +222.5 rooms/spaces* Affordable Residential (max net): +122.6 du* Total Site Nonresidential: (-204,013) SF Transient: * , 0 transient Nonresidential: ( ) (474,71 1 W', `�) SF 0 Big Coppitt portion: MCF and 1 to MC Residential (allocated): +56.7 du* Residential (max net): +169.9 du* Net Change in Transient: 4222.5 rooms/spaces* Development Nonresidential: (-75,119) SF Potential based on Key Rockland Key portion: I to COMM Residential (allocated): (-29.6) du Residential (max net): (47.3) du Transient: no change Nonresidential: (-128,894) SF Big Coppitt portion: MCF and 1 to MC w ith Proposed Subarea lsolic Market Rate Residential: ( )*, 0 du ,affordable Residential (max net): + 169.9 du* "Transient: * 0 transient ** Nonresidential: ( (-290,6 7**) SF *Based on the initial proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment which will accompany the corresponding FLUM amendment, a subarea policy for the Big Coppitt portion of the property will restrict any residential use on the subject property to only affordable housing; eliminate all potential for market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the site; prohibit new marinas; prohibit dredging; prohibit light industrial uses on the site; prohibit residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour; and require sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours. *'I'Applicant's proposed revision to the Subarea polic)eliminates all potential for nonresidential :uses. market gate and transient residential Uses. Note: The above table provides an approximation of the development potential for residential, transient and commercial development. Please note, Section 130-156 of the Land Development Code states: The density and intensity provisions set out in this section are intended to be applied cumulatively so that no development shall exceed the total density limits of this article. For example, if a development includes both residential and commercial development, the total gross amount of development shall not exceed the cumulated permitted intensity of the parcel proposed for development. with exceptions)" Some uses are allowed with restrictions, A rote for this category states: 4 N/A - this FLUM application was submitted (May 18, 2012) prior to effective date (July 19, 2012) of Military Installation Area of Impact (MMI) policies. Policy 108.2.6 specifically states: "For any application received after the effective date of this policy, within the MIAI overlay, Monroe County will not approve NEW land uses, as demonstrated on the MIAI Land Use Table (permitted uses shown in Column #2), through a Future Land Use Map, Text, overlay or L UD map amendment. On May 22, 2012, the County adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to address military compatibility criteria (Ord 012-2012). These Comp Plan amendments require applicants for FLUM amendments within the MIAI received after the effective date of the policies (July 19, 2012) to be subject to additional coordination and restrictions, including a supplemental noise study, if the property is within a noise zone greater than 65 DNL. The initial application for the proposed FLUM amendment was received on May 18, 2012, prior to the effective date of the adopted Military Compatibility Policies; therefore, these policies do not apply to this FLUM amendment request and it does not trigger any of the additional noise study requirements. The Navy issued the Record of Decision on October 31, 2013, for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Naval Air Station Key West Airfield Operations. In the Final EIS, the Navy approved "Alternative 2" as the preferred alternative, and the associated noise contours. The results of the EIS analysis produced a map of contours of the noise environment from NAS Key West airfield operations which identifies the subject properties within the 65-69 DNL, 70-74 DNL and 75-79 DNL. According to the Navy's AICUZ Land -Use Compatibility Recommendations, residential uses are discouraged in the 65- 69 DNL (and strongly discouraged in the 70-74 DNL) and are recommended to be located in other areas unless a study is undertaken identifying the need for housing. Where a need is identified by the community, then measures to achieve an outdoor to indoor noise level reduction of at least 25 decibels should be incorporated. Normal construction is expected to provide a noise level reduction of 20 decibels. The proposed FLUM amendment along with the restrictions in the proposed subarea policy would eliminate all potential residential uses on property located in the 75-79 DNL and 70-74 DNL, directing potential future affordable housing residential uses onto property located within the 65-69 DNL and requiring sound attenuation for all habitable buildings within the 65-69 DNL and 70-74 DNL. Further, Monroe County has undertaken numerous studies, including its most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report and the 2015 Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report (see Exhibit 5 to staff report), which identifies the need for affordable housing in the Florida Keys, including that 51 % of the households are cost burdened and that by 2030 the need for affordable housing will increase to 62.4% of the permanent resident households. Key West also produced a White Paper on Affordable Housing Needs Solution, dated September 14, 2015 (see Exhibit 6 to staff report), which identifies a need of at least 6,500 units and that 77% of all households in Key West are cost burdened. There is a general unmet affordable housing need throughout unincorporated Monroe County, with a more prominent need and demand for affordable workforce housing in the lower Keys. Prohibiting development on the subject parcel would eliminate a large tract of scarified land as a possible location for critically needed affordable housing. Note: There was a recent article in the Citizen, interviewing NASKW officials about the need for affordable housing for their workforce. Article attached at the end of this document. Again, the subarea policy for the Big Coppitt portion of the property, accompanying the FLUM amendment, will restrict any residential use on the subject property to only affordable housing; eliminate all potential for market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the site; prohibit all nonresidential uses on the site; prohibit dredging; prohibit residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day- 5 Night Average Sound Level) noise contour; and require sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours. As stated previously, the applicant has prepared a Comp Plan text amendment in response to the ORC, establishing a subarea policy for the Big Coppitt portion of the property restricting any residential use on the subject property to only affordable housing. Monroe County has undertaken numerous studies, including its most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and the 2015 Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report (see Exhibit 5 to staff report), which identifies the need for affordable housing in the Florida Keys, including that 51 % of the households G are cost burdened and that by 2030 the need for affordable housing will increase to 62.4% of the permanent resident households. Key West also produced a White Paper on Affordable Housing Needs Solution (see Exhibit 6 to staff report), which identifies a need of at least 6,500 units and that 77% of all households in Key West are cost burdened. The proposed FLUM amendment could assist in addressing the need for affordable housing as the subarea policy restricts the subject property to only affordable housing. As can be seen in the maps attached to the staff report (Exhibit 8*), there are limited locations in the Lower Keys for potential larger scale affordable housing developments. Moreover, the parcel proposed for an increase in potential density is nearly entirely within the 65-69 DNL and adjacent to an existing, developed residential subdivision within the Residential High future land use designation. The amendment to a Mixed Use/Commercial designation would allow a variety of affordable residential uses adjacent to a residential neighborhood. *note, maps in Exhibit 8 identify NASKW noise contours, Tier III, CHHA, existing affordable housing, properties with land use designations that provide density bonuses for affordable housing development, and private -vacant properties greater than I acre that are designated as Tier III which may be potential sites for affordable housing. It should be noted that the majority of the land in the Florida Keys is within the CHHA and that the majority of existing affordable housing is located within the CHHA. Further, there are limited locations outside of the CHAR, particularly in the Lower Keys; and there are limited locations in the Lower Keys for potential larger scale affordable housing developments. The initial applicant proposed text amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan reads: Policy 107.1.6 _Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 -To Provide Limitations on Development and Specific Restrictions Development in the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall be subject to regulations applicable to the Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) Future Land Use Designation as well as an additional restriction set out below: 1. Residential units developed on the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall be restricted to affordable housing only (with a minimum mix of at least 30% median, at least 30% low, and at least 30% very low income categories) and subiect to affordable housing regulations pursuant to Section 130-161 of the Monroe County Code of Ordinances. 2. There shall be no market rate or transient residential units. 3. There shall be no new marinas. 4. There shall be no dredging. 5. There shall be no light industrial uses. 6. All habitable buildings located within the 65-69 DNL (Da yLNight Average Sound Level) noise contour pursuant to the 2013 NM Environmental Impact Statement shall be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 25 decibels. 7. No residential buildings shall be located within the 70-74 DNL. 8. All habitable buildings located within the 70-74 DNL noise contour pursuant to the 2013 Navy Environmental Impact Statement shall be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 30 decibels. The Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1, with Real Estate No. 00120940-000100 is approximately 14.8 acres of vacant land and is legally described as: 7 On January 11, 2016, the applicant provided a revised subarea proposal indicating an alternative for the mix of affordable housing income categories and included other amendments in an effort to address concerns from the surrounding community members. The revised applicant proposed text amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan reads: Policy 7.1.6 i CoIN2j ix Use Area 1 -To Provide Limitations on eve op enf and LS:pecifie Restrictions I�gv�lo inept hi the Big C rea I shall I,e sL beet to regulatigg ficable tg the [Mixed Use'C orrimercial (MC) Future Laiid Use DesiLiiatiori as well as ail additioiial restrictio,i set OUt below: Based upon the applicant's concern of obtaining financing to develop an affordable housing project with a majority of the units as the lower income categories and the surrounding community members expressed concern with having a large composition of the lower income categories adjacent to their neighborhood, staff recommends a few edits to the applicant's proposal. Staff recommends, in an effort to provide for the existing workforce, an increase of the proposed median income category (highest income group of the lower income groups) to provide for a little more mix in affordable housing income categories. The suggestion would result in a mix of 10% median, 20% low and very low combined and 70% moderate income categories. Staff also recommends maintaining provision #8 of the subarea policy to ensure the proposal is consistent with the Navy Air Installation Compatibility Use Zones ("AICUZ") Land -Use Compatibility Recommendations and that potential habitat accessory structures are also sound attenuated. 0 Staff recommendation: oliev 107..6 _ i Cotltaitt Mixed Use Area 1 -To Provide Limitations on Develonment and ................ Specific Restrictions Develooment in the Big= C itt Mixed Use Area I shall bes ibto regulations applicable to the Mixed L1sc'Cogirncrcial CC Latgre land Use Designation as well as an additional restriction set cart below: I, Residential Units developed on the Bikz Coppitt Mixed Use Area I shall be restricted to affordable 11olrsir1#I onlN (with a rnininlirrn rnix of at least 43 % rnediana and at least a 10 combination of logo , 9' ver�, loxv incornecatcgoriesl arrd sul to affordable 11c)rrsing reLlUlations pursuant to Section 130-161 of the Monroe Cor.rn N' Code of Ordinances. . There shall be no nonresidential uses. Accessary_ Haas to the reside tia veto � rat, such as a club house or recreational facilities are tier lute 3m There shall be no market rate or transient residential units, 5.6-;---All habitable bLdldim,,s located within the 65-69 DNL (Dav-NiLdit Average Spuno achieve an indoor Noise Level RedLICtiOI1 of at least 25 decibels. 6.-7-. No residential bLlildiR_gs shall be located within the 70-74 DNL. 7. Any develoornent h Puerta Drive for ingress and egress. habitable8. All locatedh 0 ( DNL noise - f i I Environmental ImpAqL5taternen be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Reduction of at least 30 decibels. The Big I � 1 ea - �.. 00 e Co �rtt Mixed Use Area 1 with Real Estate No. 0012t��(�-00010 is a����rc�xrrnatck 14.E acres of vacant land and is le&,ally described [ems All three options for the proposed subarea policy are included in the ordinance for the BO's consideration, direction and decision on the proposed amendment. 9 While the County projects a balance of 6,198 privately held vacant parcels at risk of not obtaining permits in the future after the ten-year allocation (1,970), affordable housing allocations are limited to only Tier III designated parcels. Tier III parcels are estimated at 3,301 privately held vacant parcels — see table below. These Tier III parcels would need to be further evaluated for development constraints such as submerged lands, upland habitat, clear zones, noise zones greater than 65-69 DNL, etc. TIER NIMIBER, O VACXXT PARCELS 10 Tier � ORCA. etc.} 235 Tier I 3,979 Tier H 393 Tier III -A 260 Tier III 3.301 TOTAL 8,1 TOTAL ALLOCATION'S 1,970 POTENTIAL LIABLE 6,198` As can be seen in the maps attached to the staff report as Exhibit 8, there are limited locations in the Lower Keys for potential larger scale affordable housing developments. Note, the maps in Exhibit 8 identify NASKW noise contours, Tier III, CHHA, existing affordable housing, properties with land use designations that provide density bonuses for affordable housing development, and private -vacant properties greater than 1 acre that are designated as Tier III which may be potential sites for affordable housing. It should be noted that the majority of the land in the Florida Keys is within the CHHA and that the majority of existing affordable housing is located within the CHHA. Further, there are limited locations outside of the CHAA, particularly in the Lower Keys; and there are limited locations in the Lower Keys for potential larger scale affordable housing developments. Prohibiting development on the subject parcel would eliminate a large tract of scarified land as a possible location for critically needed affordable housing. The amendment to a Mixed Use/Commercial designation and the subarea policy would allow for affordable residential uses adjacent to a residential neighborhood (with a Residential High future land use designation). As noted previously, the proposed FLUM amendment along with the restrictions in the proposed subarea policy would result in a potential increase of up to 122 affordable residential dwelling units. The proposed subarea policy would also prohibit residential buildings within the 70-74 DNL. The proposed amendment would therefore serve to move any potential residential units completely out of both the 70-74 DNL and 75-79 DNL, in accordance with NASKW compatibility recommendations. All potential residential development would be relocated to the 65-69 DNL, which is the lowest noise level on the subject properties, and sound attenuated to achieve an outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 25 decibels which meets the recommends from the Navy's AICUZ Land -Use Compatibility Recommendations. The additional information provided in this ORC response and staff report for the amendment establishes that there is an absence of viable alternative development options. Further the attached reports demonstrate a community need for affordable housing. Note. There was a recent article in the Citizen, interviewing NASKW officials about the need for affordable housing for their workforce Article attached at the end of this document. Although the proposed FLUM amendment and subarea policy would result in an increase in potential affordable housing development of 122 dwelling units [maximum potential of 213du], the County has a bank of approx. 200 unused affordable housing allocations from past ROGO years available for new 10 affordable dwelling units, as well as 710 additional affordable housing allocations as provided by the State (710 of the 1,970 allocations over the next 10 years are to be used for affordable housing). Therefore, the potential increase of 122 new residential units [maximum potential of 213du], is not expected to cause the staged evacuation times to exceed the 24-hour limit. NIA — County is not a party to the agreement and does not have involvement nor enforcement of the agreement. 1991 agreement between Tarmac Florida, Inc., C.T.B., Inc., and DCA (Case No. 90-923). As discussed throughout the staff report, the proposed FLUM amendment would change the types of uses permitted on the property (for example, changing from heavy industrial uses to residential uses) and would change the maximum potential density ranges on the property. The proposed FLUM amendment (and its associated zoning amendment) is one step in the pursuit of developing the property, as the map amendments do not approve any site plans, building permits or floodplain development permits, and do not provide any County Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) allocations. Additionally, the proposed FLUM amendment, with the subarea, does not affect the floodplain regulations for the subject property. It does not waive nor reduce any floodplain requirements for any potential future development on the subject parcel(s). At the time the property owner applies for development permits, the owner/developer will be required to meet all floodplain regulations in the Monroe County Land Development Code (Chapter 122) and the Florida Building Code (FBC) as well as FEMA guidance, etc. Monroe County Comp Plan includes Policy 101.14.1 which "discourage[s] developments proposed within the Coastal High Hazard Area" but does not prohibit development in the Coastal High Hazard Area. As can be seen in the maps (Exhibit 8) attached to the staff report: almost the entirety of the Florida Keys is within the CHAA; the majority of the existing development is within the CHHA; the majority of the existing affordable housing is within the CHHA (except some portions in the Upper Keys); there are limited properties/locations outside of the CHAR, particularly in the Lower Keys; and there are limited locations in the Lower Keys for potential larger scale affordable housing developments. Further, Florida Statutes also do not prohibit development in the CHHA. Section 163.3178(8) a) A proposed comprehensive plan amendment shall be found in compliance with state coastal high -hazard provisions if. 1. The adopted level of service for out -of -county hurricane evacuation is maintained for a category S storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale; or 2. A 12-hour evacuation time to shelter is maintained for a category S storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and shelter space reasonably expected to accommodate the residents of the development contemplated by a proposed comprehensive plan amendment is available; or 3. Appropriate mitigation is provided that will satisfy subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. Appropriate mitigation shall include, without limitation, payment of money, contribution of land, and construction of hurricane shelters and transportation facilities. Required mitigation may not exceed the amount required for a developer to accommodate impacts reasonably attributable to development. A local government and a developer shall enter into a binding agreement to memorialize the mitigation plan. (b) For those local governments that have not established a level of service for out -of -county hurricane evacuation by July 1, 2008, by following the process in paragraph (a), the level of service shall be no greater than 16 hours for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir- Simpson scale. (c) This subsection shall become effective immediately and shall apply to all local governments. No later than July 1, 2008, local governments shall amend their future land use map and coastal management element to include the new definition of coastal high -hazard area and to depict the coastal high -hazard area on the future land use map. Monroe County Rule 28-20.140, F.A.C., includes Work Program tasks requiring hurricane evacuation clearance time analyses and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with the Division of Emergency Management, Monroe County, City of Marathon, Village of Islamorada, City of Key West, City of Key Colony Beach, and City of Layton regarding hurricane evacuation. The County and the other jurisdictions in the Keys regulate new residential growth through a permit allocation system. The basis for the permit allocation rate and distribution is the ability to maintain a 24- hour evacuation clearance time. Monroe County has created a staged evacuation process wherein mobile home residents, transient units and military personnel are required to evacuate prior to all other residential properties. Based upon recent hurricane evacuation clearance time model runs and the resulting the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Emergency Management, Department of Economic Opportunity the incorporated jurisdictions and the County (establishing maximum build -out from the Work Program), the County received 1,970 allocations over the next 10 years. With this 10 year allocation (1,970 units), the residential evacuation time is projected to be at the 24-hour evacuation time limitation. 12 Although the proposed FLUM amendment and subarea policy would result in an increase in potential affordable housing development of 122 dwelling units[maximum potential of 213du], the County has a bank of approx. 200 unused affordable housing allocations from past ROGO years available for new affordable dwelling units, as well as 710 additional affordable housing allocations as provided by the State (710 of the 1,970 allocations over the next 10 years are to be used for affordable housing). Therefore, the potential increase of 122 new residential units is within our ROGO allocation limit (1,970 total) and is not expected to cause the staged evacuation times to exceed the 24-hour limit. Further, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBRS) does not directly prevent or regulate development, it simply removes the federal incentive (prohibits federal expenditures and financial assistance, including federal flood insurance) for development on designated coastal barriers. The CBRS contains two types of units, System Units and Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs). The County's definition in the Code applies only to the 15 System Units; the County does not have policies or regulations for OPAs. OPAs are denoted with a "P" at the end of the unit number (e.g., FL- 48P). The fifth parcel is very narrow and development of the area adjacent to the mire pools could have negative water quality impacts on the tidally influenced mining pool and is inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area. N/A — site planning comment. The proposed the map amendment and subarea policy do not approve any site plans and/or permits. The proposed FLUM amendment does not affect the stormwater regulations for the subject property. It does not waive nor reduce any stormwater requirements for any potential future development on the subject parcel(s). At the time the owner applies for development permits, they will be required to meet all stormwater regulations in the Monroe County Land Development Code (Chapter 114). See Comp Plan Drainage Policies — level of service at the time a development permit is issued: Objective 101.9 Monroe County shall provide for drainage and stormwater management so as to protect real and personal property and to protect and improve water quality. Policy 101.9.1 Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall adopt and implement the level of service standards for stormwater management established in Drainage Policy 1001.1.1. These level of service standards ensure that at the time a development permit is issued, adequate stormwater management facilities are available to support the development concurrent with the impacts of such development. (See Drainage Objective 100 1. 1 and related policies.) GOAL 1001 Monroe County shall provide a stormwater management system which protects real and personal properties, and which promotes and protects ground and nearshore water quality. Objective 1001.1 Monroe County shall ensure that at the time a development permit is issued, adequate stormwater management facilities are available to support the development at the adopted level of service standards concurrent with the impacts ofsuch development. Policy 1001.1.1 Water Quality Level of Service Standards -Minimum Water Quality: 13 1. All projects shall be designed so that the discharges will meet Florida State Water Quality Standards as set forth in Chapters 17-25 and 17-302, F.A.C, incorporated herein by reference. In addition, all projects shall include an additional 50% of the water quality treatment specified below, which shall be calculated by multiplying the volumes obtained in Section (a) by a factor of 1.5 , Retention/Detention Criteria (SFWMD Water Quality Criteria 3.2.2.2): a) Retention and/or detention in the overall system, including swales, lakes, canals, greenways, etc., shall be provided for one of the three following criteria or equivalent combinations thereof- (1) Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project, or the total runoff of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, whichever is greater. (2) Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amount computed for wet detention. (3) Retention volume shall be provided equal to 50 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. b) Infill residential development within improved residential areas or subdivisions existing prior to the adoption of this comprehensive plan must ensure that its post -development stormwater run-off will not contribute pollutants which will cause the runoff from the entire improved area or subdivision to degrade receiving water bodies and their water quality as stated above. c) New Development and Redevelopment projects which are exempt from the South Florida Water Management District permitting process shall also meet the requirements of Chapter 40-4 and 40E-40, F.A.C. Authority: Sections 163.3177(2); 163.3177 (4)(a); 163.31.77(6)(a)1.f.; 163.3175 (2)( ); 380.05 2(7)(a), (h), (e), (h) Florida Statutes (F.S.) Recommendations: Do not adopt the proposed amendment, Revise the amendment to allow uses other than residential. Coordinate with Department staff to evaluate the effect of the restoration plans included in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement for the fifth parcel, Authority: Sections 163.31.77(2); 1633177 177 (4)(a); 163.3177(6)(a)1of.; 163.3178 (2)( ); 380a0552(7)(a), ( ), (e), (h) Florida Statutes (F..) 163.3177(2) - Coordination of the several ele€nents of the local coin prehensive plan shall be a major objective of the planning process, I lie several ele€nents of"the con,rprehensire plan shall be consistent. inhere data is relevant to se®eral elements. consistent data shall be used. including poprelation estimates and protections unless alternative data can be jr€stifled for a plan annendnient through new Supporting data and anal%sis. [=ach neap depicting future conditions must reflect the principles, guidelines, and standards within all element,, and each such €reap Must be contained within the comprehensive plan. 163.377 (4)(a) - Coordination of the; local comprehensive plan with the comprehensive plan°, of adjacent nrrinicipalbies, the count). adjacent counties. or the region: with the appropriate ®bate€ nranagerrrerrt district's regional `eater suppll plans approved purse€ant to s. 373.709. and with adopted rules pertaining to designated urea,, of` ci ideal state concern shall be a major objective of the local comprehensive planning process. To that end. in the preparation of a conrprehensive plan or element thereof: and in the comprehensive plan or clernent a€, adopted. the 4 governing body ,.hall inClrrde a specific policy statement indicating the relationship ofthe proposed development of the area to the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalitie,. the county, adjacent corrrrties4 or the region,. as the case may require and :i AlCh adapted plans or plans, in preparation rya) exist. 163.3177(6)(a)l.t <rrnknown citation > (6) In addition to the requirements of subsections (1)-(5)„ the comprehensive plan :shall inclride the following elements (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the user, of land for residential rises, commercial uses, industry. agriculture, recreation, conservation« edricatlon, public; facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of rise shall be provided for the grass land area included in each existing land rise category. The elernent shall establish the long-terni end toward which land rise programs and activities are riltirnately directed. I. Fach future land rise category must be defined in terms of uses included, and must include standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities and building and structure intensities. The proposed distribution, location„ and extent of the various categories of land use shall be shown on a land use n1ap or neap series which shall be supplernented by goals, policies, and rneasurable objectives. 2. The future land rise plan and plan amendments shall be based ripen srirveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth, b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c, The character of undeveloped land, d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of"blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the Coln I'll Unity. The c°oml,7alibilitt° of uses on lancds cic#acentr to or closellt proxir ale to n ililcu-r insiallalions. 13.37 ()(b) (2) Each coastal management element regriired by s. 163.31 `t7(6)(g) shall be based on studies. surveys, and data-, be consistent with coastal resource plans prepared and adopted pursuant to general or special law-, and contain: (b) ,107 (111all'sls of tllt" [l15'fl`{77dSTdL'i9tCrl, .4[1c1CleC'aaP2t1mic, unc,l flsLul iml),ici of Edui`fJoIilnew [iml rc'cici'clolinenl 17r"CJ)mC`d in dl$e.., flalure land use plan, ii,ith r'C'C(Ifh-eel inlr'8,Ciructure to slit'} )oil this clef clIJ1md7oul or 1-uclei elolanem, on Illcnatural and 17r.sior"ical resources ' of dlc= co sl cancel the 1)lcans aml lJr`Incil,)1.s to bc, used to control cdet°cllalarl ent and re(ki,chyarnew to eliminale Fit" nliligale Me „161rc�l-%4, hillaucis on ccaaWlil 1i e1 umis, lirino m ar°inc ;1eA xttr•ce%' harr•ie i- islands, inclu dhr q 1'acEwh oncl chinc° .e}`.W ins, trraiquc ii ildlifc 17aho a, hisioi-icrcal and crl•cl geological sites, and cFd r•1ragile cousial rrsour•cac_s_ 30.552(7)(a), O, O, (b) (7) PRINCIPLES FOR G[JIDINta VI-"-:LC)I PENT, State, regional. and local agencies and units o1 governnrwnt in the Florida Keys Area shall coordinate their plans and conduct their programs and regulatory activities consistent with the principles for 1-rriding development as specified in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code„ as amended effective August 23. 1984, which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. For the purposes of reviewing tire consistency of the adopted plan, or any amendments to that plan, �r ith the principles for guiding development, and any arnencinrents to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whale and specific provisions may not be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. However, the principles for guiding development are repealed 14 months from July 1, 1986. After repeal. any plan amendments must be consistent with the following principles: (a) `>WC11,gilrelling local government lot- managing laml use and ckiclotwtrrw )o Iha/ local oi,crnmeni is able to achieve Ihe,sc crlrjeclil'e s' it llhout a_tlrautu ill,£;; Ilse arc of criticul sIdai4;' c't)r7c'c`d71 (k,Sialhlli0l'l. 15 (h) Pmicctiari ,sho cline and inui•ine a'e^sOer IT's, inchaeiler,i� lateen i'oves, c= rcrl �aec j loi- atiom, sefrgiuss bcd%. weticumis, fish cind u ihllife and their• h abilcrt, (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological cornMunities. freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example. hardwood harnrnocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife. and their habitat, (d) EnSUring the nnaximUrn well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound econoinic development, (�) LinWierg tlrc, eaedverne hnl ,,is oledevc1olwie, rat on t1rcref wale.- thi-oughoul 1hr Floricki Et rs. (f) Enhancing natural scenic resoi€roes, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment. and ensuring that development is cornpatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys, (h) PmteethW the' value, effi`le)'cY, cosi.e{l('efivenc(,s,. awl etlioi-ii ccl lilt of etls"m1 i' aml /J!(1,,,scd f77Calt':+1" public invesimenis, inc°laeeling. d l'he Floi•icdcr Iieyr,s t2queclucrt and ��°er/rr sae1� 1�° re°ilttic�c; 2 Sewage collection, tr•ecatoa ew, creacd �lisl.�(>scal f(�r°ilr'tics; 3 Solid rt°casle o'ecannent, collee ion, carrel edisposcal f iciloiees, 4 lorry [Vent Ncival Ah- Stralion crated olhes° inihtcar,t-firc,ilitir �,, .3_ l"Mnsl)oe•tcatiorr fucilifle.s; fs. Feclet•cal p aa•ks, a ilcllife r�e fir es, and mcn-inn suncaarcae•ies�: Slate pw-ks, r-cca�ecatrcon f c•i/rtie%. crqu aria he csea°ryes, CHO whe>a, /)uhhc]ii(ail nr ,,Ilrrwlm ties; (S C'itt, eleeir•ic- sei-vice uwl the Floc icica Kc i s Elccii-ic° C o-ol) cart/ 9. Other° crtilides°, cis calrlrml)r•rcae. Again, the subarea policy for the Big Coppitt portion of the property, accompanying the FLUM amendment, will restrict any residential use on the subject property to only affordable housing; eliminate all potential for market rate permanent residential and/or transient uses on the site; prohibit all nonresidential uses on the site; prohibit dredging; prohibit residential buildings in the 70-74 DNL (Day - Night Average Sound Level) noise contour; and require sound attenuation for any habitable buildings located within the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contours. The proposed subarea policy restricts development and addresses the DEO ORC. Military housing woes Navy impacted by Key West housing crisis BY ADAM LINHARDT Citizen Staff alinhardtit key sr-rcws.corn Naval Air Station Key West Fire Chief C.J. Krieger does as best as he can to inform incoming civilian firefighters of the financial realities of living in Key West. The embattled chief says about 45 to 50 percent of his crew consists of a revolving door of firefighters who arrive here and get trained, only to leave months later because they can't afford the rents in town or cost of buying a home. "They have to learn our base operations, our equipment and all that money gets wasted on the front end when they leave," Krieger said. "And they don't leave because they don't like it here. They just can't afford it." Krieger has lost 12 firefighters in the last two years alone, he said. A rebounding real estate market and growth in illegal transient rentals have made finding an affordable rental difficult, if not impossible in some cases in Key West. Local elected leaders and housing advocates have said the affordable housing problem has reached a crisis level. And the Navy is facing the same struggle over the the lack of workforce and affordable housing for its civilian employees who are not guaranteed barracks or housing like active -duty sailors or military personnel, said Naval Air Station Key West commanding officer Capt. Steve McAlearney. "As one of the major employers in the Keys, we do certainly face the same housing and cost -of - living issues as the city and county," McAlearney said. "It is incredibly hard to hire and retain key employees, simply because they can't afford to stay." That includes firefighters, air traffic controllers, public works, security personnel and child care employees, among a host of others. They are the cement that holds the base together as active - duty military members are only assigned to Key West for a few years. It's the civilian employees who give the base continuity, McAlearney said. In other words, keeping and retaining those civilians is key to base operations and mission success. There are about 1,000 civilian employees who work for the military in Key West. That includes NAS Key West, Joint Interagency Task Force South, the Coast Guard as well as the Navy research lab and similar groups, but the two major employers are NAS Key West and JIATF South. "The whole structure of the base exists because of DOD employees," said NAS Key West spokeswoman Trice Denny. In 2005, the Navy began to set aside some of its military housing on base for Department of Defense civilian employees in order to retain those employees, said NAS Key West housing director Charity Sandstrom. In all, 222 units were set aside, but there are more employees than units and, to date, the waiting list spans as long as a year. "I've fielded several phone calls recently from new employees asking me to take their name off the on -base housing wait list, because after taking the job, they looked into living in town and found that it's just not affordable," Sandstrom said, adding that they essentially quit over the phone due to the lack of affordable housing in Key West. NAS Key West is the only naval air station nationwide that sets aside on -base housing for civilian employees, Sandstrom said. She currently has about 60 civilian employees waiting for on -base housing. McAlearney was reticent to call the problem a crisis, like other officials have, but he added the issue is one of his priorities. When it comes to base housing everywhere on Naval Air Station Key West — which includes Sigsbee Park, Truman Annex, Trumbo Point, and the naval health clinic on South Roosevelt Boulevard — the priority always remains with active duty personnel, Denny said. That means if an active duty sailor needs a home, they get priority over civilian employees. "Housing for active duty service members is a priority because, quite frankly, we need to take care of the folks who serve our country first and their families," Denny said. The barracks on Boca Chica Key are for myriad transient fighter and other squadrons that are in town for training. One of the other problems the Navy faces, Denny said, were misconceptions some residents have about Navy housing as it relates to active -duty personnel and civilian employees. Active duty members There about 1,500 active duty service members (uniformed officers and sailors) stationed in Key West annually. About 45 percent of those service members live in town and not on base, based on Navy records. But not all of those active duty service members want to live in town. Currently, there is a six- month waiting list for officers and a two -month waiting list for enlisted personnel who want housing on base, Denny said. McAlearney and Denny were quick to squash any perception that the Navy is a driving force behind the affordable housing crisis in Key West. "My perception is that the second home market and short-term rentals are what's making the housing market tight," McAlearney said. Those active duty members who have to or choose to live in town are given what is called a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). The BAH is determined by the cost of housing and utilities in town. BAH rates are computed annually using current median market rents and the average local cost for electricity, water and sewer, Denny said. That data is actually collected twice annually in the spring and summer, Denny explained. It includes apartments, town homes, duplexes as well as single-family rental units, she added. "The housing market drives the costs of rents," Denny wrote in an email. "When rents are low, some military members choose to live in town to possibly pocket any extra BAH. That is not the case at this time. Many of our folks are using their entire BAH in town and if they live in on -base housing, they give up their entire BAH." She stressed that the cost of utilities are factored into the BAH. The BAH for 2016 was set for $2,232 a month for the lowest -ranking enlisted service member with dependents to $3,426 for the highest-ranking officers, whereas those single sailors with no dependents will receive $1,773 on the low scale and high-ranking officers receiving at most $3,414, according to Navy records. "If a landlord thinks they are being savvy and charging a service member their full BAH for rent, then they are doing a disservice, as well, as BAH is intended to cover rent and utility costs," Denny said. "So again, it's market driven." McAlearney said the base is not going to slow down its training cycles any time soon as more service members other than pilots are upping their visits as well. "The airfield is getting busier than ever and many of the SEALs are Marines who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan and are leaving the mountains and coming back to the water," McAlearney said. Sigsbee Park Recently elected Key West Commissioner Sam Kaufman wrote a letter to U.S. Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Miami, this month asking for his help in urging the Navy to move forward in opening the 166 vacant units in Sigsbee Park. "When I inquired about making these units available to military members or military civilian employees, I was surprised that no clear plan to do so is in place," Kaufman wrote. "Unfortunately, Key West is suffering a severe crisis of a lack of affordable housing. The federal government can make a positive impact on our island by making these units available to military members and other civilian employees. Hundreds of people would have affordable housing in the city of Key West if these units were made available. I am reaching out to you to ask you for your assistance on this most important subject." McAlearney shares Kaufman's concern over the empty units, he said. "We're exploring ways in which we can make these available to military personnel and DOD employees," McAlearney said. "Those are the personnel I need to run this base. I hope by spring to get an offer on the table to those people who may want to manage those units." The Navy hires private companies to administer some of its housing, and Balfour Beatty provides that service at NAS Key West. That service would be put out to bid regarding the units in question at Sigsbee Park. The 166 units are currently in caretaker status, meaning the Navy Facilities and Engineering Command is studying them to see what needs to be done to them construction- or renovation - wise to make them livable, McAlearney said. The problem is that McAlearney's hands are tied until that command finalizes its evaluation of the units. The pace of government moves slow, McAlearney said. "I would like to see them used as they're intended, for housing," McAlearney said. "I would prefer them to be affordable housing for my workforce and in turn that would help ease the burden on the county and city housing markets." The likelihood that any empty units on Sigsbee Park would eventually be opened to regular civilian residents appear slim as the Navy is already dealing with wait lists for its people for housing. "It could potentially free up other housing where folks are living now if they move onto the base," Kaufman said. "I think it's a piece of the puzzle, not the cure-all to affordable housing, but 166 units is a lot of units. I have a lot of respect for Capt. McAlearney and I'm sure his ideas will be right on." Peary Court Meanwhile, the Navy is plowing forward in finding a resolution to its housing issues despite the sale of Peary Court in 2013, which used to be housing for active duty service members only. Back in 2009, Balfour Beatty began the process of studying how to recover from the 2008 housing market crash. The former military housing at Peary Court was sold in 2013 to a non- military related development company. But during the time preceeding the sale, Beatty began renting Peary Court to any qualified renter, including private civilians. DOD employees could have applied as civilian renters and live there during that time. It remains to be seen whether the City of Key West will purchase Peary Court and keep it as workforce housing. The Navy owned the land at Peary Court and Balfour Beatty owned the buildings when the decision was made to sell the Peary Court annex two years ago. Balfour Beatty had to get naval approval to sell Peary Court, Denny said. "At the time, the occupancy levels were low enough that selling Peary Court was determined to be the best way to infuse money into improving housing throughout the Southeast Housing LLC," Denny said, which is the partnership between the Navy and Balfour Beatty. If the city eventually purchases Peary Court, Mayor Craig Cates' affordable housing committee proposed increasing the density there from eight units per acre to 16, which would be the same as the surrounding neighborhood, Cates said earlier this month. The committee supports the city buying Peary Court for up to $55 million, Cates said. Either way, McAlearney is in the unfortunate position of trying to find civilian employee housing. Hopefully, progress can be made at Sigsbee Park, he said. Exhibit ORC Report 3/23/2015 Jesse Panuccio EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECEIVED March 20, 2015 r The Honorable Danny Kohlage, Mayor Monroe County Board of County Commissioners 530 Whitehead Street, Suite 102 Key West, FL 33040 Dear Mayor Kohlage: The Department of Economic Opportunity has completed its review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for Monroe County (Amendment No. 15-1ACSC), which was received and determined complete on January 27, 2015. We have reviewed the proposed amendment in accordance with the state coordinated review process set forth in Sections 163.3184(2) and (4), Florida Statutes (F.S.), for compliance with Chapter 163, Part I, F.S. Review comments received by the Department from the appropriate reviewing agencies are also enclosed. The attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report outlines our findings concerning the amendment. We have identified an objection and have included recommendations regarding measures that can be taken to address the objection. The County should act by choosing to adopt, adopt with changes, or not adopt the proposed amendment. Also, please note that Section 163.3184(4)(e)1, F.S., provides that if the second public hearing is not held within 180 days of your receipt of the Department of Economic Opportunity report, the amendment shall be deemed withdrawn unless extended by agreement with notice to the Department of Economic Opportunity and any affected party that provided comment on the amendment. For your assistance, we have enclosed the procedures for final adoption and transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment. Florida Department of 1?conomic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 F. Madison Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 866.FLA.2345 850.245.7105 850.921.3223 Fax www.floudajobs..9rg wMw twitter E Z XEW.fasebrar &ar—n FJ2zQ Honorable Danny Kohlage, Mayor March 20, 2015 Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions related to this review, please contact Rebecca Jetton, at (850) 717-8494, or by email at Rebecca.Jetton@deo.myflorida.com. Sincere Williarr Directo WBK/vrj Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report Procedures for Adoption cc: Christine Hurley, Growth Management Director ty Development Mr. James F. Murley, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council OBJECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT MONROE COUNTY 15-1ACSC PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Consistency with Chapter 163, Part II and Chapter 380, Part I The Department has the following objections and comments to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment: Objection: Resolution 375-2014 proposes to amend the future land use map for five parcels on Rockland Key totaling 44.42 acres. The County proposes to change the land use designation on four of the parcels from Industrial to Commercial. The Commercial designation does not allow for residential and the Department has no objections for this portion of the amendment. However, the fifth parcel (RE# 00120940-000100) is 14.83 acres and proposes to amendment the land use designation from Industrial (12.33 acres) and Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (2.5 acres) to Mixed Use Commercial for a total of 14.83 acres. The potential increase in residential development potential is 27 dwelling units or 221 rooms and a reduction of 204,013 square feet of nonresidential. The potential increase on the 14.83 acre parcel is 56 dwelling units or 221 rooms and a reduction of 75,119 square feet of nonresidential. The entire amendment lies within the Military Installation Area of Impact (MIAI). The fifth parcel is within the 65-69 Day —Night Average Noise Level (DNL). Comprehensive Plan policy 108.2.6 adopts MIAI Land Use Table. The table contains "permitted uses allowed"' "allowed with restrictions". "uses generally incompatible (allowed with exceptions)".and "uses not compatible and should be prohibited" for each DNL category. Within the 65-69 DNL, residential uses are listed as "uses generally incompatible (allowed with exceptions)" Some uses are allowed with restrictions. A note for this category states: "Uses Generally Incompatible (allowed with exceptions). The land use and related structures are generally incompatible. Note 1 a) Although local conditions regarding the need for housing may require residential use in these Zones, residential use is discouraged in DNL 65-69 and strongly discouraged in DNL 70-74. The absence of viable alternative development options should be determined and an evaluation should be conducted locally prior to local approvals indicating that a demonstrated community need for the residential use would not be met if development were prohibited in these Zones. The applicant makes the argument that housing in Monroe County is in short supply, the cost of that housing is too high and therefore, this amendment adds to the available affordable housing by re -designating 14.83 acres to mixed use which can accommodate a multi -family affordable housing development project of significant size. However, there is nothing in the amendment which provides assurance that any future residential development on this property will be for affordable housing. In fact, the proposed designation of Mixed Use Commercial would allow a total of 69 dwelling units or 221 hotel rooms. Monroe County future land use map contains a potential buildout of 10,258 dwelling units on the available vacant lands, of these units 51% (5,289 units of density) are located in the lower keys. There may be a shortage of available housing, but there is no shortage of vacant lots with density for housing. Based on data submitted by the County, the County has 8,168 vacant parcels and 1,970 building permit allocations which leaves a deficit of allocations of 6,198 parcels. The County failed to establish that in the absence of viable alternative development, that a demonstrated community need for the residential use would not be met if development were prohibited in these Zones. Previous Agreement - The land has been mined extensively and contain haul roads and bridges between dredged pools. There is an executed settlement agreement which requires a restored littoral zone and a setback 150 feet from the water line of the dredged pool on the portion of the fifth parcel that runs north/south. These reclamation requirements may be impediments to the proposed uses. Additional dialogue needs to occur between the legal sections of Monroe County and the Department of Economic Opportunity regarding the effect of the agreement. Site Sultability -The portion of the fifth parcel which extends east/west has an elevation that ranges from -2 to 2 feet while the portion of the property which extends north/south has an elevation as high as 4 feet. The east/west portion of the fifth parcel is located in the Velocity Zone (VE) with required elevations for future development ranging from 12-16 feet. That portion of the property is also in Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) "Otherwise Protected Area" (OPA). The CBRS Buffer Zone extends even further south. Federal flood insurance is not available in the OPA for structures that are newly built or substantially improved on or after November 16, 1991. The fifth parcel is also entirely within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) and therefore inconsistent with Monroe County comprehensive plan policy 101.14.1, which states, "Monroe County shall discourage developments proposed within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)." The fifth parcel is very narrow and development of the area adjacent to the mine pools could have negative water quality impacts on the tidally influenced mining pool and is inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area. Authority: Sections 163.3177(2); 163.3177 (4)(a); 163.3177(6)(a)1.f.; 163.3178 (2)(b); 380.0552(7)(a), (b), (e), (h) Florida Statutes (F.S.) Recommendations: Do not adopt the proposed amendment. Revise the amendment to allow uses other than residential. Coordinate with Department staff to evaluate the effect of the restoration plans included in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement for the fifth parcel. SUBMITTAL OF ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR STATE COORDINATED REVIEW Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes May 2011 NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: Please submit three complete copies of all comprehensive plan materials, of which one complete paper copy and two complete electronic copies on CD ROM in Portable Document Format (PDF) to the Department of Economic Opportunity and one copy to each entity below that provided timely comments to the local government: the appropriate Regional Planning Council; Water Management District; Department of Transportation; Department of Environmental Protection; Department of State; the appropriate county (municipal amendments only); the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (county plan amendments only); and the Department of Education (amendments relating to public schools); and for certain local governments, the appropriate military installation and any other local government or governmental agency that has filed a written request. SUBMITTAL LETTER: Please include the following information in the cover letter transmitting the adopted amendment: Department of Economic Opportunity identification number for adopted amendment package; Summary description of the adoption package, including any amendments proposed but not adopted; Ordinance number and adoption date; Certification that the adopted amendment(s) has been submitted to all parties that provided timely comments to the local government; Name, title, address, telephone, FAX number and e-mail address of local government contact; Letter signed by the chief elected official or the person designated by the local government. ADOPTION AMENDMENT PACKAGE: Please include the following information in the amendment package: Effective. une 2, 2011 (Updated March l 1, ?013) In the case of text amendments, changes should be shown in strike-through/underline format; In the case of future land use map amendment, an adopted future land use map, in color format, clearly depicting the parcel, its existing future land use designation, and its adopted designation; A copy of any data and analyses the local government deems appropriate. Note: If the local government is relying on previously submitted data and analysis, no additional data and analysis is required; Copy of executed ordinance adopting the comprehensive plan amendment(s); Suggested effective date language for the adoption ordinance for state coordinated review: The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be the date the Department of Economic Opportunity posts a notice of intent determing that this amendment is in compliance. If timely challenged, or if the state land planning agency issues a notice of intent determining that this amendment is not in compliance, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Department of Economic Opportunity. List of additional changes made in the adopted amendment that the Department of Economic Opportunity did not previously review, List of findings of the local governing body, if any, that were not included in the ordinance and which provided the basis of the adoption or determination not to adopt the proposed amendment; Statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes not previously reviewed by the Department of Economic Opportunity to the ORC report from the Department of Economic Opportunity. F ective: Ifune 2, 201..1 (Updated March `_1, 0! 3) oum FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENTDISTRICT r;r Bureau oRcommunity Planning February 9, 2015 FEB 17 2015 Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator Div or community Development State Land Planning Agency Dept. or Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison, MSC-160 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Subject: Monroe County, DEO # 15-1ACSC Comments on Proposed Comprehensive -Plan Amendment Package Dear Mr. Eubanks: The South Florida Water Management District (District) has completed its review of the proposed amendment package from Monroe County (County). The amendment includes two Future Land Use Map amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. There appear to be no regionally significant water resource issues; therefore, the District forwards no comments on the proposed amendment package. The District offers its technical assistance to the County and the Department of Economic Opportunity in developing sound, sustainable solutions to meet the County's future water supply needs and to protect the region's water resources. Please forward a copy of adopted amendments to the District. For assistance or additional information, please contact Terry Manning, Policy and Planning Analyst, at (561) 682-6779 or tmannin sfwmd. ov. Sincerely, Dean Powell Water Supply Bureau Chief DP/(tm) c: Christine Hurley, Monroe County Rebecca Jetton, DEO Terry Manning, SFWMD Jim Murley, SFRPC 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 • (561) 686-8800 • FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 • wwwsf%,md.gov OFFICE OF TH19 COMMISSIONER THE CAPITOL (850) 6r7-7700 400 SOUTH MONROS STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0800 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES COMMISSIONm ADAM H. PUTNAM February 16, 2015 VIA EMAIL (Santamaria-mayte@monroecounty-fl.gov) Monroe County Growth Management Division Attn: Christine Hurtley 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite #400 Marathon, Florida 33050 Re: DACS Docket # — 20150121-505 Monroe County Resolution 374-2014, Resolution 375-2014 Submission dated January 15, 2015 Dear Ms. Hurtley: The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the "Department") received the above - referenced proposed comprehensive plan amendment on January 21, 2015 and has reviewed it pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes to address any potential adverse impacts to important state resources or facilities related to agricultural, aquacultural, or forestry resources in Florida if the proposed amendment(s) are adopted. Based on our review of your county's submission, the Department has no comment on the proposal. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 850-410-2289. Sincerely, Stormie Knight Sr. Management Analyst I Office of Policy and Budget cc: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (SLPA #: Monroe County 15-1 ACSC) 6-ii —- 1-800-HELPFLA www.FreshFrornFlorida.com L'e�rteirnia/ 1915 * 2015 Florida Department of Transportation RICK SCOTT 1000 NW 111 Avenue GOVERNOR Miami,Florida 33172-5800 January 29, 2016 Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator Department of Economic Opportunity Community Planning and Development i 07 East Madison Street Caldwell Building, MSC 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 JIM ROXOLD SECRETARY Subject: Comments for the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Monroe County #15-1ACSC Dear Mr. Eubanks: The Florida Department of Transportation, District Six, completed a review of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Monroe County #15-1ACSC The District has reviewed the amendment package per Chapter 163 Florida Statutes and has found no adverse impacts to transportation resources and facilities of state importance. Please contact Ken Jeffries at 305-470-6445 if you have any questions conceming our response. Sincerely, Ken Jeffries Transportation Planner Cc: Harold Desdunes, PE, Florida Department of Transportation, District 6 Aileen Boucle, AICP, Florida Department of Transportation, District 6 Lisa Coimenares, AICP, Florida Department of Transportation, District 6 Mayte Santamaria, Monroe County wwvr.dot state.f.us Eubanks, Ray____ From: Stahl, Chris <ChHs.Stahl@dep.state.fl.us> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 201510:47 AM To: DCPextemalagencycomments Cc: Craig, Kae; santamaria=mayte@monroecounty-fl.gov Subject: Monroe County 15-1ACSC — Proposed To: Ray Eubanks, Department of Economic Opportunity Re: Monroe County 15-1ACSC — Review of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has reviewed the above -referenced amendment package under the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Department conducted a detailed review that focused on potential adverse impacts to important state resources and facilities, specifically: air and water pollution; wetlands and other surface waters of the state; federal and state-owned lands and interest in lands, including state parks, greenways and trails, conservation easements; solid waste; and water and wastewater treatment. Based on our review of the submitted amendment package, the Department has found no provision that, if adopted, would result in adverse impacts to important state resources subject to the Department's jurisdiction. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Chris Stahl Office of Intergovernmental Programs Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS 47 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 (850) 245-2169 IS Eubanks, Ray From: Hight, Jason <Jason. Hight@MyFWC.com > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 4:10 PM To: santamaria-mayte@monroecounty-fl.gov; DCPexternalagencycomments Cc: Wallace, Traci; Chabre, Jane; Krueger, Marissa Subject: Monroe County 15-1ACSC (Resolutions 374-2014 and 375-2014) Ms. Santamaria: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff has reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan in accordance with Chapter 163-3184(3), Florida Statutes. We have no comments, recommendations, or objections related to fish and wildlife or listed species and their habitat to offer on this amendment. If you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Jane Chabre either by phone at (850) 410- 5367 or by email at FWCConservationPlannineServicesnMyFWC.com. If you have specific technical questions, please contact Marissa Krueger at (561) 882-5711 or by email at Mari ssa.KruegerQmyfwc.com. Jason Hight Biological Administrator II Office of Conservation Planning Services Division of Habitat and Species Conservation 620 S. Meridian Street, MS 5B5 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 (850) 228-2055 VSr )l DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR STATION PO BOX9001 KEY WESTFL 330404MI Mr. Ray Eubanks, Administrator Florida Department of Economic Opportunity 107 E. Madison Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Dear Mr. Eubanks: m 21000 Ser PR712/065 17 Feb 15 This letter is in response to Monroe County Amendment Number 15µ lACSC Notification (enclosure 1), approved via Resolution 375-2014. We have reviewed the proposed amendment, and appreciate Monroe County's critical need for affordable and workforce housing. Per discussion with Ms. Rebecca Jetton on February 5, 2015, Naval Air Station Key West is not in favor of any increased residential density in high noise areas 65 DNL and above. Per Naval instruction, residential use is discouraged in DNL 65-69 and strongly discouraged in DNL 70-74. The absence of viable alternative development options should be determined and a'n evaluation should be conducted locally prior to local approvals indicating that a demonstrated community need for the residential use would not be met if development were prohibited in these zones. Where the community determines that these uses must be allowed, measures to achieve an outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB in DNL 65-69 and NLR of 30 dB in DNL 70-74 should be incorporated into building codes and be in individual approvals; for transient housing a NLR of at least 35 dB should be incorporated in DNL 75-79. We look forward to continued coordination on this project. My Point of contact is my Community Planning Liaison Officer, Ms. Ashley Monnier. She may be reached at (305) 293-2633 or via e-mail: ashley.monnieKLnavy.mil. r Sincerely, S. P. M Captain, U. S. avy Commanding Officer Enclosure: 1. Monroe County 15-1ACSC Copy to: Rebecca Jetton, Department of Economic opportunity Christine Hurley, Dir, Monroe County Growth MNGT Di 4 ' v sion Eubanks,Ray From: Eubanks, Ray Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 7:44 AM To: DCPexternalagencycomments Subject: FW: Floridalobs Help Center - Contact Us - Submission caoia.,, IS-10,C-SC_ Ray Eubanks Plan Review Administrator Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Bureau of Community Planning 107 East Madison Street MSC 160 Tallahassee, FL 32399-4120 850-717-8483 Ray. EubanksCa@deo. mvflorido. com „M. �f.4NQIWf:�T' From: no-reply@floridajobs.org [mailto:no-reply@floridajobs.org) Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 5:54 PM To: Eubanks, Ray Subject: Floridalobs Help Center- Contact Us - Submission Contact: Ray Eubanks Last Name: Neumann First Name: Michelle E-mail Address: dittv4irl@comcast.net Phone Number: (305) 394-3154 Comment *: I am a long time resident of the Florida Keys which is designated as an area of Critical State Concern. I am asking for your assistance with the Rockland Key Commercial Retail Center Overlay Project which if allowed to proceed, will be the largest project in the counties history, quoting a county source. Located on Rockland Key, on approximately 33 acres, it sits before the Monroe County Commission for approval and was submitted In December 2014. I am forming a group opposed to a project of this enormity that will not only effect the surrounding area it will have far reaching consequences damaging the economic survival of the Keys and Key West as well as the Environmental and aesthetic impact. Can you please help the group I am starting of like minded citizens? There has to be a way to halt this especially with our designation of Critical State Concern. Are you aware of this? Last 4 digits of SSN (Optional): Exhibit 4 to Staff Report Monroe County Tech Document Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update 7.0 HOUSING ELEMENT [Rule 9J--5.010 F.A.C.] The Housing Element of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan addresses the data Inventory requirements of 9J-5.0005 (2) of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The data inventory requirement will support the development of goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs for the Housing Element. 7.1 Introdu+tion The information provided for housing characteristics was retrieved from the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse (FHDC) in April 20101. The FHDC data is based on Census 2000 and it is the best available data for unincorporated Monroe County analysis. Detailed housing information from the 2010 U.S. Census is scheduled for release in early 2011 and will provide the basis for a refined housing analysis for the planning period. There are limitations to the data presented in the housing inventory and these limitations have been noted where relevant throughout this document. However, until that time permitting data has been used to demonstrate the housing inventory as of 2009. This element also focuses on the housing characteristics, construction activity, and affordable housing issues. 7.1.1 Policy Framework Below is a summary of federal, state and local government regulations that impact the development of housing: The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, Familial status, and national origin. Its coverage includes private housing, housing that receives Federal financial assistance, and State and local government housing_ It is unlawful to discriminate in any aspect of selling or renting housing or to deny a dwelling to a buyer or renter because of the disability of that individual, an individual associated with the buyer or renter, or an individual who intends to live in the residence. Other covered activities include, for example, financing, zoning practices, new construction design, and advertising. 1 Accessed through:� on April, 8 2010. Housing 1 Technical Document: Ittly 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Section 504. The Fair Housing Act Section 504 requires owners of housing facilities to make reasonable exceptions In their policies and operations to afford people with disabilities equal housing opportunities. For example, a landlord with a "no pets" policy may be required to grant an exception to this rule and allow an individual who is blind to keep a guide dog in the residence. The Fair Housing Act also requires landlords to allow tenants with disabilities to make reasonable access -related modifications to their private living space, as well as to common use spaces. (The landlord is not required to pay for the changes.) The Act further requires that new multifamily housing with four or more units be designed and built to allow access for persons with disabilities. This includes accessible common use areas, doors that are wide enough for wheelchairs, kitchens and bathrooms that allow a person using a wheelchair to maneuver, and other adaptable features within the units. e HB 697, which amended portions of Chapter 163.3177(6)(f)1, F.S., requires that the Housing Element be amended to include standards, plans, and principles for: h) "Energy efficiency in the design and construction of new housing" and I) "Use of renewable energy resources." In order to acknowledge the benefit of renewable resources, such as solar energy, and encourage energy efficiency in building construction, the County will assure there are no obstacles within the County's Comprehensive Plan and/or Monroe County Land Development Code (MCLDC) which may conflict with these requirements. e The Florida Fair Housing Act: The Florida Fair Housing Act declares it illegal to discriminate in the sale, rental, advertising, financing, or providing of brokerage services for housing. The Florida Fair Housing Act parallels the Federal Fair Housing Act e Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program: The 2006 Florida Legislature passed House Bill 1363 (Ch. 2006-69, s. 27, Laws of Fla.), a housing bill focused on addressing some of the affordable housing challenges the State currently faces. HB 1363 includes $50 million for an affordable housing pilot program called the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP). Florida Housing will administer CWHIP, and these funds will be awarded on a competitive basis through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process to public -private entities seeking to build affordable housing for Florida's workforce. Monroe County, as a high cost county, is eligible to qualify households making 160 percent of the area median income for affordable housing. Housing 2 Technical Document: July 2011 - -_- Monroe CounComprehensive 'Flan U e 9 Florida Landlord/Tenant Law: Florida's Landlord/Tenant Law Chapter 83, Part II - Florida Statutes explains tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities on rental agreements and disputes. Maps Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) Due to the State of Florida limitation on the amount of growth the County could absorb, based on the Carrying Capacity and Hurricane Evacuation Studies, on June 23, 1992, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 016-1992, thereby implementing the Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation System, today known as the Rate of Growth Ordinance or ROGO. The Ordinance became effective on July 13, 1992, and has been amended through the years based on changing conditions related to infrastructure. ROGO allows development subject to the ability to safely evacuate the Florida Keys (the Keys) within 24 hours. The ROGO system is a method of prioritizing where growth should be directed based on the fact that the State of Florida currently allocates 197 housing units annually for building permit issuance (Table 7.1), MCLDC Art. II Sec. 138-24. The number of allocations has 0 varied throughout the years, depending on the progress the County has made toward achieving State set goals. The annual allocation period, or ROGO year, is the 12-month period beginning on July 13, 1992, (the effective date of the original dwelling unit allocation ordinance), and subsequent one-year periods. Initially, the total number of available allocations was split among the three subareas2 which included Upper Keys, Middle Keys, and Lower Keys (not to be confused with the Planning Area geographic locations as described in Section 2.2.1 "Geographic Locution/Planning Areas'). Environmental issue and community vision plans have further refined the distribution of available allocations. Efforts to address the development impacts on the habitat of the Key Deer, Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit and the Eastern Indigo Snake on Big Pine Key/No Name Key started in the mid. 1980s. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission signed a Memorandum of Agreement to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Key Deer and other protected species in the project area. In 1998, Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the DCA signed a Memorandum of Agreement in which they committed to develop a (HCP) for these two Keys. On June 9, 2006, a Federal Incidental Take Permit (#TE083411-0,177) from the U.S. Federal Fish and Wildlife Commission was issued to three (3) permitees: Monroe 2 Subareas are geographic locations used to distribute ROGO allocations. Subareas are not to be confused with Planning Areas (Lower, Middle and Upper) as defined by Section 2.2.1 Geographic Location/ Planning Areas of the Future Land Use Element Housing 3 Technical Document: July 2011 on, roe coup Enreheasive Plan 0pdate County, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The ITP ensures that development bears its fair share of required mitigation and that the take of the covered species is minimized and mitigated The Livable Communikeys Program (LCP), Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key was adopted on August 18, 2004 under Ordinance 029-2004. The LCP envisioned the issuance of 200 residential dwelling units over 20 year horizon at a rate of roughly 10 per year. A minimum of twenty percent of the 10 units per year are to be set aside for affordable housing development. Today the 197 housing permits are allocated in the Lower, Upper and Big Pine/No Name Keys Subareas, due to municipal incorporation and environmental impact / constraints. On September 22, 2005, the Monroe County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance 025-2005 which revised the ROGO to utilize the Tier Overlay System as the basis for the competitive point system to implement Goal 105 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance became effective on February 5, 2006, under final Ordinance 009-2006. The Tier System, still a ROGO, made changes such as subarea boundary districts for allocation distribution, basis of scoring applications, and administrative relief. The Ordinance changed the total available allocation number to 197. It also provided vesting provisions to subareas geographically defined as follows and are depicted in the Tier Overlay District Map: • Upper Keys (Lower and Middle Keys combined): the unincorporated area of the county north of Tavernier Creek and corporate limits of the Village of Islamorada (approximately mile marker 90). • Lower Keys: the unincorporated area of the County from the corporate limits of the Village of Islamorada (approximately mile marker 72) south to the corporate limits of the City of Key West at Cow Key Bridge on U.S. Highway 1 (approximately mile marker 4), excluding Big Pine Key and No Name Key. • Big Pine Key/No Name Key: the islands of Big Pine Key and No Name Key within unincorporated the County. Based on the revised 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the adopted Maps as part of the Master Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key, they are now evaluated as their own subarea. Once an application is submitted, it is scored based on which Tier the property Is located. The basic process is: 1) applicant applies for residential building permit, 2) if applicant receives all required approvals for residential development then the applicant may submit an application for a residential unit, 3) applicant completes for an allocation award, 4) applicant receives allocation award, then has 60 days to pick up permit. If the applicant does not use the permit then the allocation expires. The total number of available allocations is split among the three subareas of the County. Each applicant competes against the other applicants located within the same subarea. Housing 4 Technical Document: July 2011 M Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update There is one exception to this process, applicants for affordable housing. Affordable housing applicants compete against all applicants for affordable housing keys wide; with the caveat that one affordable allocation goes to Big Pine and another one goes to No Name Key. Allocations are awarded each quarter in each subarea with the exception of the Big Pine Key/No Name Key subarea, where allocations are awarded annually. Table 7.1 depicts the current distribution of available allocations per MCLDC Art II Sec.138-24. There are a limited number of available annual residential ROGO allocations. The number of market rate residential ROGO allocations available in each subarea of the unincorporated County and total number of affordable residential ROGO allocations available countywide on a yearly basis are illustrated in Table 7.1. According to MCLDC Art 11 Sec. 138-24, the market rate available allocations total 126 and the available affordable housing allocations total 71 units (2 affordable allocations are reserved for the Big Pine/No Name Key Subarea). In addition, there is a ratio of affordable housing ROGO allocations to market rate ROGO allocations. Prior to October of each year, the Board of County Commission (BOCC) may adopt a resolution changing the ratio of affordable housing to market rate ROGO allocations based upon the recommendations of the planning director and planning commission arising from the annual review of ROGO. This ratio may be amended pursuant to the following: The percentage of affordable housing shall never be less than 20 percent of the total ROGO allocations available or the minimum established by rule of the Florida Administration Commission, whichever is greater. The increase or decrease in the percentage of affordable housing of the total ROGO allocations available shall not exceed 50 percent of the previous year's ROGO allocations to market rate and affordable housing. Table 7. - Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) Aflocations, per MCLDC Art 11 Sm 138-24 Housing 5 Technical Document July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update The primary basis of the competition is the Tier designation which will award an applicant between 0 and 30 points. Points are intended to discourage development in environmentally sensitive areas (Tier 1) and to direct and encourage development to appropriate infill areas (Tier 111). Points also recognize that any development can affect the functioning of natural and man-made infrastructure. Points vary depending on whether a proposed development project is located on Big Pine Key or No Name Key or if it is located elsewhere in the unincorporated County. A penalty is assigned if the project is within a V flood zone. Lot aggregation is the process of combining a contiguous, platted, vacant, and buildable parcel with another and building only one unit. This is a reduction of density. Lot aggregation is only possible in TIer III and Tier III (A) areas, where upland native habitat is not cleared. Additional points may be awarded through lot aggregation, land dedication and land dedication. Payment to land acquisition fund is the process of purchasing points (maximum of 2) by donating to the County fund which allows for the retirement of development rights through the acquisition of property. Land dedication is made prior to issuance of the permit. The primary point assignments system is provided is Section 3.19.1.1 "Point System within ROW A historic account of market rate and affordable ROGO allocations and awards are depicted on Table 7.2. A detailed account of number of ROGO allocated and awarded is provided in Appendix 7-1. Below is a brief history of the ROGO system. o During ROGO Year 1-6 a total of 255 allocations 203 marke t et rate and 52 affordable) were allowed each year. During this period, unused affordable housing allocations could be rolled- over to market rate allocations (Ord. 016-1992) in the Lower Keys, Middle Keys and Upper Keys subareas. ROGO Years 6-14 allocations were affected by reductions due to Cesspit and Nutrient Credit requirements. On December 31, 1997, the Village of Islamorada incorporated, thus reducing the unincorporated allocations by 28 to 227 (182 market rate 45 affordable) for Rogo Year 6 and reducing the Upper Keys subarea boundary. e During ROGO Year 8 (2000), the City of Marathon incorporated (November 30,1999), therefore reducing the unincorporated allocations by 24 and modifying the Middle Keys subarea boundary. Also, during ROGO Year 8, the Department of Community Affairs entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the County to allow 90 affordable housing allocations in exchange of good faith effort to begin the FEMA. inspection program. « For ROGO Year 9 (2001), the Department of Community Affairs reinstated 201 affordable housing allocations (2001). This number includes both market and affordable housing allocations that were lost due the inability to match an allocation with nutrient reduction credits. Hong 6 'technicalDocument: July 2011 CD Mom County Coat mhensive Plan Update For ROGO Year 10 (2002), the Lower Keys subarea lost 25 allocations due to nutrient credit requirements. Beginning in ROGO Year 11 (2003), affordable allocations can be grouped into a single pool for countywide allocations. During ROGO Year 14 (2004), Ord. 009-2006 was enacted changing the allocation number to 197 (126 market rate 71 affordable) pursuant to Rule 28-20.110, F.A.C. The same rule also returned 165 allocations to the County to be used for affordable housing. By ROGO Year 15 (2005), the new Big Pine/No Name Key subarea was created. Of the 197 allocations, 8 market rate and 2 affordable allocations are assigned to this subarea. Cesspit requirements end during the first quarter of this ROGO year. As seen in Table 7.2, from ROGO Year 1 to 17, of the grand total of available market rate allocations of 2,755, 2,804 were awarded. The excess of awards may be due In part to the rollover of affordable allocations that went unused from ROGO Year 1-6 into market rate and the reuse of expired allocations from one ROGO quarter to another and from one ROGO year to another ROGO year. These expired allocations were awarded to the next applicant or "reused." Of the 1,242 available affordable housing allocations, 977 were awarded. Between ROGO Years 1-17, an average of 222 ROGO allocations were awarded each year. Of the allocations awarded, affordable housing awards represent 25 percent of the total award. A detailed historical account of the number allocations available and awarded is provided in Appendix 7-1. As seen in Table 7.3, there were 49 market rate allocations that expired which were tracked, recaptured and reused by the County. Therefore, at this point in time, there are zero market rate allocations remaining. As seen in Table 7.3, there were 167 affordable allocations that were rolled over to market rate (ROGO Years 2-6); 10 affordable allocations expired; and 100 affordable allocations went unused. Therefore, a grand total of 110 affordable allocations are available. 77te Remainder of This Page Inter To Left flan Housing 7 Technical Document July 2011 E N Monroe County Comprehensive plan Update Table 7.2 - Unincorporated County Market Rate and Affordable ROGO Year 1.17 rear a 14 1992 -July 13 1993 1 204 204 52 11 Year 2 (July 14 1993 -July 13 1994 243 231 52 9 Year 3 auly 14 1994 -July 13,1995 246 249 52 10 Year4 (July 14 1995 -July 13 1996 245 263 52 40 Year 5 (July 14 1996 -July 13 199 215 218 52 23 Year 6 14 1997 7july 13 1998 211 197 77 56 Year 7 (July 14.1998 -Tuly 12,1999 101 102 30 9 Year 8 ul 13,1999 - ul 14, 2000 127 136 109 66 Year 9 (July 13 2000 -July 14, 2001 127 129 224 203 Year 10 ul 14 2001-July15 2002 102 102 31 58 Year 11 16 2002 -July 14, 2003 127 127 31 31 Year 12 flu!y 13, 2003-july 14, 2004 127 127 31 :21] rear i3 (July 14, 2004 7IWy 13, 2005 96 96 29 16 Year 14 fluly 14 2005 -WY-IWY 13 2006 126 126 236 271 Year 15 auly 14, 2006 -J!!!l 13,20071 126 129 49 17 Year 16 (luly 14. 2007 -luly 13. 20091 126 126 68 100 Year 17 206 242 67 36 (July 14 2008 -July 13 2009 TOTAiS 2,7551 2,8041 1,2421 977 Source: Monroe County Growth Management, Data provided on May 02, 2011 Housing 8 Technical Document: July 2011 � O O Monroe County Comprehensive Flan Update Table 7.3 -SunnuarYTable of Awarded and Allocated for Market and. Affordable ROGO(Year 1-17) Total Expired Remaining Total Total TOE Market Rate Market Total Affordable Expired Affordable Market Rate Allocations T Rate Allocations Total Affordable Affordable Housing g �O�UO a Rolled -Over Housing Total Allocations Awarded (Allocations Remaining Allocations Allocations To Market Allocations AllocationsAllocations that were Awarded Rate For Rog Years (Allocations Re -Used) 2-6 2 that can be re -used) 2,755 Z804 49 1,242 977 -167 10 110 Source: Monroe County Growth Management, Data provided on May 02, 2011. Housing 9 Technical eRL- July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update As seen in Table 7.4 below, there are zero remaining market rate allocations. A detailed account of number of available allocations and the number of awarded is provided in Appendix 7-1. Table 7.4 - Residual Market Rate ROGO Allocations by Subarea Source: Monroe County Growth ManaEemen% Data provided on May 02, 2011. As seen in Table 7.5, there are 111 remaining affordable allocations. A detailed account of number of available allocations and the number of awarded is provided in Appendix 7-1. Table 7.5 - Residual le ROGO Allocations by Subarea 3 Total market rate allocations available minus total market rate allocations awarded. + Expired market rate allocations minus recaptures and reused allocations Housing 10 Technical ent: lnly 2011 N Monroe Coun Com rehensive P U to Affordable allocations are currently grouped into two pools: Countywide and Big Pine/No Name Sub -area and 1 pool with affordable allocations available Countywide. Again, there are 111 residual affordable ROGO allocations of which 6 belong to the Big Pine/No Name Key Subarea Table 7.6 - Residual Affordable Allocations ftstribudon by Subarea Source: Monroe County Growth Management, Data provided on May 02, 2011. 7.1.2 Residential Land Use Characteristics As evidenced in Chapter 2.0 Future Land Use Element the County has 4,988.2 acres of residential land. This makes up 6.8 percent of the land use. The residential land use distribution is 52.1 percent in the Upper Keys Planning Area (UKPA), 4.0 percent in the Middle Keys Planning Area (MKPA), and 43.8 percent in the Lower Keys Planning Area (LKPA). Density and intensity is determined by Policy 101.4.21 of the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (1995). However, Property Appraiser's data provides the current status of actual density and intensity by land acreage and number of dwelling units. As of January 2010, the current density for single-family homes was 2.2 units per acre, 0.71 for mobile homes, and 7.5 in average for all multi -family type (Le. multifamily, condominium, etc.), according to the Property Appraiser data These are illustrated in Appendix 2-2 of the Future land Use Element e Remainder Of This ftge Intentional Blank Housing 11 Technical Document: July 2011 N Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update 7.2 Fidsft HousingStock chamcterisUcs An inventory of existing housing is necessary to analyze the present housing situation in unincorporated Monroe County and to determine future housing needs. To obtain a count of existing housing in unincorporated Monroe County, two resources are combined: FHDC, and building permits and demolitions of housing from April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2010. The latter is discussed in Section 7.2.12 "Residential Construction Activlty". Mainland Florida accounts for 90 percent of the land mass of the County; the majority of this land is located within the Everglades National Park and is under federal jurisdiction. Only 41 year-round households are located on the Mainland portion of the County, with virtually no demand for additional units projected, and no private lands available for development. Therefore, this element will focus primarily on lands within the unincorporated Lower, Middle, and Upper Planning Areas, as identified below, and illustrated on Map Searles 2.1: Lower Keys Planning Area (WA): West boundary of Stock Island to the eastern limit of the Seven Mile Bridge. The ;Marquesas Keys, located 30 miles west of Key West and the Dry Tortuga Keys, located 70 miles west of Key West are also included within this planning area; o Middle Keys Planning Area (MKP ): Eastern limit of the City of Marathon to the western limit of the Village of lslamorada, including Lignumvitae Key and Shell Key. It excludes the incorporated City of Layton, City of Marathon, City of Key Colony Beach and Village of Islamorada; and Upper Keys Planning Area (UKPA): Western limit of the Village of Islamorada to the northern County line. 7.2.1 7,ype of Housing [Rule 91--5.010 (1)(a) F.A.C.j Table 7.7 provides housing units by type countywide for 1990 and 2010, which includes the municipalities within the County. Overall, the total housing stock countywide increased by 13.4 percent or 6,135 dwelling units from 1990 to 2000. Major changes are noted in single family attached units with a 79 percent increase. Duplex units and mobile home/trailer/other decreased by 24.9 percent and 5.2 percent respectively. Housing 12 Techniud Document: July 2011 M M FN Monroe Coun-q Comprehensive Plan Update Table 7.7- Co de Ho Units by Type IL990-2000 Unit Type Number % of Units Dist I mmmmmmmmEffmmm Number of Units % Dist. Number of Units % Dist Sin a-Fami1(Detached) 19,773 43.3% 24,212 46.7% 4,439 22.4% Sin a-Famil Attached 2,348 5.1% 4,203 8.1% 1,855 79.0% Duplex 2-unilx 3,369 7.4% Z531 4.9% -838 -24.9% Multi -Farm 3+ units 8,812 19.3% 10,078 19.5% 1,266 14.4% Mobile Home railer Other 11,359 24.9% 10,772 1100.0% 20.8% -587 -5.2% To Year -Round U 45,"1 100.0% Source: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, April 2010:1990 51,796 1 data -US. Bureau nfthe 6135 raneuc 13.4% Table 7.8 provides housing units by type for unincorporated County for 2000. Based on 2000 Census (dated April 1, 2000), more than half of the unincorporated County's 24,595 year -rounds housing units were single-family units;10.4 percent were multi -family units, 2.7 percent were duplex units, and another 30.9 percent were mobile homes/trailers/other. Table 7.8 - Unkcarporated Houshg Unft by Type 2000-2010 Unit Type Number of Units % Dist Number of Units Si le-Famil(Detached) 12,847 52.2% Si e-F Attached 920 3.7% Duplex 2-units 669 2.7% Multi-Fam 3+ units 2,561 10.4% Mobile Home ' er Other 7,598 30.9% To Y U 24,595 100. Source: FloridaHousing Data Clearinghouse, April 2010. 2010 data will be pr Census. Dist once published by the Section 101-1 of the County LCD defines housing as, "lawfully established hotel rooms, campground spaces, mobile homes, transient residential units, institutional residential units (except hospital rooms) and live-aboards". Historically the number of hotel/motel transient units has declined in the last years. In 2003 the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation reported 9,373 5 The U.S. Census number of dwelling units excludes seasonal population, live aboards, etc. Housing 13 Technical Document- July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Man Update hotel/motel rooms countywide. In 2010 there were 7,967. By March 14, 2011 there were 3,632 countywide. The County has adopted a series of ordinances regarding hotel/motel transient units: 1) The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted Ordinance No. 47-1999 on November 10, 1999, creating Sec. 9.5-120.5, which established that new transient residential units, such as hotel/motel rooms, or campground, recreational vehicle or travel trailers spaces, would not be eligible for residential ROGO allocations until January 1, 2002. 2) The BOCC extended the moratorium on new transient units from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006, through Ordinance No. 001-2002. The BOCC adopted Ordinance No. 001-2007 to extend the moratorium on new transient units to December 31, 2008. The moratorium was then set to expire on July 31, 2010. 3) According to the Economic Trends and Opportunities in Unincorporated Monroe County report, the number of licensed hotel/mote16 rooms in unincorporated County was 2,199 and 8,680 countywide. According to the Monroe County Tourist Development Report dated March 2010, the County excluding Key West, had 56.3, percent occupancy as of January 2010. Key Largos occupancy rate was at 57.9 percent and Key West at 78.4 percent during the same period. 4) At their July 21, 2010 meeting, the BOCC extended the prohibition of new transient residential units including hotel or motel rooms, campground spaces or spaces for parking or recreational vehicle or travel until December 31, 2011 (Ord. 023-2010 and MCLDC Section 138.23). 7.2.2 Occupancy and Tenure [Rule 91--5 010 (1)(a) F.A C] As indicated in Table 7.9, occupied units dominated the County's housing market in 2000, accounting for 64.0 percent of all units; vacancy was reported at 36.0 percent Owner occupancy predominates at 70.4 percent, whereas, renter occupancy was reported at 29.6 percent. The MKPA had the highest vacancy rate at 71.9 percent when compared to the other planning areas; this percentage exceeds that of the County (36.0 percent). Of the dwelling units that were occupied in the MKPA, at the time of the 2000 Census, 81.6 percent were occupied by owners. As seen in Table 7.9, the geographic distribution was assessed through Geographic Information System (G1S) from the U.S. Census. Analysis was performed at the block level in order to carve out the unincorporated County planning areas. The Lower and Upper Keys 6Number of rooms from licensed hotel/motel acquired from Economic Trends and Opportunities in I Unincorporated Monroe County by Fishldnd and Associates, Inc. February 23, 2011 report nousinE 14 Technical Document: July 2011 N Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Planning Areas have the highest dwelling unit distribution with 47.3 and 46.9 percent, respectively, of the housing stock In comparison, the MXPA has the lowest percentage of housing stock at 5.8 percent According to the 2008 Hurricane Evacuation Model Report by Reid Ewing, for the County as a whole, occupancy rates for permanent dwelling units appear to have declined by about 20 percent between the 2000 Census and the 2007 American Community Survey (ACS). Therefore, it is estimated that the occupancy rate for the unincorporated County of 64.0 percent, as reported by the 2000 Census, has decreased to 51.2 percent Table 7.9 - UJUJIncorporated Housing inventory by occupancy Status and Tenure, 2000 Owner 6,159 71.9 328 81.6 4,847 71.5 11,334 70.4 Renter 2,413 28.1 74 18.4 1,934 28.5 4,421 29.6 Vacant 1 3,033 1 ----2-6—.2T 1,029 71.9 4,734 41.1 8,799 36.0 Occupancy 8,5721 73.8 402 28.1 6,781 58.9 15,755 ".0 Total 11,605 47.3 ir431 5.81 1i,515 46.9 2054« 100.0 Source: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, April 2010 •41 dwelling units located in the Mainland according to Census Block GIs analysis. Note: Will be updated with Census 2010 upon data release scheduled for April 1st 2011. The Remahider ofThis Page IntenthmaUy ,Leejt Rhmk Housing 15 Technical Document: July 2011 0 Monroe Coun Comprehensive Plan Update ■ 7.2.3 Vacancy Status [Rule 9f-5 010(1)W FA q At the time of the 2000 Census, the vacant homes were classified as 79.1 percent seasonal, recreational or occasional use; 7.4 percent was categorized as "Other Vacant"; and 6.2 percent of the vacant homes were for rent. The remaining units were classified as for sale, rented or sold, not occupied, and for migrant workers. This is illustrated on Table 7.10. Table 7.10 - Vacancy Status, 2000 Occupied 15,788 64.2% Vacant 8,807 32.8% Total Units For Rent 24,595 548 100.0% 6.2% For Sale On! 430 4.9% Rented or Sold Not Occupied 203 2.3% Seasonal Recreational or Occasional Use 6,967 79.1% For Mi nt Workers 6 0.1% Other Vacant 653 7.4% Data Uearinghouse, April 2010 Note: Will be updated with Census 2010 upon data release scheduled for Aprilist 2011. As a comparison, Table 7.11 provides the Vacancy Status from 1990. It Is important to note that at the time the 1990 data was collected, the City of Marathon and the Village of Islamorada were not incorporated. Therefore, 1990 unincorporated numbers will be higher when compared to those of unincorporated 2000. Table 7.11- Vacancy Shitus,19 Occupied - 22,564 99.0% Vacant 10,133 31.0% Total Units For Rent 32 697 1,065 100.0% 10.5% For Sale Only 7311 7.2% Rented or Sold Not Occupied 1 1,3161 13.0% Seasonal Recreational or Occasional Use 1 7 021 1 69.3% Source: 'Housing Element' of the Technical Document; Table 7.2 of the 2010 Monroe County Compneheadve Plan Note: 'For Migrant Workers' and 'Other Vacant." not available; and the City of Marathon and the Village of Islamorada was not incorporated in 1990. In recent years Census 2000 and ACS from 2005-2008 have shown a substantial amount of home units are held for seasonal use. The data indicates the number of seasonal units has risen from 12,628 in 2000 to 15,262 in 2005 to 19,195 in 2008. This is an increase of 6,567 seasonal units. During the same period, permanently occupied units have fallen from Housing 16 TechnicalDocument: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Man Update 35,086 to 29,084, or about 6,002 units. Based on the ACS and Census data, the loss in permanent population is approximately equivalent to the gain in seasonal population since year 2000. Contributing to the declining permanently occupied units is the rate of foreclosed homes and the increasing rate of non -homesteaded units. During the 2000-2009 period total homesteaded units increased from 16,005 to 16,698 units, a net increase of 693 units. During the same period, non -homesteaded units moved from 20,784 to 22,197, a net Increase of 1,413 units. In general, non -homesteaded properties represent seasonal vacant, second homes, or for rent units. Population in these should be distinguished from short-term tourist visitors. However, in times of high foreclosure rates, a shift to non - homestead may represent a temporary loss in permanent population. This compares with the 3,431 foreclosures from 2005-2009, recognizing it is likely as much as half of the foreclosed units may have been resold since the initial foreclosures which began in 2005, and some tendency for those units to return to a homesteaded status. By 2009, after speculative investing ceased, the share of non -homesteaded properties went back down, falling to 2003 levels. The non -homestead rate for all units is now 57.1 percent (2010). This is essentially the same rate both pre and post bubble. Single family non -homestead rates began to move up more closely in concert with rising foreclosures; therefore, a considerable portion of permanent population losses may be attributable to foreclosures arising from the speculative housing bubble, and thus temporary. The expectation is some permanent population may return to these units over the course of the planning horizon - thus permanent population may increase over this period in substantially greater numbers than the growth in new housing units. There has been an increase in vacant units from 2005-2009. During this period both the Census and BEBR indicated permanent population loss. From 2005 to 2008 the ACS indicated an increase in seasonal vacancy of 3,457 units. During the 2005-2009 period, foreclosure data indicated there were 3,431 foreclosures, as noted earlier. Thus, the ACS data indicates, on net, the permanent population losses and associated housing vacancy is being shifted into seasonal units. Further, it is believed that vacant units are associated with seasonal (non -permanent population) population. With a reported permanent population growth in 2009 and increasing homestead exemptions in 2009 on one hand and coinciding numbers of foreclosures and seasonal increase through ACS, it is equally possible that permanent population loss is temporary and due as much to the end of the housing bubble, foreclosures and rising unemployment, as it is due to a shift from permanent to seasonal residency. It is likely both conditions exist and are occurring. 'Housing 17 Technical document: July 2011 ; Mouroe Coun Com reheusl►re p U to 7.2.4 Age of Housing [Rule 9J-5.010 (1)(a) F.A.GJ At the time of the 2000 Census, 19.2 percent of the housing stock is estimated to be 30 or more years old, or built before 1970. The number of structural problems generally reflects housing conditions and usually increases with the age of the housing stock This is illustrated on Table 7.12. Table 7.12 - Distribution of Housing Units by Age, 2000 Note: Will be updated with Census 2010 upon data release scheduled forApril 2011. e Remainder of This PaVe Intendonally Left R Housing 18 Technical Document July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update 7.2.5 Price/Rent Characteristics and Affordability [Rule 9J-5 010 (1)(a) FAC-) The availability of affordable housing is one of the most challenging issues facing Florida - and around the nation. A few of the barriers to creating affordable housing in the County are the high cost of land; a limited number of affordable ROGO allocations; and competition for a finite amount of subsidies. Affordable housing may be defined as the "ability" of a household to purchase a home. As defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), affordable housing Is one which cost does not exceed 30 percent of a household's gross income. If it exceeds 30 percent of the households gross income the household is considered to be cost burdened. There are two major factors that define whether a dwelling unit is affordable: household income and cost. Two primary affordable housing indicators are the affordability index and the number of cost burdened households. The affordability index measures the ability of the median income household in an area to afford a median priced house. In addition to the median income and median house price in an area, the index construction requires the current mortgage interest rate, assumptions about the down payment required to purchase the median price dwelling unit, and the maximum percentage of household income that can be spent on housing. An index of 100 indicates the typical (median) family in the area has sufficient income to purchase a single- family dwelling unit selling at the median price. The Shimberg Center for Housing Studies developed an affordability index for all Florida counties in a 2004 study. Median house prices were calculated from the Florida Department of Revenue county property appraiser datasets. Median household incomes come from the 2000 decennial US Census. Although important, median sale prices in a county or Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSAs) do not alone determine housing affordability. A second important factor is the income of area residents. The highest household incomes in Florida are generally in the coastal counties that also contain many high priced housing units. However, median household incomes and single-family house prices in an area are only moderately correlated, which can lead to significant differences in housing affordability across counties and MSAs. According to the Shimberg Center study, the County has the lowest affordability index with the least affordable homes. However, the affordability index focuses only on the average incomes and housing prices and does not consider the lowest income householders that would typically rent. Cost burden is another method of evaluating housing affordability and probably more reliable because it accounts for all income including those that would buy and those that would rent As mentioned, a household that is cost burdened is one that is paying more than 30 percent of their gross income in housing cost (30 percent is established by HUD as a parameter for an affordable home). Housing cost includes taxes and insurance for owners and utility costs for owners and renters. The Shimberg Study concluded that while 20 percent of owners in the State of Florida are cost burdened, 41.6 percent of renters are Housing 19 Tecbnical Document: luly 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive plan Update cost burdened or paying more than 30 percent of their income towards housing cost. The cost burdened topic in the County is further elaborated in Section 7.2.7 "Cost to Income RatW As defined in Sec 101-1, of the MCLDC, affordable housing is considered to be one which: 1) Meets all applicable requirements of HUD minimum property standards as to room sizes, fixtures, landscaping and building materials, when not in conflict with applicable laws of the county, and 2) Monthly rent, not including utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of that amount which represents either 50 percent (very low income) or 80 percent (low income) or 100 percent (median income) or 120 percent (moderate income) of the monthly median adjusted household income for the County. 3) Affordable Rental Housing • Very low income - a rental dwelling unit which monthly rent, not including utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of the amount that represents 50 percent of the monthly median adjusted household income for the county. • Low income- a rental dwelling unit which monthly rent, not including utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of the amount that represents 80 percent of the monthly median adjusted household income for the county. • Median income - a rental dwelling unit which monthly rent, not including utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of the amount that represents 100 percent of the monthly adjusted median household income for the county. • Moderate income - a rental dwelling unit which monthly rent, not including utilities, does not exceed 30 percent of the amount that represents 120 percent of the monthly median adjusted household income for the county. 4) Owner Occupied Affordable Housing • Very Low Income - a dwelling unit occupied only by a household whose total household income does not exceed 50 percent of the median monthly household income for the county. • Low Income - a dwelling unit occupied only by a household whose total household income does not exceed 80 percent of the median monthly household income for the county. Housing 20 Technical Document: July 2011 In Monroe Cou!y Comprehensive Plan Uvdate Median Income - a dwelling unit occupied only by a household whose total household income does not exceed 100 percent of the median monthly household income for the county. Moderate Income - a dwelling unit occupied only by a household whose total household income does not exceed 160 percent of the median monthly household income for the county. The County's low paying jobs in the service and tourism industry have failed to keep up with the increasing housing cost even before the recession. Typically, the moderate income range for qualifying for affordable housing assistance is 120 percent of the area median income; however, since the housing prices in the County are disproportionately high, the County and the State allows households making 160 percent of the area median income to qualify for affordable housing assistance (House Bill 1363 Ch. 2006-69, s. 27, Laws of Fla.) for home purchase. z.5.3 He yin . � � F As seen in Table 7.13, the median value of specified owner -occupied units, for the County as a whole, according to the 2000 Census, was $241,200. This is an increase of nearly 60 percent from 1990. As seen in the ACS for 2006-2008, the 2000 median house value increased by 154 percent in 2008 ($613,900). According to the Shimberg Institute, the average home sales price in 2009 declined to $572,607. The 2009 decline in selling price reflects the economic recession. Table 7.13 - HIMric Medlisin HousLing Value for Mumve County 1970 $16,500 1980 $62,200 276.9% 1990 $151,2001 143.1% 2000 124' _2nn ca co/. zuuu $613,9001 154.5% 2009 $572,607 -6.7% Source: U.S. Census, 1970,1980,1990, 2000, American Community Survey 2006-2008, and Shimberg Center for 2009 average home sales price. According to HUD data, the County's area median income in 2010 was $68,400. Table 7.14 depicts the household income levels qualifying for affordable housing based on assumed family size for households with a single income provider working 40 hours for both renter and owner housing. This is the best available data and is provided by the County Growth Management Division. Housing 21 Technical Document: July 2011 N Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Table 7.14 - QMH4rhW incomes for Single Income Provider (40 hours) Efficiency 11 Person $24,0851 $38,535 $48,169 $57,803 $77,070 1 bedroom 2 Persons $27,581 $44,129 $55,161 $66,194 $88,258 2 bedroom 3 Persons $30,811 $49,297 $61,622 $73,946 $981595 3 bedroom 4 Persons $34,200 $54,720 $68,007 $82,0801 $109,440 Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, MCLDC Sec 101-1 For a household comprised of adults related by marriage or domestic partnership registered with the County, only the highest 60 hours of the combined employment hours are counted, and considered to be 75 percent of the adjusted gross income. The income of dependents regardless of age is not counted in calculating a household's income (MCLDC Sec. 130.161). Income levels for domestic partnerships are illustrated on Table 7.15 and are the best available data as provided by the County Growth Management Division. Table 7.15 - Qualifying Incomes for Married or Domestic Partnership Households (60 hours) Efficiency 1 Person $32,1121 $51,380 $64,225 $77,070 $102,760 1 bedroom 2 Persons $36,774 $58,838 $73,548 $88,258 $117,677 2 bedroom 3 Persons $41,081 $65,729 $82,162 $98,594 $131,459 3 bedroom 4 Persons $45,600 $72.960 $91,200 $109,440 $145,9Z0 Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, MCLDC Sec.130.161 7 Area median income based on HUD. Housing 22 TechnicalDocument- July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensfve Plan Update To compute the monthly maximum rental rates, 30 percent of the household income is divided by 12 (months). Table 7.16 illustrates the maximum rental rates by income level in 2010 for single income providers. Table 7.16 - Tenant Maximum RentalRates for S e income Provider Efficiency $602 1 $ 963 $1,2041 $1,445 1 bedroom $646 $1,033 $1,2921 $1,550 2 bedroom $772 $1,235 $1,543 $1,852 3 bedroom $883 $1,413 1 $1,766 $2,119 4 bedroom $990 $1,5841 $1,980 $2,376 Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2016 To compute the monthly maximum rental rates, 30 percent of the household Income is divided by 12 (months). Table 7.17 illustrates the maximum rental rates by income level in 2010 for married or domestic partnership households. Table 7.17 - Tenant Maximum Rental Rates for Married or Domestic PartnerjWp ;Households Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010. Maximum selling price for an affordable housing unit based on the 2010 median income of $68,400 Is illustrated in Table 7.18. As defined by the MCLDC 101-01, the maximum sales price, for an owner occupied affordable housing unit~ means a price not exceeding 3.75 times the annual median household income for the County for a one bedroom or efficiency unit, 4.25 times the annual median household income for the County for a two bedroom unit, and 4.75 times the annual median household income for the County for a three or more bedroom unit. Housing 23 Technical Document: July 2011 N Comprehensive Plan YeLate Table 7.18 -Maximum Selling Price for Affordable Units In 2010 Efficiency/1 Bedroom 3.75 $256,500 2 Bedroom 4.25 $290,700 3 Bedroom 4.75 $324,900 Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010. For a median income households made up of two person income providers related by marriage or domestic partnership, the income would be approximately $73,548, as seen in Table 7.1S. For this household, it would be difficult to purchase a market rate home. Typically, the ability to purchase a dwelling unit is calculated by the household income multiplied by three. Therefore, the same household of two income providers would be able to afford a $220,644 market rate home. However, the average market rate price in 2009 was recorded at $572,607 .able 7.13). This is an affordability gap of 351 thousand dollars. Affordability gap is calculated by subtracting the housing price ($572,607) by the purchase ability ($220,644). If the same family were to be qualified to purchase an affordable dwelling unit, and were to purchase efficiency or 1 bedroom apartment, the selling price would have to be no greater than $275,806, applying the 3.75 multiplier as seen in Table 7.18. As required by Rule Chapter 9j-5 F.A.C., the distribution of specified owner -occupied units within the County and the median value trends are shown in Table 7.19 and are based on unincorporated County data acquired an April 2010 from the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse (FHDC) The FHDC provides public access to data about housing in Florida. Data for unincorporated County was acquired from the FHDC and is based on 2000 Census data. Table 7.19 - Distribution of a fed Housing by Value, 2000 Note: Excluding mobile homes Housing 24 Technical Document: July 2011 FS In --- Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update The 2000 data in Table 7.19 indicates that less than one percent of units were valued below $50,000 according to the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse; less than five percent were valued below $99,999; approximately 94 percent of units were valued at over $100,000. When comparing owner occupied housing cost to the 2000 median value, there were approximately 42.9 percent of the owner occupied housing that fall below the median value ($241,200). As a comparison, the distribution of specified owner -occupied units within the County and the median value trends for 1990, are as reported in the "Housing Element" of the Technical Document of the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted in1995, are shown in Table 7.20. It is important to note that at the time the 1990 data was collected, the City of Marathon and the Village of Islamorada were not incorporated; therefore unincorporated 1990 totals will be higher when compared to unincorporated 2000 totals. Table 7.20 - Distribution of owner -Occupied Housing by Value,1 Table 7.S of the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan taken from the U.S. Census Bureau 199o. Note: This excludes mobile homes. e Remainder of Th& Page fntentlonaUy Left Blank Housing 25 Technical Document: July 2011 N Mouroe County Compmheusive plan Update Table 7.21 and Table 7.23, presents the distribution of specified owner -occupied housing cost in the County by mortgage status and non -mortgage status for year 2000. According to the FDCH, in 2000, about 57.1 percent of renters paid between $1,000 and $1,999 per month. Only 8.7 percent of the owners with non -mortgage status paid more than $1,000 per month. About 45.7 percent of non -mortgage status owners paid between $400 and $699 per month. It is important to mention that mortgage status and non -mortgage status are collected from a 1-in-6 sample and weighted to represent the total population and thus totals will not equal the 11,334 unit shown in Table 7.9. Table 7.21- Mortgage Status d Selected Monthly - er Costs8 Unincorporated Monroe County, 2000 As a comparison, the 1990 mortgage status and selected monthly owner costs for Monroe County, are as reported in the "Housing mement" of the Technical Document of the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted in 1995, are shown in Table 7.23. it is important to note that at the time the 1990 data was collected, the City of Marathon and the Village of islamorada were not incorporated. 8 Selected monthly owner costs, such as mortgage payments and utilities, are a measure of the cost of homeownership. When combined with income, selected monthly owner costs offer an excellent measure of affordability and excessive shelter costs. 9 Sample data or collected from a 1-in-6 sample and weighted to represent the total population. Housing 26 Technical Document: July 2011 N. Monroe minty Comprehensive Plan Update Fable 7.22 - Mortgage S d SelectedMonthly Owner Cods Monroe County, 1990 Source: -Housing Element- of the Technical Document Table 7.6 of the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Table 7..23 - Non MortgagedStatus and Selected Monthly Owner Co Unincorporated Monroe County, 2000 1O Sample data or collected from a 1-in-6 sample and weighted to represent the total population. it will not equate to the housing unit count in Table 7S. Housing 27 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe rehensive Pin Up&te The FHDC provides the distribution of units by contract rent Contract rent is the monthly rent agreed to, or contracted for, regardless of any furnishings, utilities, or services that may be included. The distribution of specified renter -occupied units is illustrated in Table 7.24. Table 7.24 - Dkb1butlon of Renter Occupied units by Contract Rent Range, 2000 As a comparison, the 1990 mortgage status and selected monthly owner costs for Monroe County, are as reported in the 'lousing Element" of the Technical Document component of the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted in 1995, are shown in Table 7.25. It is important to note that at the time the 1990 data was collected, the City of Marathon and the Village of Islamorada were not incorporated. Therefore, 1990 numbers of units will be higher. Table 7.25 - Distribution of Renter occupied Units by Contract Rent Range,1990 99 681 52.0% 48.0% Total 121578],11 Source: "Housing Elemene of the Technical Document, 7.7, 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. "includes No Cash Rent As a comparison, It is evident from Table 7.24 and Table 7.25, that the percent distribution of rental price below $500 has deceased for more than half from 1990 to 2000. In 1990 rental price below $500 distribution was 52.0 percent and 14.5 percent in 2000. Housing 28 Technical Document: July 2011 u, Mouroe County Cozagehensive Plan Update N 7.2.6 Cost to Income Rados [Rule 91-5.010 (1)(a) RA.C.J 7. -,6.j_ Rent -to -ins According to the HUD, the threshold for affordable housing is a rent -to -income ratio of 30 percent In other words, when gross monthly housing cost exceeds 30 percent of monthly household income, the household is considered to be paying too much for housing versus other essential living expenses. This is known as a household that is cost burdened. Based on the 30 percent cost burdened threshold, the general trend is that the lower the household income range (less than $10,000 on Table 7.26), the higher the degree of being cost burdened. 92 percent of households making an income below 10,000 are cost burdened. In the other spectrum, at the income range of $75,000 or more, the rate of households that were cost burdened was only 6.3 percent This trend is consistent with the exception of income range $50,000 - $74,999, where all renter households were cost burdened. Renter households, with annual incomes below $34,999, accounted for 59 percent of total renter households, but represented 75 percent of households being cost burdened. Of the 3,310 renter household sample, 54.0 percent was cost burdened. These trends are depicted in Table 7.6. Table 7.26 - Rent -to -Income furRenter-Occupied Units, 11999 Note: Data will be updated once the Census 2010 is available, estimated to occur on April 2011. As a comparison, the 1989 Rent to Income for Renter -Occupied Units, are as reported in the "Housing Element" of the Technical Document component of the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as adopted in 1995, are shown in Table 7.27. The trend of the lower income being the most cost burdened when compared the 1999. However, renters at the various income ranges were less cost burdened back in 1989. Of the 11,183 renter households in 1989, 47.0 percent was cost burdened. This represents a five percent increase of cost -burdened renters in 1999. This restates the affordable housing need. Housing 29 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive plan Update Table 7.27- Rent -to -Income for Renter -Occupied Units,1989 ..wrwr crEwmi c rrwr oaten sum me u.J. Lensus lsUMau 199U. Based on the HUD threshold of households paying more than 30 percent of their income as being cost burdened, the same trend Is observed for owners. Lower income owner occupied households (with incomes below $10,000) were the most cost burdened at 92 percent. In contrast, at the $75,000 or more income range, 11.4 percent of households were cost burdened. Owner households with annual Incomes below $34,999 accounted for 29 percent of total owner occupied households, but represent 66 percent of households which were cost burdened. 2,356 of the 7,412 owner households or 32 percent of the owner households were cost burdened. Owner -to -income ratios are shown on Table 7.28. Table 7.28 - Monthly Omer Cost by income,1999 When comparing renter cost to income (Table 7.26) and owner cost to income (Table 7.26), it is evident that the lowest income households are the most cost burdened, more so for renters. Also, all renters at the $50,000 - $74,999 income range are cost burdened in comparison to only a quarter of those who own in that same income range. It is evident that renters are in more need of affordable housing assistance. "Wi"mg 30 Technical document: July 2011 Monroe � Comprehensive Plan update 7.2.7 Structural Condition of Housing Stock [Rule 9J-S.010 (1)(c) F.A.C.J Substandard housing is defined as units without complete kitchen facilities; units lacking some or all plumbing facilities (hot and cold piped water, flush toilets, no bathtub or shower); or units designated as deteriorating or dilapidated because of other structural deficiencies. Another characteristic of substandard housing are those that are overcrowded. Housing conditions are available for those lacking complete plumbing facilities, complete kitchens, central heat and over crowdedness and are illustrated in Table 7.29. According to FHDC, which provides the latest available detail concerning structural conditions of housing, there were 139 units or about 0.6 percent of the unincorporated County's housing stock that lacked complete plumbing and could, therefore, be considered "substandard". Other factors, such as the lack of complete kitchen facilities, indicate a substandard unit, these units account for 0.8 percent of the total housing inventory. Approximately 6.1 percent of the County's occupied housing units had more than 1.01 persons per room. Although these conditions are the norm for accessing substandard housing, the County may consider conducting an onsite survey to truly depict the severity of deteriorating and substandard structures. In particular, given that the housing stock is aging as indicated on `fable 7.12. Table 7.29 - Inventory of Housing by Specified Condition, 2000 Source: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse accessed on April 1st 2010 Will be updated with Census 2010 upon data release scheduled for April 2011. Me Remainder of This page intmtjonaMy Left 81ank Housing 31 'technical Document: July 2011 MonrW County Comprehensive Plan Update Z2.8 Subsidized Housing Developments [Rule 9J-5.010(1)(d) F.A.C.] Below is a list of programs that deal with the provision of subsidized and affordable housing. ZZU11_ml P�tr�nr�nrmc e The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): This program has been in existence since 1974. The program is a significant source of funds for affordable housing; however, this is not the sole focus of such grants. CDBG funds can be used for a variety of community development initiatives, including affordable housing construction, home repair assistance for existing low-income homeowners, and economic development initiatives designed to spur business investment and economic growth in distressed neighborhoods. Funding is awarded according to a formula that attempts to quantify the amount of need in a community compared with other communities, using several economic and demographic measures. Communities receiving grants are required to solicit and encourage citizen participation, particularly from the proposed beneficiaries, In developing a final plan for using the funds. Home Investment Partnerships (HOME): This is a block grant program administered by HUD designed to provide flexible funding support for affordable low-income housing in the affordable housing solutions for low-income families. HOME funds can be used to acquire and renovate deteriorated properties or construct new housing for rent or sale. The funds can also be used for down payment assistance grants to individual homebuyers, as well as to other programs. The beneficiaries of HOME -funded programs must have incomes below 80 percent of the HUD -determined area median family income, and most uses of HOME funds have more specific income guidelines. The flexibility of the HOME program is designed to empower communities to find the best available uses for the money, and requires significant interagency cooperation. HOME funds must be matched with a 25 local contribution, which can take the form of cash from municipal bond issues or donated labor and construction materials from the private sector. Another form of local contribution can be vacant or abandoned properties -donated by private donors or the city -which after HOME -funded renovation and/or construction, would be sold to low-income homebuyers. Additionally, jurisdictions receiving HOME funding are required to commit at least 15 percent of funding to projects which will be owned or developed by experienced, local, community -based nonprofit organizations called Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) by HUD, but often known as Community Development Corporations (CDCs). HOME -funded housing is required to remain affordable for low-income residents for at least 5 to 20 years, depending on the type of project and proportion of funding provided by HOME. Hong 32 Technical Document: July 2011 N Monroe EmEty Comprehensive Plan Update • The American Dream Down Payment Initiative: This is a corollary program to HOME designed specifically to aid low-income first-time homebuyers with funds for closing costs and a down payment. Families meeting the criteria are eligible for up to $10,000 or 6 percent of the purchase price (whichever is greater) of a home. Some of the funds may also be used for remedying health hazards such as lead -based paint in the home prior to occupancy. The ADDI program is administered in conjunction with the HOME program, but allocations are figured separately, and different rules apply. The Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA): This program provides special housing assistance for low-income persons diagnosed with HIV or AIDS. Assistance ranges from short-term rental assistance aimed at preventing homelessness, to ongoing longer -term rental assistance, to the acquisition, construction, and provision of supporting housing, which provides integrated services for health care, mental health, chemical dependency, and general case management. According to HUD, HOPWA funds are an important catalyst for partnerships; on average, approximately $2 is leveraged for every $1 provided by HOPWA. Baseline HOPWA funds are awarded based on a statutory formula program, but additional funds are available based on a competitive grant process awarding additional funds to highly successful or innovative programs. • The Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG): This program provides federal funding for homeless shelters through HUD grants to local governments, which then disburse the grant monies to local nonprofits. ESG funds are required to be locally matched dollar for dollar. The matched funds are most likely to be found in the form of private fundraising by the recipient nonprofit organizations, but can also include other federal, state, and local grants as well as in -kind donations of real estate and volunteer time. ESG funds are also granted to state governments, but different rules apply. • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FERIA): FE A provides grants and assistance programs to local governments, such as the Disaster -Specific Assistance Program; Hazard -Related Grants and Assistance Programs, and Non -Disaster Programs. • Section 8 Voucher Program: A voucher may be either "project -based" (where its use is limited to a specific apartment complex; public housing agencies (PHAs) may reserve up to 20 percent of its vouchers) or "tenant -based" (where the tenant is free to choose a unit in the private sector, is not limited to specific complexes). Under the voucher program, individuals or families with a voucher find and lease a unit (either in a specified complex or in the private sector) and pay a portion of the rent (based on income, but generally no more than 30 percent (40 percent being the maximum at time of lease -up) of the family's income). Housing 33 Technical Document: July 2011 County Cram prehensive Plan Update • State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP): State housing initiatives partnership SHIP is the first -and only -permanently funded, state housing program in the nation to provide funds directly to local governments to increase affordable housing opportunities in their communities. The program channels 69 percent of the documentary stamp tax revenues created by the Sadowski Act directly to counties and entitlement cities in Florida on a noncompetitive basis. Designed as an incentive for the formation of public -private partnerships for building, rehabilitating and preserving affordable housing, the SHIP program provides a financial means to develop and Implement housing programs that are locally designed. SHIP funds may be used to provide emergency repairs to very low, low and moderate income households following a natural disaster as declared by the President of the United States, Governor of the State of Florida or by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. Funds can be used to purchase emergency supplies to weatherproof damaged home; interim repairs to avoid further damage; tree and debris removal required to make the individual housing unit habitable, construction of wells or repair of existing wells where public water is not available; post disaster assistance with non-insured repairs; and soft costs required to process assistance applications. The program is only implemented after a natural disaster. SHIP funds may be also used as part of the local contribution for programs that construct multi -family special needs rental housing. The SHIP funds that are used in these types of projects will be in the form of a deferred payment loan for 15 years at a one percent to five percent interest rate, depending upon cash flow of the project • State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) Program: SAIL stimulates production of affordable, multi- and single-family rental housing for very low-income individuals and families in Florida. SAIL is a development incentive program, which leverages state loan funds, local government contributions, developer equity, and private bond financing. The State Apartment Incentive Loan program (SAIL) provides low -interest loans on a competitive basis to affordable housing developers each year. This money often serves to bridge the gap between the development's primary financing and the total cost of the development SAIL dollars are available to individuals, public entities, not -for -profit or for -profit organizations that propose the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily units affordable to very low income individuals and families. • Florida Homeownership Assistance Program (HAP): Down payment Assistance Loan Program: This helps individuals and families with low incomes purchase their own homes by providing $2,500 in 0 percent interest, non -amortizing, second mortgage loans for down payments and closing costs. The following are: 11"Of Ships and Sails: Affordable Housing Financing Programs In Florida" (Foresight, Fall 1997) Noosing 34 Technical Document July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Permanent Loan Program - This provides 0 percent interest, non -amortizing, second mortgage loans covering 25 percent of the purchase price of a home. These loans assist qualified borrowers with down payment/closing costs and reduce the principal on their first mortgage. Construction Loan Program -A nonprofit developer or sponsor is eligible to borrow the lesser of either the total funds available in an application cycle, or 33 percent of the cost of the project to construct or substantially rehabilitate a minimum of four homes. At least 30 percent of the units must be set aside for low-income borrowers and 30 percent for very low-income borrowers. e Predevelopment Loan Program (PLP): This program provides financial assistance for predevelopment costs, site acquisition, and development of land for housing affordable to individuals or families with very low and low incomes. Florida Affordable Housing Guarantee Program: This program provides guarantees on taxable loans and tax-exempt loans to stimulate innovative, private sector lending for multi- and single-family affordable housing. 1. Low -Income Rental Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program: This program gives developers federal tax credits in exchange for acquisition and substantial rehabilitation for substantially rehabilitating or for new construction of rental housing projects for low or very low income rental housing units must be set aside for individuals or families. 2. Multi -Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program: This program uses taxable and tax- exempt bonds to provide below -market interest rate loans to non -profits and for profits for developers of apartment units that set aside at least 20 percent of the units for households earning 50 percent or less of the AMI or forty percent for households earning 60 percent of the ANIL 3. Single -Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds (MRB) Program: This uses the proceeds from mortgage revenue bonds from statewide qualified lending institutions to offer below -market mortgage loans to first-time home buyers with low, moderate and or middle incomes. (FAC Rule 67-25) There are various County agencies with a role in affordable housing development'2; these are: IY Monroe County Division of Housing and Community Development, 2007, Monroe County Affordable and Workforce Housing. Housing 35 Tecknical Document: July 2011 N Monroe County Comprehensive pan update Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department: This Department works with property owners to develop and preserve Affordable Housing in unincorporated Monroe County. This department recommends and provides Comprehensive Plan amendments and MCLDCs relating to affordable housing. Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA): The MCLA is a land acquisition agency created pursuant to Section 2-397 of the MCLDC, Section 380.0661 of the Florida Statutes, and the Florida Keys and Key West Area of Critical State Concern designations. The agency is empowered to acquire and dispose of property for a range of public purposes, including recreation, affordable housing, environmental protection, and the protection of private property rights. As of September 30, 2009, the Monroe County Land Authority has expended $21 million on site acquisition, $28.5 million for affordable housing (Source: MCLA). Monroe County Housing Authority: The Housing Authority is responsible for low income and affordable rental apartments throughout the County, and oversees the SHIP program which provides 2nd mortgages to income -qualified home buyers. As per the Monroe County Housing Authority, a variety of housing programs provide for subsidized housing in unincorporated Monroe County. These programs include State Apartment Incentive Loan Program (SAIL), Monroe County Land Authority Program (MCLA), Low Income Tax Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), Federal Emergency Management Agency Program (FEMA) and other U.S. Housing and Community Development programs (HUD). A total of 470 dwelling units are subsidized by several programs in unincorporated Monroe County, which are listed in Table 730: and 7.31. A total of 85 units are scheduled to be built. All of the units and developments listed in this section are rental. e Remainder of This Page lntentfonaW Left Blank nousing 36 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe CmitComp rehensive Plan 9 to Fable 7.30 - Subsidized Housing Developments, 2010 (a) To be built FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency MCLA - Monroe County Land Authority UHTC - Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program SAIL - State Apartment Incentive Loan Program HUD - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 federal funds are used to subsidize housing through cash vouchers in lieu of rent payments, loan assistance programs, rental rehabilitation aid, and other general assistance programs. A total of 143 dwelling units in the County are funded through this program, as shown in Table 7.31. Table 7.31- Section 8 Subsidized Housft Developments, 2010 Section 8 Choice Vouchers HUD 56 Lower Keys Section 8 Choice Vouchers HUD 87 —Upper Ke s Total 143 - Source: Monroe CountvHousinQAnthnrtty_ 2n10 The process of receiving a building permit in Monroe County is a competitive process. ROGO is a tool utilized by the County to control growth throughout the Keys. However, additional consideration is given to affordable housing permit applications. ROGO is a uousing 37 Technical Document July 2011 Monroe Et= Comprehensive Flan to point based system that allows applicants applying for a new residential building permit to compete against other applicants for the limited number of allocations issued each year. The number of allocations available is determined through the adoption of an administrative rule on the State level. The number of allocations is based on the progress Monroe County has made toward achieving state set goals such as a central wastewater system being available keys wide. The total number of available allocations is split among the three subareas of Monroe County. The Upper Keys, Lower Keys and the Big Pine/No Name Key subareas. Each applicant competes against the other applicants located within the same subarea. There is one exception to this process, applicants for affordable housing. Affordable housing applicants compete against all applicants for affordable housing permits keys wide. Allocations are awarded each quarter in each subarea with the exception of Big Pine Key and No Name Key where allocations are awarded annually. 7.2 9 Group Homes [Rule 91-5 010 (1)(e) FA C:J The Florida Department of Children & Families licenses one group home within the County. It is a Residential Child Caring Agency in Key West, Florida, with a capacity of six children, ages 11 to 17. ZZ10 Mobile Home Parks 0 [Rule 91--5.010 (1)(f) FA C] The vast majority of mobile home parks are located on the Municipalities. An account for both unincorporated and incorporated mobile home parks as accessed through the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation file name mhmailings.csv is provided in Table 7.32. A total of 1,378 units are located in the mobile home parks in the count as a whole. N e Remainder of This PVe IntenuonaW Leftglank Doffing 38 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe 9un 0 A Comprehensive Plan Update ■ Tale 7.32 - Moblle Hume Perks d-aacu uuuugn nup://wwwanynonamcense.con/dbpr/sto/Me_dowrdoad/public-records- CTMH.html on February 24, 2011. Note: Approved or acknowledged mobile bome parks and owners. Terminated, rejected or withdrawn projects are not included Housing 39 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe Coun Cone pensive Wan Update .3 Housing Demand Analysis [Rule 91-5. 10 (2) F.A.G The housing demand component of the Comprehensive Plan update is of primary importance in order to plan for the needed housing stock given population growth. This element derives from population estimates and projections as required per [Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e) FAC). Population projections methodology and details are explained in Chapter2.0 Future Land Use Element Housing Demand is defined as the needed number of dwelling units that will accommodate population growth. Given the County's location and the economic climate, housing affordability has become an increasing problem. This section also provides the data inventory necessary to support the policy recommendations given the population estimates trend housing need and also addresses some of the issues related to affordable housing demand and supply. Only unincorporated County data is presented in this analysis. 7.3.1 Population Projections and Approach [Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e) F.A.0 and Rule 9J-5.010(2)(a) F.A.CJ The Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections form the basis for household need calculations. Population is identified according to LKPA, UKPA and MKPA. The methodology 0 derives from a permanent population13 forecast and a seasonal population14 forecast at the County level. The sum of permanent and seasonal forecast Is referred to as the functional population for the unincorporated County as a whole. With the exception the housing demand analyses are based upon projects functional population.is Affordable housing demand is based upon only the permanent population and permanent households because the County's regulations require those obtaining affordable allocations to be permanent residents. The permanent population projection series is based on the latest published data by the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), published in March 2010, for permanent population estimates. In as much as ROGO has been in place since 1993, BEBR population projections reflect a growth trend constrained by ROGO's implementation. This means permanent population growth projections implicitly assume the continuation of the ROGO constraint and the effects of its implementation. The seasonal population series is based on the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) data series from August 24, 2004. This series includes estimates of seasonal residences, recreational vehicles, hotel/motel, camps, boat live aboards, mobile home, and other. The DCA required the projections herein to use the FKAA series for the purposes of estimating the seasonal population component, with appropriate updates to the methodology. 13 Permanent population is referred to as the residents whose primary place of residency is in the County. 14 Seasonal population is referred to as the residents whose primary place of residence outside of the County and their residences are non -homesteaded. 15 Functional population is the sum of permanent and seasonal population Housing 54 Technical Document- July 2011 (E) Monroe County comprehensive Plu Update The best available data suggest a loss in permanent population with likely replacement through an increase of seasonal residents. 7.3.2 Projected Number of 'ouseholds16 [Rule 9J-S.010 (2)(a) F.A.CJ Permanent population is one component of functional population. Loss of permanent population is thought to have occurred as a result of the recent recession, a rise in foreclosures, depletion of affordable housing and increased unemployment. Dearly 3,500 units have been foreclosed throughout the Keys since 2005. The rise in home prices and threat of hurricanes has also contributed to some permanent population loss. Losses associated with some of these conditions may be temporary, resulting in renewed growth after the recession. The ROGO based permanent population series is used as one component of the functional population. At the county level, for control totals, the DCA has recommended using the latest BEBR annual estimates and the BEBR Medium series population, published March 2010 for permanent population estimates. The BEBR annual population estimates for municipalities and unincorporated areas indicates permanent population fell in the Keys from 2006-2008, with some a return to growth evidenced in 2009. The effect of the short term decline Is to drive the long term population projections down. Thus, both recent history and future projections from BEBR suggest a downward trend in permanent population. The estimated average household size according to BEBR in 2009 was 2.2 persons per household. This estimate is used to project the number of permanent households out to 2030. The estimated number of households generated by permanent population from 2010 to 2030 is shown on Table 7.41. These projections reflect the ROGO restriction on growth. It is projected that permanent population households will decline by 1.8 percent from 2010 (16,076) to 2030 (15,786). 16 As defined by the US Census, a household includes all the people who occupy a dwelling unit as their usual place of residence. Dwelling units or housing is referred to as the structure which may be occupied or vacant Housing 55 Technical Documents July 2011 ■ Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Uptiate Table 7.41 - Permanent Household Estimates and Projections, 2010-2030 2010 19,871 1,061 14,430 "3S,696 2015 20,061 1,071 14,564 16,225 0.93% 2020 19,880 1,061 14,433 35,374 16,079 -0,90% 2025 19,699 1,052 14,301 35,052 15,933 -0.91% 2030 19,518 1,042 1 14,170 34,730 15,786 -0.92% Household Percent Chan a from 2010 to 2030 -1.8% Source: Fishldnd & Associates, Inc, February 2011, Unincorporated Monroe County Population projection. BEBR, 2009, Number of Households and Average Household Size in Florida: April 1, 2009. Seasonal population is another component of functional population. There is evidence of population shifting from permanent to seasonal. For instance, of all the new single family housing growth in Monroe County since 1999, nearly 70 percent has been in non - homesteaded units. Most likely, this is a combination of both growth in seasonal population as well as permanent population loss. Loss of permanent population may cause once occupied units to become non -homesteaded. In addition, a comparison of the ACS 2008 and the Census 2000 data, illustrated that the number of seasonal units had risen. The estimated number of households generated by seasonal population from 2010 to 2030 is shown on Table 7.42. Seasonal population numbers are derived from the FKAA, seasonal series. Seasonal numbers include estimates of seasonal residences, recreational vehicles, hotel/motel, camps, boat live aboards, mobile home, and other. It is estimated that seasonal households have a higher person per household or household size due to the increasing size of newly built units. Therefore, the figure of 2.7 persons per household is used to calculate the number of seasonal households and is supported by the FKAA methodology. It is projected that households for seasonal population will increase by 10.7 percent from 2010 (13,126) to 2030 (14,529). Seasonal households are expected to increase at an average rate of 2.57 percent every five years during the planning period. 17 Esdmates for permanent households are based on the BEBR estimated average household size of 2.2 as of April 1, 2009. Housing S6 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe +c ►aty Comps heasive Plan Update Table 7.42 - Seasonal Household Estlinates and Projections, 2010-2030 2010 1 19,768 1122 35,440 13126 -- *-4,55 2015 20,120 1141 36,067 13,358 1.77% 2020 20 712 1173 37120 13 748 2.92% 2025 21304 1204 38,173 14,138 2.84% 2030 21,896 1236 16 095 H32E27Percent Chan a from 2010 to 210.7% Source: Fishldnd & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections Functional population is the sum of seasonal and permanent population estimates and form the basis for this analysis; however, only when referring to affordable housing permanent population and household numbers. As seen in Table 7.43, the 2010 estimated population for unincorporated Monroe County is 70,808 (2010) and by 2030 it is projected to increase by 3,149 additional persons. This is an increase of 157.5 persons per year through the twenty year planning horizon. As illustrated in Table 7.43, the number of households for the estimated 2010 functional population (29,202) is projected to increase by 1,113 households (3.8 percent) in 2030 to 30,315. Table 7.43 - Functional Household Estimates d Projections, 2010-2030 2010 39 645 2.183 28,980 70,8081 29,202 -- 2015 40181 2,212 29,370 71,763 29,584 1.31% 2020 40,592 2,234 29,668 72,494 29,827 0.82% 2025 41003 2 256 29 966 73,225 30,071 0.82% 2030 41,414 2,278 30 65 73,957 30,315 0.81% Household Percent Change from 2010 to 2030 3.8% Source: Fishidnd & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections BEBR February 2010, Number of Households and Average Household Size in Florida: April 1, 2009 1e The number of seasonal households is based on seasonal population projection from the FKAA. The FKAA estimates were originally based on the Monroe County Population Estimates and Forecast 1990-2015. The average household size of 2.7 is used to estimate and project the number of household. 19 Functional households is the sum of seasonal and permanent households Housing 57 Technical Document- July 2011 _ Monroe qnM Comprehensive Plan U date It is important to mention that while permanent population decreases at an average rate of less than one percent every five years, seasonal population increases at an average rate of 2.57 percent every five years; resulting in an obvious shift in population from permanent to seasonal. Overall, functional population or total population for the unincorporated County will increase at an average rate of less than one percent, every five years, in the twenty year planning period. 7.3 3 Projected Number of Households by Size [Rule 91--5.010 (2)(a) F.A.CJ In order to obtain the estimated and projected household by size the Shimberg Center of Affordable Housing (SCAN) database was assessed. The SCAR creates a set of population projections based on BEBR estimates, which are then divided into households. Then the SCAR allocates households across size and projects them by assuming the year 2000 proportions across the entire planning horizon. For the purpose of this analysis, SCAH percentage allotment is used in combination with the unincorporated County functional population projections to calculate the number household by size. Therefore, the best available data are SCAH ratios in combination with the estimated functional household numbers. As seen in Table 7.44 by the year 2030, 72.5 percent of households will consist of one or two persons. The number of persons per household having five persons or more is estimated at 5.6 percent for the same year. However, as explained in SeWon 7.3.2.2 Number of Households for Seasonal Population", it is estimated that seasonal households have a higher person per household or household size, due to the increasing size of newly built units. Fable 7.44 - Functional Population HOUSeholds by Sin, 2010.2030 Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of functional population households. 73.4 Projected Number of Households by Income [Rule 9J-5.010 (2)(a) F.A.CJ Household income is a critical factor when determining if a household would qualify for affordable housing assistance. In order to obtain the estimated and projected household by Housing S8 Technical Document: Judy 2011 Monroe Coon Compmhensive Plan updgte income, the Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (AHNA) of the Shimberg Center of Affordable Housing (SCAH) was evaluated. The SCAH creates a set of population projections based on BEBR estimates, which are then divided into households. Then the SCAH allocated households across income groups and projects them by assuming the year 2000 proportions across the entire planning horizon. For the purpose of this analysis, SCAH percentage allotment is used in combination with the functional unincorporated County population projections to calculate the number of households by income. Household by income is a two-part analysis. The first analysis is prepared for functional (total) households as an illustration of unincorporated Countywide household, thereby including seasonal and permanent households. In order to illustrate the number of households that would qualify for affordable housing assistance, the second analysis is exclusive to permanent households. It is important to mention that the SCAH definition of "moderate income" groups does not parallel that of the County. Moderate income is emphasized since households at this income range or below are the households qualifying for affordable housing assistance. The SCAH classifies income groups in the following manner: • Extremely Low income - households making 0-30 percent of AMI • Very Low Income - households making 30.1-50 percent of AMI • Low Income - households making 50.1-80 percent of the AMI • Moderate Income - households making 80.01-120 percent of the AMI • Above Moderate Income - households making over 120 percent of the AMI In contrast, as indicated in Section 7.2.5.2 'Monroe County Affordable Housing Defined", moderate incomes are the households whose total income does not exceed 120 percent of the area median income (for renters) and households whose total income does not exceed 160 percent of the median income of the County (for owners). With the County definition of moderate income, in particular for owners, it is not possible to determine which households will be making up to 160 percent of the area median income, given that SCAH lumps into the "above moderate income" those in the 121 to 160 percentage of the area median income. Therefore, some households in the above moderate income range would qualify for assistance but it is not possible to determine how many. Table 7.45 shows the estimated and projected functional households by income from 2010 to 2030. For the year 2010, 60.9 percent of the total households in the unincorporated County are estimated to have incomes in the moderate income range or below (120 percent of less as defined by the SCAH). Conversely, households in the above moderate income range (120 percent or more of the area median income) is 39.1 percent. For the year 2030, the percentage of households making below the moderate range increases by 1.5 percent. This may Indicate that more households could become cost burdened. This income analysis illustrates where households for the unincorporated County, as a whole, Housing 59 Technical Document July 2011 Monroe County Compr ehenslve plan Update fall in relationship to the various income groups. This analysis is not meant for the purpose of drawing conclusions on affordable housing need. Table 7.45 - FuncdonW Population Estimated and PrOJected Households by Income, 2010-2030 mm,emewl" 3,033 10.4% 1,207 10896 3,354 112% 3,427 11.4% 3,497 11S% income 0-30% mm Very Low Income 3,345 11.5% 3,187 10.8% 3,328 21.2% 3,461 11S% 3,556 11.7% C30.1-SMAM Income 4, 15.7% 4,737 16.0% 4,822 16.1% 4.873 16.2% 4,929 16.3% 0.1.80% Nodemto Income 6,233% 6,908 23.4 6,907 23.2 6,909 23.0% 6,929 22.9% 80,01-12046 111,412939.1% Above M to 11,544 39.0% 11,426 38.31 11,401 37.9% 11,403 f 37.6% Inge (>120%of Source: Shim bag Center for Affordable Housing, 2010; Fishldnd & Associates, Inc, 2010, Unincorporated Monroe County Populcdon Prnjecdons Mote: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distn'bution of functional population households. Affordable housing programs are targeted to permanent residents whose income is between the extremely low income and moderate income ranges. In the County, in order to receive an ROGO allocation for an affordable unit, the occupants of that dwelling unit must be permanent residents. For these reasons, it is important to illustrate the number of permanent households by income levels to gauge the affordable housing need. Families with incomes below the moderate range are likely to be more limited in their ability to afford a house and other goods. As a result, extremely low income, very low Income, low income and moderate income (as defined by HUD and as used by the SCAH) are the income groups that would typically qualify for affordable housing assistance programs, The areas shaded in gray on Table 7.46 denote the number of permanent resident households that would qualify for affordable housing assistance based on permanent residents and as defined by HUD income classifications. It is then estimated that in the year 2010 about 60.9 percent of permanent residents will need affordable housing. As the planning period extends to 2030, the need for affordable housing will increase to 62.4 percent of the permanent resident households. This is indicative that for the greater population of permanent residents, housing affordability will continue to be an issue in the County. It is important, however, to restate that the County's moderate income range is set at 160 percent of the area median income, for owner occupied housing, therefore, the numbers in nuublug 60 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan update Table 7.46 underestimate the affordable housing need. In other words, some of the households in the above moderate income range (making above 120 percent of the area median income) would also qualify for affordable housing assistance, if they were home owners. Affordable housing need is further elaborated in Section 7.3.5.3 "Affordable Housing Need" The table below is meant to illustrate the number of households in the various income groups of the permanent population that would qualify for affordable housing assistance. It is not meant for estimating future median income. Table 7 6 - Permanent Population Estimated d Projected Households by Income, 2010-2030 munrue county ropuraaon Projections (Permanent population numbers) Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of functional population households. 7.3.5 Projected Housing Need (Rule 9J-5.010 (2)(b), F.A.cj To determine the number of dwelling units needed, the estimates must account for occupancy rates. The average hotel occupancy from 2003-2010 is 70 percent according to Smith Travel Research, Fishkind & Associates, Inc. This figure is used to generate the number of dwelling units for seasonal households. The occupancy rate for permanent households in 2008, according to the ACS, was 89.7 percent. This figure is used to derive the number of dwelling units needed for permanent Housing 61 Technical D ent: July 2011 Monroe County comprehensive Pin update population. Functional dwelling units, which is the sum of the seasonal and permanent dwelling units constitutes the basis for the housing need. An additional 1,680 dwelling units are needed during the next twenty years. The number of dwelling units needed by year 2030 is an additional 1,680 dwelling units. Table 7.47 - Functional Population Dwelling units Need far Unincorporated County 201.5-2030 2010 1 13,126 18,751 16,076 17 922 29 202 36 674 2015 13,358 19,083 16,225 18,089 29,584 37172 '� ti 2020 13,748 19,640 16, v 079 17,925 29,827 37,566��`"ati��u�' 12025 14,138 20,197 15.933 17,762 30.071 37,960 �(@ t,n�� 2030 14,529 20,755 15,786 17,599 30,315 38,354�„��Fis`v`d, Total Need - 2,004 Fishldnd & Associates, Inc., 2616, Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections, Smith Travel Research; American Community Survey 2008 It is important to differentiate between the numbers of dwelling units estimated in 2010 per population projections (36,674) and the number of dwelling units estimated to have been constructed by 2010 as accounted in Section 7.2.12 "Residential Construction Activity" (total of 26,283). The number of dwelling units documented in Section 7.2.12 "Residential Construction Activity", were based upon the Census 2000 unit count, adding the dwelling units that received a certificate of occupancy since April 1, 2000, subtracting the demolition of units and then adding the replacement units. This exercise should have brought the number of existing dwelling units up to date. However, the Census 2000 number may not be a true reflection of the number of dwelling units given the particular County housing characteristics. That is to say, the Census counts do not take into account the whole housing environment in the Florida Keys. There are non -docked boats that serve as shelters; recreational vehicles that serve as dwelling units located in camp grounds; and accessory dwelling units or secondary suites that are associated with the primary residence. All of these types of housing particular to the Florida Keys may not counted by the Census. On the other hand, the number of estimated dwelling units generated by the population projection in 2010 is different because it is driven by population projections and number of people per household. 20 Seasonal Dwelling units are households times the occupancy rate of 70 percent 21 Permanent dwelling units are households times the occupancy rate of 89.7 percent 22 Functional dwelling units are the sum of seasonal and permanent dwelling units. Housing 62 Technical Document: July 2011 ' Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update As stated previously, an additional 1,680 dwelling units will be needed for the anticipated functional population of the County by year 2030. The analysis below illustrates the location of the needed units in relationship to the three planning areas, where growth is anticipated. It is important to note that more (56.3 percent) of the dwelling units will be concentrated in the LKPA primarily because this planning area will experience the most growth in population. To meet this projection, in the twenty year horizon, an average of 84 new units per year will be needed for the unincorporated County as a whole. This is less than the number of yearly ROGO allocations of 197, as currently established in Article II, Section 138-24 of the MCLDC. Table 7.48 illustrates the number of dwelling units needed from 2015 to 2030 by planning area given functional population growth. Between the years 2020 to 2030 the dwelling unit need remains constant. Table 7AB - Functional Population HOUsft Need by PlannbgArea 2015-2030 Lower Ke s 279 222 222 222 945 Middle Keys 15 12 12 12 51 Upper Keys 204 160 160 160 684 Total 498 394 394 394 1680 Fishidnd & Associates, Inc, 2010, Unincorporated ;Monroe County Population Pro/ecdonr, Research; American Community Survey 2008 As previously discussed the availability of affordable housing is one of the most challenging Issues in Florida and around the nation. There is resounding documentation of the housing affordability problems the County is facing. As reported by the Monroe County Affordable and Workforce Housing Report, dated November 2007, the County is the most cost burdened small -county in the nation and has the most expensive single family homes and condominiums in the State. According to a recent Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, the proportion of Americans spending more than half their incomes (severely cost burdened) on housing increased from 12 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2008. According to the Monroe County Affordable and Workforce Housing report, the County has the highest affordability gap of all counties in Florida. The "affordability gap" is the difference between the buying power of a median income household and the median sales price of a single family home. The County's median income is $68,400 (HUDuserorg 2010); assuming a 40 hour per week, 50 week year, this translates into an hourly salary of $34.20. Based on the 2010 median income, a one income earner family would be able to afford a monthly Housing 63 Technical Document: ,July 2011 ' aMonroe Country Comprehensive Plan Update payment of a mortgage or rent of $1,710 (no more than 30 percent of income). A customary measure of how much home a family can afford is the family income multiplied by three. Therefore, a household which income is $68,400 would be able to afford a $205,200 priced dwelling unit. In contrast, the median value in 2009 according to the Shimberg Center was $572,608. This is an affordable gap of 370 thousand dollars. The Monroe County Affordable and WorAybrre Housing report further states that 34.8 percent of home -owning Monroe County families are cost burdened, meaning they pay 30 percent of their income for housing, exclusive of insurance and taxes. Of the households that are cost burdened (34.8 percent),17.4 percent of families are severely cost burdened, meaning they pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing. These trends exemplify the need to increase opportunities for affordable housing options. With the market crash more houses have been foreclosed and more permanent residents are moving out of the County with a population shift of permanent residents to seasonal who are able to afford pricier homes. As seen in Table 7.46 the affordable housing need is assigned to the households making 0 to 120 percent of the area median income for permanent population only. As a requirement for receiving an affordable housing ROGO allocation, the residents occupying that affordable unit must be permanent County residents. The following analysis looks at affordable housing need by planning area only for the permanent residents. Based on the SCAH, the number of households in the various income levels has been projected. The tables below are meant for illustration of households in the various income groups to determine the number of households that would need affordable housing assistance or those that would be making 120 percent of the area median income or less. Tables are not meant for estimating of future area median income. It is important to restate that the estimated affordable housing need is correlated to the ROGO allocations and permanent population. Therefore, permanent population is utilized in this analysis. 1..QM Keys As shown in Table 7.49, an average of 5,545 households would need and qualify for affordable housing assistance in the Lower Keys. Based on SCAH in 2010, 60.9 percent of households would qualify for affordable housing assistance. By the year 2030 the percentage will increase to 62.4 percent These percentages may be understated since for owner occupied housing, the qualifying income in the County is 160 percent of the area median income. It is not possible to determine how many households in the above moderate income range (incomes above 120 of the area median income) would qualify. Some of the households that fall in the above moderate income range may qualify for affordable housing, if they were owners. Hang 64 Technical Document: July 2011 Y1 Monroe County Coo hete N Table 7.49 - Estimated Number of Households Needle Affordable Housing by Income Level - Lower Keys Pbnnkg Area mum uv wuncy'ropuluuUn rrUj=UUnS Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of permanent population households. As shown in Table 7.SQ, an average of 296 households would qualify for affordable housing assistance in the Middle Keys. Based on SCAR in 2010, 60.9 percent of households would qualify for affordable housing assistance; by the year 2030, the percentage will increase to 62.4 percent These percentages are understated since for owner occupied housing, the qualifying income in the County is 160 percent of the area median income. It is not possible to determine how many households in the above moderate income range (Incomes above 120 percent of the area median Income) would qualify. Some of the households that fall in the above moderate income range may qualify for affordable housing, if they were owners. The R naainder of This Page Intention Left Biank 'Housing 65 Technical Document: luly 2011 to E Monroe 9unY Comprehensive Plan update Table 7.50 - Esdmated Number of Households Needing Affordable Housing by Income Level - Middle Keys Planning Hawn va wuwry rupuru"U" z7LJCVVUonS Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of permanent population households. As shown in Table i.SA, an average of 4,026 households would qualify for affordable housing assistance in the Upper Keys. Based on SCAR in 2010, 60.9 percent of households that would qualify for affordable housing assistance; by the year 2030 the percentage will increase to 62.4 percent. These percentages are understated since for owner occupied housing, the qualifying income in the County is 160 percent of the area median income. It is not possible to determine how many households in the above moderate income range (above 120 percent of the area median income) would qualify. Some of the households that fall in the above moderate income range may qualify for affordable housing, if they were owners. The Remainder of This Pdge IntendLeft Blank Housing 66 Technic d Document: July 2011 EDMonroe Coun Cora p rehensive Plan U date M Table 7. 1- Estimated Number of Households Needing Affordable housing by income Level - Upper Keys Planning Area monroe county ropumuon Nnvjectfons Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of functional population households. In essence, in year 2010 the number of household requiring affordable housing assistance is 60.9 percent, by the year 2030 the percentage will increase to 62.4 percent, based on the SCAR. As explained in Section 7.2.7 "Price Rent Characteristics and Affordability", an indicator of affordable housing need is the number of households that are cost burdened (paying more than 30 percent of their income in housing cost) as established by HUD. In other words, when gross monthly housing cost exceeds 30 percent of monthly household income, the household is considered to be paying too much for housing versus other essential living expenses. The households presented in this analysis pertain to permanent population given that in order to qualify for affordable housing the occupants need to be permanent residents. The percent allotment is derived from the SCAR. As seen in Fable 7.52, the cost burdened household is approximately 36 percent and are distributed as shown below. Hogg 67 'technical Document: July 2011 EDMonroe County Com Mben�ve Plan Update M Table 7.52 - Permanent Population Cost Burdened Households 2010-2030 Paying 30.01- Paying 50+% ' 2,8131 17.5%1 2,8391 17.5%1 Z811 17.5%1 Z7721 17.4 2,747 17 ........... Source: Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, 2010, Fishldnd & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporuted Monroe County Population Projections Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of permanent population households. The following tables illustrate were cost burdened households are distributed in relationship to the planning areas. Lower KM Of the households generated by permanent population in the LKPA, 36.6 percent are cost burdened according to SCAR. By the year 2030 the cost burdened household decreases to 35.7 percent The decrease may be due in part to a shift in population from permanent to seasonal. A distribution of households paying more than 30 percent of their income in housing is shown in Table 7.53. Table 7.53 - Permanent Population Cost Burdened Households 2010-2030 - lower Keys Planning Area i"U""M wumy ropuIuwon ffvjwuons Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of permanent population households. Housing 68 Technical Document: July 2011 mime County Cone reheiWve Plan Update Of the households generated by permanent population in the MKPA 36.6 percent are cost burdened according to SCAR. By the year 2030 the cost burdened household decreases to 35.7 percent. The decrease may be due in part to a shift in population from permanent to seasonal. A distribution of households paying more than 30 percent of their income in housing is shown in Table 7.54. Table 7.54 - Permanent Porulation Cost Burdened Households 2010-2030 - Mfddle Keys Paying 30A1- r I 921 19.1 Paying 50+% I g4 17S%I 85 17.50% 84 17.50% 83 17.409682 17.4 Source: Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, 2010; Fishldnd & Associates, Inc, 2010, Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of functional population households Of the households generated by permanent population in the UKPA 36.6 percent are cost burdened according to SCAR. By the year 2030 the cost burdened household decreases to 35.7 percent The decrease may be due in part to a shift in population from permanent to seasonal. A distribution of households paying more than 30 percent of their income in housing is shown in Table 7.55. Table 7.55 - Permanent Population Cost Burdened Households 2010-2030 - Upper keys Plinuft Am Paying 30.01- I 1.2531 19.1 Paying 50+% 11148 17.5 1,15 17S 1,1441750% 1,131 17.40% 1,121 17.4004 Total_._ 2.4011 36.6 2 ao3 963 a 3 ass ' a" 'c Total HH I 6,SS91 100.0% 6,620 100.0% 6,560 itt0.0% 6,500 100.i Source: Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, 2010; Fishldnd & Associates, Inc, 2010, Monroe County Population Projections Housing 69 Technical Document: July 2012 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of functional population households. In summary, the County should seek to encourage affordable housing options for households which are cost burdened. In year 2010, 36.6 percent of the households are cost burdened. The trend slightly lowers in the year 2030. The County and its municipalities are either urbanized or under Conservation protection. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the number of farming acres is 187 or 0.25 percent of land. There are no existing rural areas or farm worker households and there is no future need for those households. Therefore, this requirement does not apply. The provision of adequate sites in residential areas or areas of residential character for group homes and foster care facilities is referenced is Section 7.2.9 "Group Homes". Only one facility currently exists in unincorporated Monroe County. These facilities are allowed in the Mixed Use District (MU) and Military Facility District (MF). Replacement of housing units due to deterioration is not a problem in the County. As seen Section 7.2.12.2 "Housing Demolitions and Replacement", an average of 70 dwelling units were demolished from 2001 - 2010. An average of 106 replacement units received a certificate of occupancy from 2001-2010. Most of the dwelling units replaced were mobile homes. Of the mobile homes replaced, 68.5 percent were replaced by a single family unit. This represents an increasing demand or preference for single family homes. This may also reflect the shifting of population from permanent to seasonal, which may be better able to afford a single family home. Pursuant to Section 163.3191, F.S., due to Coastal High Hazard Area designation, no additional mobile home parks are permitted in the County. Further, a moratorium for new recreational vehicles and camp grounds is in place as illustrated in Section 7.2.1.1. 'HotellMotel Transient Units'. A projection by housing type for the planning horizon considering shift of mobile homes to single family is provided in Section 7.3.7.1 "Housing Supply by Type' Where housing units are removed as part of a federal housing program, such as the Community Development Block Grant, households will be relocated and the units will be replaced as per the program requirements; however, where individual housing units are removed by private owners, replacement is at the discretion of the owner. nousing 70 Technical Document: July 2011 N Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Up&te As previously shown in Table 7.9, the inventory of vacant units is based on the U.S. Census 2000 vacancy rate of 36.0 percent for unincorporated Monroe County. As previously discussed in Section 7.3.1 "Population Projections and Approach" the number of seasonal dwelling units is increasing and the number of permanently occupied dwelling units is declining. This correlates with the increase on non -homesteaded units (seasonal residents). Functional dwelling units (sum of permanent and seasonal) are used to account for vacancy rates. The number of vacant units is calculated by the occupancy factor. Occupancy factors were applied to seasonal (70 percent) and permanent households (89.7 percent) to then obtain the number of dwelling units. Dwelling units minus the number of occupied households equate the number of vacant dwelling units. There should be no problem for the County in maintaining an adequate vacancy rate. The number of dwelling units projected be vacant is shown on Table 7.56. Table 7.56 - Vacant Dwelling Units (functional) Units 1 7,4711 7,588 1 7,738 7 Source: Fishldnd & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorpomtied Monroe County Population Projecdons [functii population). Smith Travel Research, Fishl ind and Associates, Inc, and American Community Survey 2008 7.3.6 Land Requirements for Housing Needs [Rule 9J-5.010(2)(c), F.A.C.] The data and analysis in Section 2.7A.4 "Vacant Land Analysis within a 77er, Density and Intensity" (Chapter 2.0 Future Land Use Element), is used to determine the land available to accommodate the housing need as calculated in Table 7 (total of 1,680) by planning area. Housing can be accommodated in Tiers II, III and IIIA. Affordable housing can be accommodated in Tier III and ILIA. The tables below reflect the vacant land that is located within Tier III only since this is where the County encourages development The following analysis shows the maximum allowed density or "theoretical density" given the underlying future land uses in vacant Tier III. As seen in the tables below, there is sufficient vacant land to accommodate the total new (1,680) housing units for the County within each of the planning areas. NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses in this section are for illustrative purposes only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical size, environmental sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory constraints, such as ROGO and NROGO are the final determinant of development potential. Housing 71 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe - Com rehensive Plan Update As previously shown in Table 7.48, an additional 954 dwelling units are needed to accommodate functional residents by 2030 in the LKPA . Evaluating the vacant land located under Tier III (Section 2.7.4.4 of Chapter 2.0 Future Land Use Element), the theoretical density allows the 954 new dwelling units to be built: According to Table 7.57 a total of 1,428 single family units and 506 multifamily units would be allowed, in theory, in the LKPA. The shaded areas in gray represent the affordable housing or multifamily opportunities for this planning area. NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses in this section are for illustrative purposes only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical size, environmental sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory constraints, such as ROGO and NROGO are the final determinant of development potential. Table 7.57 - Vacant Land In Tier Ill and Residential Density by TWe - Lower Keys PlanniggArea uvua..c: muauva %IUUULy urowm management Zulu, Geographic Information File -MC-ELU-510- Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, Geographic Information File-MCJIUM_510" As previously shown in Table 7.48, an additional 51 dwelling units are needed to accommodate functional residents by 2030 in the MKPA. Evaluating the vacant land located under Tier III (Section 2.7.4.4 of Chapter 2.0 Future Land Use Element), Table 7.58 shows that there would be enough land availability to accommodate the 51 dwelling units, in theory, in the MKPA. The shaded areas in gray represent the affordable housing or multifamily opportunities for this planning area. NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses in this section are for illustrative purposes only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical size, environmental sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory constraints, such as ROGO and NROGO are the final determinant of development potential. rsummug 72 Technical Document: Iwly 2011 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update Table 7.58 a Vacant Land in Tier M and Residential Density by Type - Middle Keys PlanningArea bource: Monroe county Growth Management 2010, Geographic Information File "MC_ELU_510" Monroe County Growth Management 2010, Geographic Information File "MC FI.UM_S10" As previously shown in Table 7 , an additional 684 dwelling units are needed to accommodate functional residents by 2030 in the UKPA. Evaluating the vacant land located 0 under Tier III (Section 2.7.4.4 of Chapter ZO Future Land Use Element) Table 7.59 shows that there would be enough land availability to accommodate the 684 dwelling units, in theory, in the UKPA. The shaded areas in gray represent the affordable housing multifamily opportunities for this planning area. NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses in this section are for illustrative purposes only, conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical size, environmental sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory constraints, such as ROGO and NROGO are the final determinant of development potential. e Rema er of This Page lntenUona* Left Blank Housing 73 Technical Document: july 2011 ■ Monroe County Com rehnslve Flan _Mrbte Table 7.,S9 - Vacant Land in Tier 111 and Residential Density by Type - Ilpper Keys PlannhWArea ouut- munme taunry urowrn management, ZU1U, Geographic Information File "MC-EI.U_510" Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, Geographic Information File "MC_FLUM_510" It is evident that there is enough vacant land in Tier III to accommodate the 1,680 dwelling units needed for the planning horizon. The tables in this analysis demonstrate that there is more vacant land in Tier III to accommodate single family homes than vacant land available to accommodate multi -family units. However, as in previous sections, the affordable housing need based on the SCAH is about 60 percent Of the 1,680 dwelling units needed for the planning horizon, the County should consider the vast majority of this housing to be developed as multi -family to provide affordable housing options to the 60 percent of households needing assistance. "able 7.60 is a summary the amount of vacant land in Tier III for unincorporated County as a whole. It appears that the County has an excess of land to accommodate the needed dwelling units. This analysis is based on Tier III vacant land only. However, theoretical density and intensity analyses are for illustrative purposes only, conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical size, environmental sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory constraints, such as ROGO and NROGO are the final determinant of development potential. The Remainder of This AWe Intentionally Le)t Blank Housing 74 Technical Document: July 2011 Monroe Cous rehenslve Platy it to Table 7.60 - Vacant Land in Tier III and Residential Density by Type - Unincorporated county Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, Geographic Information File "MC-ELU_510" Monroe County Growth Management; 2010, Geographic Information File "MC_FLUM_510" 7.3.7 Private Sector Provision of blousing 0 [Rule 91-5.O1O(2)(d), F.A.C.] N It is expected that all of the future housing needs identified in this analysis can and will be met by the private sector. The demand for homes on coastal lands makes construction of such homes economically attractive to builders and developers. A developer must first apply for a ROGO allocation in order to develop a dwelling unit. Then the applicant must apply for a building permit. Of the total ROGO allocations awarded, no less than 20 percent are assigned for affordable units. The County can award up to 197 ROGO allocations a year including 71 for affordable allocations. Between ROGO Years 1-17, an average of 222 ROGO allocations was awarded each year. Of the allocations awarded, affordable housing awards represent 25 percent of the total award. A detailed historical account of the number allocations available and awarded is provided in Appendix 7-1. An important component of provision of housing is the number that will be needed for families that are cost burdened and in the qualifying incomes need affordable housing. Since the affordable housing analysis indicates that there is a need for affordability for 60 percent, at a minimum, developers should continue to receive incentives for providing affordable housing. Housing 75 Technical Document: July 2011 N N", onm county cone reliensive i'larr yp&te The estimated and projected housing units by type are depicted in Table 7.61. In order to obtain the estimated and projected household by type, the percent allotment from the South Florida Regional Council 2008 estimates are used in combination with the number of functional dwelling units projected. Additionally, the mobile home replacement for single family dwelling units trend from 2001-2010 and as shown in Table 7.39, is integrated into the projection. It is then estimated, that 311 mobile homes will be replaced by a single family unit every five years. For the purpose of this analysis, the projected household numbers only reflects the single family, multi -family and mobile homes (not to be confused with mobile home parks) since: • Section 163.3191, F.S. prohibits new mobile home parks in the Coastal High Hazard Area; and • Development of new hotel/motel units, campgrounds and recreational vehicle spaces requires a residential ROGO allocation. The County has declared a moratorium on the allocation of ROGO for these types of use. There is currently a moratorium on ROGO designation for these units until December 31, 2011. The County is contemplating extending the moratorium date. Table 7.61- Dwelling Units by Type, 2010-2030 Multi 8.1 Mobile, 37,1721 100.0%1 37,5661100.0%1 37,9601100.0% I 38,354 100.0% Source: Fishldnd & Associates, Inc., 2030, Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections; Soul Florida Regional Planning Council 2008, Housing 7j pe Projections for 2008, Monroe County Building Depar t nent, 2010, Mobile Home Replacement2000-2009 data. As seen in Table 7.61, above, there is a decreasing trend for mobile homes given the mobile home replacements by single family homes. it is estimated that 311 mobile homes are replaced for a single family structure every 5 years. There is a dichotomy when it comes to addressing affordable housing issues. Although mobile homes are being replaced by single family units, mobile homes offer a solution to providing affordable housing. Then again, no new mobile home parks are allowed given the County's CHHA designation. The County may consider evaluating mechanisms for retaining mobile home parks and encouraging mobile homes as affordable housing options. r.Ounns 76 Technical D -_ - ent: luly 2011 N Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update In order to obtain the estimated and projected household by tenure, SCAH demographics were assessed. The SCAH creates a set of population projections based on BEBR estimates, which are then divided into households. Then households are allocated across tenure classes. The methodology assumes that household formation rates and the distribution of household characteristics remain constant in their year 2000 proportions across the entire planning horizon. For the purpose of this analysis, the SCAH percentage allotment is used in combination with the unincorporated Monroe County functional population households. As seen in Table 7.62, the general trend is that by the year 2030, 74.5 percent of households will be occupied by owners and 25.5 percent of households will be occupied by renters. This is a 1.2 increase for owners when compared to year 2010. Table 7.62 - Esdmwd and Projected Households by Tenum, 2010-2030 mi 4i''? r21,393 Own 73.396 Z i.Rente7,809 26.796 7. Source: Shimberg Center for Aff brdable Housing, 2010; Fishldnd & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections Note: Calculations are based on Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing percent allotment and distribution of functional population households. 71 re Remainder of This Page Inten tiona!'ly Left Bleak Housing 77 Technical Document: July 2011 4,. Monroe Coun E Comprehensive Plan U to Elm 10 To determine the projected cost, the historic average median incomes from 1999 to 2010 were assessed through HUD via 2my kl _ d ' Lmrg. It is estimated that the average median income for the County will increase by 3.4 percent every year. This is based strictly on historic area median income and does not take into consideration market forces, market crash or current recession. Using the affordable housing cost spreadsheets generated by the County Growth Management Division, which calculate affordable price by 30 percent of income, the affordable monthly rent are projected for the planning horizon on Table 7.63. Table 7.63 - Affordable Maximum Monthlyn tes per AMI projections 015- 3030 Zulu,"n mati7ximure costwx for cost calculations. Housing 78 Technical Document: July 2011 E Monroe CounY Comprehensive Plan Update As seen in Table 7.64 the affordable selling prices are projected for the County. As deflned by M[CLDC 101-01 the maximum sales price, owner occupied affordable housing unit, means a price not exceeding 3.75 times the annual median household income for the county for a one bedroom or efficiency unit, 4.25 times the annual median household income for the county for a two bedroom unit, and 4.75 times the annual median household income for the county for a three or more bedroom unit Table 7.64 - Affordable Maximum Selft Price 2015-2030 2010, AFH matdx future costAk, for cost calculations. Income ranges are discussed in Section 7.3A "Projected Number of Households by Income,, and the analysis is based on SCAR data Analysis was done two ways, for functional population and permanent population. Permanent population was analyzed separate since it is permanent population who would receive affordable housing assistance. In summary, at least 60.9 percent of households in 2010 will be at or below the moderate income range (80.01 to 120 percent of the area median income). By the year 2030, the number of households at or below the moderate income range will be at 62.4 percent (as provided earlier in Tables 7.45 and 7.46). 7.3.8 Private Sector Housing Delivery Process [Rule 9J-5.010(2)(e), F.A.C.] While the private sector finances and builds the housing units, local governments issue building permits and perform inspections of the units based on health and safety issues Housing 79 '!technical Document: July 201 ED- Monroe County fAmprehensive P!-m update established in and through the Florida Building Code. Building permits are issued in compliance with local land development regulations. ,r There are currently 2,338 acres of vacant land in unincorporated Monroe County of which 1,294 (55 percent) are designated for Residential Low, Residential Medium and Residential High. If developed under the current designations, the acreage could theoretically support an additional 7,701 dwelling units. Refining the analysis to vacant acreage in Tier III, where the County encourages infill development, the theoretical number of housing that could be developed is 4,044. To be more precise this would be a breakdown of 2,747 single family homes and 1,297 multifamily or affordable units. There is ample vacant land to meet the need and future demand. However, due to the limited population growth (157 persons a year), the increasing vacancy rate, and the high price of land in a coastal community, there is no significant demand for new residential development from developers. There are private -public partnerships for the provision of land acquisition and government support for affordable housing projects. Financing affects the purchaser and builder's cost as well. Although the high cost of land in the County tends to limit the development of public housing and public housing programs, the County does participate in the affordable housing programs such as Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs to facilitate financing for private purchasers in lower income ranges. All services are provided by the County, with the exception of potable water, which is supplied by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA). These services are discussed in more detail in the Potable Water, Solid Waste, Sanitary Sewer and Drainage Elements. As a part of development, the County charges several fees for services rendered, and for Impacts on the existing facilities. The County also charges various fees for site plan review, and redevelopment or building permits. As of November 2010, impact fees for development are outlined as follows: Parks/Recreation - $340.00 Sewer connection - $70 per connection Transportation - $633 Sheriff- $150 per SFR Fire - $105 per SFR Library - $242 per SFR Solid Waste - $64 per SFR Housing 80 Technical Document- July 2011 MonComprehensive Plan Update ROGO Application for SFR - $748 + $20 research fee = $768.00 NROGO Application - $774 Mobile home to SFR - $305 7.3.9 Means of Accomplishing Affordable Housing, Group Homes and Eliminating Substandard Conditions (Rule 91-5.010(2)(1), F.A.C.] Topic 1: [Rule 9J-5.010(2)(f)1., F.A.C] The provision of housing with supporting infrastructure for all current and anticipated future residents of the jurisdiction with particular emphasis on the creation or preservation of affordable housing to minimize the need for additional local services and avoid the concentration of affordable housing units only in specific areas of the jurisdiction. The infrastructure currently in place is adequate to meet the projected population to meet the future needs of County functional population in an effective, economical manner. Were only 84 dwelling units are anticipated each year from 2010 to 2030, the supporting infrastructure will continue to be maintained to provide the adopted level -of -service standards throughout the community. The County does scheduled maintenance and repair of infrastructure facilities for which it is responsible. The County will maintain an appropriate millage rate to pay for services provided to residents. The County provides the same level, amount, and quality of infrastructure to all residents in all areas without regard to income levels. Each Livable CommuniKeys Plans includes objectives to maintain housing opportunities for all segments of the population while maintaining the availability of affordable housing and workforce housing for local residents, while preserving the character of the community. The County relies entirely on the private sector, supplemented by outside government programs, to ensure the provision of adequate housing. There is a need for affordable housing for those permanent households that are making up to 120 percent of the area median income for renters and up to 160 percent of the area median income for owners. According to the SCAH (Table 7.46), a minimum of 60 percent of the permanent population will need affordable housing assistance or will be making incomes at or below the 120 percent of the area median income. Currently the County can award up to 71 ROGO allocations for affordable housing; however, not all of them are being used due to the high cost of land and time and cost of the ROGO application process. Low-cost housing is difficult to provide. However, there is a number of housing assistance programs available to the residents of the County, including Section 8 and low interest loans; and the County participates in the Community Development Block Grant program and the HOME Investment Partnerships program. The County will, additionally, take the actions available (e.g., various residential densities, Housing 81 Technical Document: July 2011 ■ Monroe County Comprehensive plan Update waiver of fees) to encourage the development of very -low, low, and moderate income housing, where the need for it is identified. Topic 2: [Rule 9J-5.010(2)(f)2., FA.C) The elimination of substandard housing conditions and for the structural and aesthetic improvement of housing; Table 7.29 denotes the housing that is considered substandard according to the Census 2000. This is however, not a true inventory of substandard units at the County. The County should consider taking an inventory of mobile homes on individual sites and mobile homes in camp grounds and parks that need structural improvements. Where existing housing units are identified and substandard, the County relies on code enforcement to ensure that housing is repaired or rehabilitated to meet codes. New housing units must meet the Florida Building Code; local building inspections are performed to ensure that code provisions are met. Topic 3: [Rule 9J-5.010(2)(1)3., FA.C) The provision of adequate sites for housing for very -low, low, and moderate income households, and for mobile homes. The provision of adequate land for affordable housing is stated in Section 7.3.6 'Land Requirements for Housing Need" In summary, there is a surplus of acreage in Tier III (infill areas) that would allow for the needed affordable housing. Given that mobile homes provide an affordable option, the County may want to consider continuing providing the land sites where mobile home development is located and determine if this is a financially feasible option. Topic 4: [Rule 9J-5.010(2)(f)4., FA.C) The provision of adequate sites in residential areas or areas of residential character for group homes and foster care facilities licensed or funded by the Florida Department of Children and Family Services. The provision of adequate sites in residential areas or areas of residential character for group homes and foster care facilities is referenced is Section 7.2.9 "Group Homes' Only one facility currently exists in unincorporated Monroe County. Group homes or institutional homes are specifically allowed in the Mixed Use (MU) and Military Facilities (MF) zoning districts. Topic 5: [Rule 9J-5.010(2)(f)5., FA.C) The identification of conservation, rehabilitation or demolition activities, and historically significant housing or neighborhoods. Housing 82 Tedwical Document: July 2011 MI Monroe minty ComprehensWe Plan Update The identification of conservation, rehabilitation or demolition activities, and historically significant housing or neighborhoods is further identified in Section 7.2.11 "Historically Significant Housing" Me Remainder of This PqWe intentionagy Left Blank Housing 83 Technical Document: July 201 N Monroe Coup Coma re ngve P3en U to BIbIlogmphy Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse , Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies Monroe County Land Development Code Monroe County, 2000, Monroe County Population Estimates and Forecast 1990-201 S. Monroe County Division of Housing and Community Development, 2007, Monroe County Affordable and Workforce Housing. Monroe County, Ship Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) Fiscal Years Covered 2007-2008/ 2008-2009/2009-2010 Shimberg Center for Housing Studies IwdLwxM ; z State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Mobile Home Parks, Condominium and Subdivisions data) UO State of Florida, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) U.S. Census 2000 Housing 84 Technical ent: 2011 us N ty Coin rehenslve Plan Update Geographic Information System Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, MC ELU 510 (Existing Land Use GIS layer received May 2010) Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, MC FLUX 510 (Future Land Use GIS layer received May 2010) Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, 77er 0110 (Tier Overlay) Florida State Historic Preservation Office, 2000, Historic Structures Housing 85 Technical Document 2011 ■ ■ ■ Exhibit HousingWorkforce s ONROE OUNTY WORKFORCE HOUSING STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT '' , AML 2015 Assessment Report Prepared by: Robert Jones, Director FCRC Consensus Center, Florida State Uniersity N Contents ...................... 2 ExecmtiveSmmmaty ............ ....... ........ ......... .............. ...... ....... ............... 3 I. ASSESSMENT SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION ....................................................... _ 10 11. WORKFORCE HOUSING IN MONROE COUNTY-CONTEXT.....................................11 111. WORKFORCE HOUSING CHALLENGES- IDEAS AND PERSPECTIVES ..............14 A. NVORKVORCT HOU,­ri(i Si I'S COMMON Tjw,%ns______ ... __ .... _14 B. WORKI,ORCI, HOUSING S I NKIJ IO1j)1:1Z I I\ jcs, CO,,I\ION IS,,FS .................................15 C.S1 I \KI A IOLDI It IDEVS ,\ND Issul.s- M \ I'lux D. S I AKIA IOLDFR IDEAS AND PI:Wsvr(: ...... 1. County Government Ideas and Perspectives _., ...... ............. 2. Municipal Government Ideas and Perspectives .......... ......... ....... _ ......... __ ....... .... __24 3. State Go\•ernment Ideas and Perspectives. ........ ............. ­­ ........ ...... - ..... _?6 4. Education Ideas and Per specti%.-es................................... ..... . 5. Development Ideas and Perspecth-es_........ ........ ....... ... __28 6. Lodging, Hospitaht), and Tourist Development Ideas and Perspectives .... ...... __ ...... 29 7. Business Sector Ideas and Perspectives.,............. 8. Non Profit Sector Ideas and Perspecti-%,es ....... ...........................34 9. Nhhtat)- Sector Ideas and Perspectives ......... ...... __37 IN IV, WORKFORCE HOUSING PROCESS- STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES- ..............38 A. INI,OR%I \ I -ION NIA-D14) FO INFORM (ONSFINSUS BUILIAN(I ON A ORK1,ow IA IOUANG_ ..... .38 B. Piw(1T,-,S-S'I \K1'I 101 DFA PIAISM 4 I ]\+,`................................................42 V. WORKFORCE HOUSING IN MONROE COUNTY --NEXT STEPS. ... _.__ ... __ ... __ ..... 44 Appendices 1, List of Inten,iews/1%leetings ___ ......... ___ ....... __ ......... 2. Affordable Housing Advison° Committee Ordinance ... ... ........ ... .48 3. Workforce Housing Assessment Back -ground Papers .... ....... ...... _ ____50 4. Workforce Housing Roundtable Summary of Comments, August 2014..... ... ....... . ..... - 51 5. Public Comment Email ...... __ .... __ ... .... ­ ...... 6. "Affordable Housing White Paper", September 2014, Donald Craig, AICP Director of Planning & Nicole 1\1alo, AICP Planner, Cit) of Key West..........................................................57 7. Draft Sample AdvisonCommittee Procedures and Protocols....................................................58 8, Information on the FCRC Consensus Center, FSU... ... . ....... ­­ ...... ­­ ........ - ....... ..... . ..... ..... 69 Monroe County Workforce I Lousing Stakeholder \ssessment Report, April 2015 2 ONROE COUNTY WORKFORCE HOUSING STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT ,,PORT ExECUTIVE SUMMARY Monroe County faces the quadruple impact of high land values, land limited by geographic and environmental features, housing supply limited by controlled growth (die Rate of Growth Ordinance) and a tourism economy with a prevalence of lower paying service -sector employment. In August 2014 the Monroe County Commission approved a stakeholder assessment effort, to be conducted by the FCRC Consensus Center at Florida State University (Consensus Center), to solicit perspectives and ideas on workforce housing challenges and on whether a county -wide consensus building effort should be convened to address tie complex issues surrounding workforce housing in tie Florida Keys. This assessment report sets out the context for addressing workforce housing issues and used interviews, meetings and review of data and documents to assess stakeholder perspectives on the County's workforce housing challenges. These perspectives include county, city-, regional, state and federal government levels, housing and tourist development leaders in Monroe County, tie business and tourist community and non- profit community and civic organizations. Based on this stakeholder input, tie assessment report summarizes the themes, concerns, issues, and interests that stakeholders believe ought to be considered in addressing workforce housing needs in Monroe County. (See below) The workforce housing affordability crisis in the Florida Keys identified by tie Monroe County Commission in 2014 is real. "Cost -burdened" households pay more than 30010 of income for rent or mortgage costs. In 2013, 51% (or 16,849) of Monroe County- households pay more than 30% of income for housing while statewide that figure is 43','b. More than half of Monroe County- renters are cost burdened (8,350 of 14,002) while about 45% of Monroe County homeowners are cost burdened (8,499 of the 18,936). In November 2014 the United Way of Florida released its report, ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed: Study of Financial Hardship, which indicates that nearly half of all Monroe County- households (14,221of 29,241) live above tie federal poverty- line but still struggle to afford basic expenses including housing, child care, food, transportation and health care.' The Report also evaluates community conditions for each of Florida's counties using a weighted "Economic Viability- Dashboard" in three core areas using a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best).' Monroe County's results area as follows: Core Areas Rating Grade Housing Affordability 40% 14 of 100 Poor job Opportunities 40% 67 of 100 Good Community Support 20% 48 of 100 Poor 'The Report was initially- developed in New jersey and now five other states including Florida, California, Michigan, Indiana and Connecticut, have used the model and developed reports in 2014. er ti cantii L% d� rt)4sc,aTi�"i �p,rrr4t�xwaEj)tiJ j� a�l,a :ri'ld 1 � i;_� a6jt r _�_X�l<ageclt __a...—_. _._.. The Index provides the means to compare counties in Florida and to see changes over time. The I lousing Affordability area includes three keN indicators including; the I lowehold Survival Budget (quantifying the cost of the housing, child care, food, health care, transportation); health insurance; and housing burden. The job Opportunities area includes three key indicators including: Income Distribution; Employment Rate; and New 1 lire Wages. The Community Support area includes three key indicators: Violent crime rate; the annual payroll of human services nonprofits per capita; and Access to good basic health care. Monroe County Workforce I lousing ;'stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 E The findings of all of several recent reports on Monroe County's current housing situation confirm that there is a significant and growing shortage of affordable workforce housing, both rental and ownership. In addition there exists a policy gap in that affordable housing for the working and middle classes is largely left to individual municipalities and counties to deal with. Over 75 persons participated in the interviews and meetings and identified a range of workforce housing issues. While some offered perspectives from the same sector, they live and work in different parts of the Keys and the ideas they offer are not necessarily the same as others sharing that perspective. However, across the various perspectives the following emerged as six common themes regarding key workforce housing issues: 1. A Shared vision of success for Workforce Housing in Monroe County 2. Take Action on Workforce Housing 3. Build upon the past affordable housing studies and reports 4. Defining the problem first based on data 5. Seek a balanced package of options as there is no single strategy that will solve the workforce housing crisis 6. View housing as community infrastructure, like transportation and water supply Issues generally identified as important from most perspectives included: 1. Addressing the ROGO system and workforce housing, including transfers and fractional ROGOs 2. Density and livable workforce housing 3. Relaxing height restrictions in light of Federal flood insurance changes and to create more workforce housing 4. Monroe Housing Authority role in workforce housing 5. Transportation and its relationship to and role in workforce housing 6. Workforce Housing site identification and audit of publicly owned property. 7. Creation of new workforce housing units that are both affordable and livable with development incentives and public private partnerships 8. Preservation and maintenance of existing workforce housing and incentives to preserve workforce housing 9. Related workforce issues due to high cost of housing (insurance, childcare, food insecurity etc.) 10. County, City and state affordable housing policies and regulations including length of deed restrictions 11. Explore and expand funding sources to expand workforce housing in Monroe County The Stakeholder Assessment sought to identify how different stakeholders viewed the challenges of workforce housing facing Monroe County and its residents. The over 60 issues and ideas identified and summarized from the many interviews and meetings, help to shed light on the complexity of the issues and on the healthy diversity of views on how to best address the challenges even among those sharing the same stakeholder perspective. The assessment interviews were conducted with the understanding that the themes and ideas identified would be shared with the Commission and inform any committee that would engage in subsequent consensus building on workforce housing solutions. It was also understood that individual views would not be attributed but the related themes perspectives would be summarized. The report provides input from following perspectives: County Government; City Government; State Government; Education; Development; Lodging/Hospitality/Tourism; Business; Non Profit; and Military. 60 workforce housing ideas Monroe Count\ Workforce I lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 4 N and issues were identified in the Assessment from different perspectives in the following categories: Overall 1. No single solution, menu of options 2. Build on work to date (studies, task forces, etc.) 3. Target different levels of workforce to provide WE 4. Engage private and public sector employers in finding WH solutions 5. Political will to implement solutions 6. Focus on rental housing 7. Addressing NIDIBY and workforce housing 8. Encourage public private partnerships for WH 9. Encourage WH affordability and livability 10. Support living wages in the Keys 11. Expand the Keys economy beyond tourism 12. Address negative impacts on Keys communities of transient workforce 13. Clarifying workforce housing and affordable housing definitions Workforce H 1. Workforce housing site identification and audit 2. Remedy Sadowski Trust Fund donor inequity 3. Land Authority funds for workforce housing construction 4. Dedicated local funding for workforce housing 5. Consider inclusionary WH fee 6. Changing the Tourist Development Council (TDC) law to allow those dollars to be used for affordable housing development. 7. Address online markerplace for vacation rentals that connects users with property to rent with users looking to rent the space(e.g. AirBnB) and its impact on bed tax revenue 8. Provide assistance to workforce renters (down Workforce Housing & Transportation 1. Increase highway capacity to adjust ROGO evacuation formula 2. Address related issues- Transportation options for employees 3 Address & improve transit issues in the upper and lower Keys Workforce Housing & Site Identification 1. Audit Local Government owned public lands for WH 2. Re -purpose land owned by local government for WH 3. Focus all 3-tier mooerties on WH Workforce Housing Planning & Zoning 1. Create a County Workforce Housing Development Plan 2. Consider adjusting height restrictions to increase workforce housing 3. Allow increased density for WH 4. Tax Credit Property :Management after 15 yrs. 5. Encourage mixed use 6. Explore "1\Iicro Housing" 7. Enforce Housing Codes 8. ROGO Allocations and Transfers, Fractional ROGO for WH 9. ROGO Formula 10. Address redevelopment and WH 11. Encourage commercial construction of WH by reducing impact fee. 12. Explore and assess the role of live -aboard boats in WH 13. Encourage hospitality industry and the commercial sector to build WH Preserve Existing Workforce Housing 1. Preserve/maintain affordable units 2. Address "lost" AH/WH units 3. Revisit land trusts as a tool 4. Provide for "no net loss" principle of affordable & workforce housing in the County housing element 5. Adopt a "lease form" for local governments owning underlying land for WH 6. Address loss of deed restrictions for AH 7. Address RV/Trailer Parks as WH and conversion issues Workforce Housing & Related Issues 1. Address related issues insurance costs- wind 2. Address 2018 FEIMA flood insurance issues. 3. Address related issues- Daycare 4. Homelessness & Workforce Housing 5. Protect military buffer areas 6. Address "food security" (i.e. ,accesF l „! peopi ; r ,,. -res tr,� eiiolgh t ; t� �3. -ti., : c�i�e. ;yea. ' ;pit and workforce housing. Workforce Housing Construction 1. Waive building fees for WH 2. Buy down interest rates for WH projects 3. Cut taxing rates on NX'H 4. Commercial properties for NX'H-tax and insurance breaks Monroe CountN \workforce 1 lousing Stakeholder .\ssessment Report, \prd 2015 101 Workforce Housing & the Education Sector 1. Engage the school system as largest employer ?. Improve teacher housing needs data Monroe County staff has gathered detailed baseline data that included an inventory of affordable and workforce housing projects completed over the past two decades in Monroe County, along with the public incentives that were made to assist in the housing development. In the course of the assessment interviews and meetings, various studies and data sources were identified on best practices from other jurisdictions and ideas developed or considered but not implemented by previous affordable housing task forces. Among the range of stakeholders interviewed, all expressed the need for a focused and comprehensive county -wide workforce housing dialogue that involved those with a stake in the outcome. Many believed that such a committee should develop a package of consensus recommendations, informed by data and the range of stakeholder and public perspectives, that can provide for both short and longer term actions for the Board of County Commission's consideration. While some of those interviewed remained skeptical that there will be sufficient "political will" to implement the Committee's recommendations as has been the case in the past, many believed that this was an urgent and timely issue for the County to address in light of hotel redevelopment and the economic upturn. In the Fall of 2014, following the initiation of this Assessment, the Commission re -appointed members to the existing Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and with the thought of convening and charging diem with addressing workforce housing issues and providing the County Commission with its recommendations. The reconvened committee would review this assessment report and other data as it addressed its charge. A 0 workforce housing committee, ad hoc or otherwise, appointed and charged by the County Commission to address workforce housing issues in the Florida Keys was explored in the assessment interviews. A significant number of those interviewed applauded the County Commission's action in re -purposing the existing Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to focus, at least in the short term, on workforce housing. It was suggested that this approach could provide representation from each District in the County, offer workforce housing perspectives from the public, private and nonprofit sectors, and minimi>e confusion and any duplication of effort that an ad hoc workforce housing committee might create. It was also pointed out that this charge would be consistent with the Committee's current mission to address affordable housing opportunities in Monroe County for both "residents and workforce." 11 The Commission should review the current Committee appointments to ensure that a balance of workforce housing stakeholder perspectives are included in its membership. If the Commission charges the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to develop consensus recommendations on workforce housing actions for consideration by the Monroe County BOCC, most stakeholders interviewed suggested there should be a sufficient range of stakeholder perspectives represented and participating in die consensus building. This would allow the Committee to develop informed workforce housing consensus findings and recommendations that stakeholders might support and the County Commission could act upon. There is a great deal of public and stakeholder interest in the workforce housing issues the Committee will take up. The membership requirements, as set forth in both Florida statute and the Monroe County Resolution, do not reference representation of the municipalities in the County, the military, the School Board and perhaps other organizations impacted by workforce housing policies and programs and with a stake in contributing to solutions to improve the availability of workforce housing in the Florida Kees. Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 ■ \fonroc Count% Workforcc I lousing Stakcholder Assessmcnt Report, .\pril 2015 ■ lfonroe County Workforce I fousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 N In The format for the Committee meetings should encourage constructive public and stakeholder input. The Commission might consider charging the Committee with establishing an engagement strategy to involve a broader range of stakeholders in their development of findings and recommendations. This might be accomplished through opportunities for public input during their own meetings, as well as through Committee sponsored advisory workgroups, joint workshops with municipal taskforces and city commissions, workshops at key moments in the development of options and recommendations, online surveys and other techniques. It was observed by many that an advisory- committee developing recommendations on workforce housing will require dedicated staff, including legal and planning expertise, and facilitation support for the Committee to do its work expeditiously. This is because of the complexity of the charge, the intense public interest in the issue, the linkages with other issues and programs and activities in the public, private and non-profit sectors, and the desire for timely actions to address the current workforce housing challenges. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners should review this Assessment Report and charge the Affordable Housing Committee to focus its efforts in the coming year on workforce housing. With a charge from the County Commission, the Committee should establish its procedures and approach and a schedule for meetings that would permit it to deliver back to the BOCC its workforce housing recommendations by mid-2016. The Committee should consider: • Developing a shared vision of success; • Jointly defining the workforce problems faced in the Florida Keys; • Reviewing the range of issues and options identified in previous studies; • Reviewing the experience and lessons learned with successful workforce housing projects developed in the Keys to date; • Reviewing this Stakeholder Assessment Report; and • Developing a package of consensus findings and recommended solutions for consideration by the Monroe County Board of County Commission. This stakeholder assessment report confirms that there is wide agreement that Monroe County is facing a significant and growing workforce housing crisis with shortages for both affordable rental and ownership units. There is also agreement that no single strategy will solve the workforce housing crisis in Monroe County. Instead the challenge ahead is to craft a balanced package of targeted options that have been refined through discussion and debate and that can serve as a consensus framework for addressing and implementing solutions. Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder \ssessment Report, .\prd 2015 EO I. ASSESSMENT SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION Monroe County faces the quadruple impact of high land values, land limited by geographic and environmental features, housing supply limited by controlled growth (the Rate of Growth Ordinance) and a tourism economy with a prevalence of lower paying service -sector employment. In August 2014 the Monroe County Commission approved a stakeholder assessment effort, to be conducted by the FCRC Consensus Center at Florida State University (Consensus Center), to solicit perspectives and ideas on workforce housing challenges and on whether a county -wide consensus building effort should be convened to address the complex issues surrounding workforce housing in the Florida Keys. The 2005 Harvard report, "Strengthening the Workforce and Communities through Housing Solutions" suggests, solutions to the workforce housing challenge require a broad - based, proactive approach.' This stakeholder assessment engaged a broad range of public, private and non profit stakeholders to clarify substantive issues involved, options to consider, information needed and process and coordination issues. This assessment report sets out the context for addressing workforce housing issues and used interviews, meetings and review of data and documents to assess stakeholder perspectives on the County's workforce housing challenges. These perspectives include county, city, regional, state and federal government levels, housing and tourist development leaders in Monroe County, the business and tourist community and non-profit community and civic organizations. Based on this stakeholder input, the assessment report summarized the themes, concerns, issues, and interests that stakeholders believe ought to be considered in addressing workforce housing needs in Monroe County. The assessment seeks to address the following questions: 1. What are the range of affordable workforce housing and related issues from the perspectives of County, City, State and Federal housing and tourist development leaders, the business and tourist community and the non-profit community and civic organizations and residents? 2. What are the linkages with development and land use issues, transportation mobility? 3. What interests, organizations and individuals should participate in a stakeholder county -wide committee process to develop consensus recommendations on affordable workforce housing issues in Monroe County? How Should the County convene a stakeholder committee to develop recommendations on workforce housing in Monroe County and its cities? 4. What is needed in terms of base line current data on workforce housing programs in u ay 1 1 kcp nfili, "By the time a workforce housing affordability problem begins to affect the bottom line, the forces that contribute to high housing costs have long been in place and are difficult to reverse. Por the housing and business communities to forestall such an outcome, they must establish a working relationship characterized by respect, trust, and an awareness of each other's interests. They must have access to information about the causes of the affordability problem and data that demonstrate its effects." Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, \pril 2015 10 N N Monroe County? What information and data on best practices should be considered in any subsequent stakeholder consensus building process? H. WORKFORCE HOUSINW IN MONROE COUNTY- CONTEXT The workforce housing affordability crisis in the Florida Keys identified by the Monroe County Commission in 2014 is real. "Cost -burdened" households pay more than 30% of income for rent or mortgage costs. In 2013, 51% (or 16,849) of Monroe County households pay more than 30% of income for housing while statewide that figure is 43"'o. More than half of Monroe County renters are cost burdened (8,350 of 14,002) while about 45% of Monroe County homeowners are cost burdened (8,499 of the 18,936). In November 2014 the United Way of Florida released its report, ALICE (asset Limited, Income Constrained, Emplo`-ed: Study of Financial Hardship, which indicates that nearly half of all Monroe County households (14,221of 29,241) live above the federal poverty line but still struggle to afford basic expenses including housing, child care, food, transportation and health care.' The Report also evaluates community conditions for each Florida county using a weighted "Economic Viability Dashboard" in three core areas employing a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best).`' Monroe County's results area as follows: Core Areas Rating Grade Housing Affordability 40% 14 of 100 Poor job Opportunities 40% 67 of 100 Good Community Support 20% 48 of 100 Poor 4 Workforce housing can refer to anv form of housing, including ownership of single or multi-famflv homes, as well as occupation of rental units. Workforce housing is generally understood to mean a€ hn-datbh hzatswjng for households with earned income that is insufficient to secure quality housing in reasonable proximity to the workplace. The term "workforce" is meant to connote those who are gainfulh employed, a group of people who are not typically understood to be the target of affordable housing programs. Workforce housing, then, implies an altered or expanded understanding of affordable housing. Workforce housing is commonly targeted at "essential workers" in a community i.e. police officers, firemen, teachers, nurses, medical personnel. I lowever resort communities generalh define "essential" more broadli to include service workers, as thei often are characterized by high real estate costs and a high number of low -pat ing service jobs essential to the local tourism economy. 'The Report was initially developed in New lersev and now five other states including Florida, California, Michigan, Indiana and Connecticut, have used the model and developed reports in 2014. ................. .. .t�3i�l�, . zit-C_[rrr`itl.x 6 The Index provides the means to compere counties in Florida and to see changes over time. `l'he I lousing Affordability area includes three key indicators including: the I Iousehold Survival Budget (quantifying the cost of the housing, child care, food, health care, transportation); health insurance; and housing burden. The lob Opportunities area includes three key indicators including: income Distribution; 1?mployment Rate; and New I fire Wages. The Community Support area includes three key indicators: Violent crime rate; the annual payroll of human services nonprofits per capita; and Access to good basic health care. Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder \ssessment Report,April 2015 11 m m m Big Cop itt Key /Monroe Cour Population Households Poverl ? % ALICE % Above ALICE Threshold % Uuemploy ment Bate Honsiitg Barden over 35% Owner Housing Burden over 35% Renter 2016 833 12% 35% 53% 9% 55% 72% Big Pine Ke /Monroe Coun Population Households Poverty % ALICE AboveALICE Threshold % Unemploy- went Rate Horsing Burden over 1 35% Owner Housing Burden over 1 35010 Reuter 3777 1619 10% 35% 56% 4% 44% 42% Key Lar o/Monroe Coun Population Households Poverty % I ALICE % AboveALICE Threshold % Unemploy- ruent Rate Housing Burden over 35% Owner Housing Burden over 35% Renter 11409 4517 15% 38% 47% 9% 44% 57% Key West Population Households Poverty % ALICE % AboveALICE Threshold % Unemploy- ment Rate Housing Burden over 35% Owner Housing Burden over 35% Reuter 24870 9322 9% 35% 56% 4% 44% 68% Lower Ke s/Monroe County Population Households Poverty % ALICE AGove ALICE Threshold % Unerrrploy- ment Rate Housing Burden over 35% Owner Housing Burden over 35% Reuter 10394 4314 1 8% 23% 62% 5% 42% 56% Marathon Population Households Povert3, % ALICE I AGove ALICE Threshold % I Unemploy ment Rate Housing Burden over 35% Owner Housing Burden over 35% Reuter 8389 3371 14% 41% 45% 9% 40% 65% Middle Ke s/Monroe County Population Households Povertj, % ALICE %Threshold Above ALICE % Unemploy- ment Rate Housing Burden over 35% Owner Housing Burden over 35% Reuter 9731 4068 13% 40% 47% North Ke Largo/Monroe nty Population Holuel5olds Poverty % ALICE AGove ALICE Threshold % Unemploy- ment Rate Horsing Burden over 35% Owner Housing Burden over 35% Renter 1166 510 11% 20% 69% 4% 36% 25% Stock Island/ Monroe Coun Population Households Poverty % ALICE °o AboveALICE Threshold % Unemploy- meat Rate Horsing Burden over 35% Owner Housing Burden over 35% Reuter 3736 1111 14% 62% 24% 8% 53% 69% Tavernier/ Monroe County POP Population Households Pover73 % ALICE AGove ALICE Threshold %n Unemploy- ment Rate Horsing Burden over 35% Owner Housing But over 35% Renter 2491 953 6% 46% 48°io 7% 46% 37% Upper Keys/Monroe County Population Households Poverty, °^o ALICE I AboveALICE Threshold % Unemploy- ment Rate Honing Burden over 35% Owner Housing Burden over 35% Reuter 21234 8633 13% 37%0 50% 9% 43% 54% Monroe Count%, Workforce I lousing; Stakeholder .\ssessment Report, \prig 2015 12 The findings of all of several recent reports on Monroe County's current housing situation confirm that there is a significant and growing shortage of affordable workforce housing, both rental and ownership. In addition there exists a policy gap in that affordable housing for the working and middle classes is largely left to individual municipalities and counties to deal with. In Monroe County an hourly wage needed to afford a two -bedroom Fair Market Rent is $26 27/hour.' In order not to pay more than 30% of family income on housing, a household must earn $4,553 monthly or $54,640 annually. The findings of all of the reports on Monroe County's current housing situation confirm that there is a significant and growing shortage of affordable workforce housing, both rental and ownership. A significant portion of the current workforce housing in Monroe County is rental and there is a large rental housing deficit. As is the case throughout Florida, there has been increase in the demand for rental housing in Florida following the great recession and subsequent housing crisis, particularly among younger households and families with children. Statewide, the percent of households renting increased from 29.4 percent in 2007 to 34.4 percent in 2012 (American Community Survey, 2012; Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, University of Florida, 2013)." The Shimberg Center has found that affordable rental shortages are most pronounced in southeast Florida. (SCHS, 2013). In an Affordable Housing Solutions White Paper (October 2014)" Donald Craig, Planning Director for the City of Kev West, projected a deficit of amore than 6,500 units of affordable housing units in the City and characterized the affordability challenge as follows: "The City's Comprehensive Plan identified the City of Key West median household income as $52,004 while the average annual wages earned by a worker in the City are approximately $37,844 indicating that by standard guidelines for mortgage lending at the median level, a home should cost no more than $166,012, or three times the median income. This is clearly inconsistent with actual cost of housing in the City, when the Key West Board of Realtors reports that at the end of July 2014 the median sales prices of 162 single family homes sold in the preceding 7 months was $630,000 and the median sales prices for Condo/Townhouses was $368,000. Clearly persons and families making the median income or average wage cannot afford for -sale housing, even if such were being built. As to rental housing, the situation is not better. Even though dated and most assuredly higher, the 2010 reported median gross monthly rent in the Cit3- was $1,359. In order to be affordable to the average wage earner in the City, the monthly rent should be no more than $946. Rent such as this is not available in the City at this point and time and results in workers sharing housing in increasing numbers, or paying 40-50°,b of their income for housing." "Out of Reach 2014: Vlorida' National Low Income I lousing Coalition 8 .\ffordable I lousing White Paper- Donald (;raig, AI(;P Director of Planning & Nicole halo ART,Planner, City of Kea Vb'est: aitr7: ?en trl ;nmicus_com KttA\L °_2o14 tt aa� t,onim9.sitw, \s,yLatcL_' Ufl Dcr�ail.lulf Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakcho[dcr \ssessment Report, \pril 2015 13 N N The 2015 Home Matters Report from the Florida Housing Coalition' confirms what other reports have found regarding rapid increases in rents for vacant units on the market while Florida's home ownership has declined steadily since its peak in 2007. Tighter mortgage lending standards, rising mortgage interest rates and fees, and a high percentage of cash sales have squeezed many low and moderate income homebuyers out of the market. There currently exists a policy gap to fund workforce housing development. Federal programs through HUD or state governments are generally targeted towards low-income programs designed for people that make less than 60% of Area Median Income (AMl). The Low -Income Housing Tat Credit, which mainly spurs development of rental properties, is an example of this. Affordable housing for the working and middle classes has been largely left to individual municipalities and counties to deal with. III. WORKFORCE HOUSING CHALLENGES- STAKEHOLDER IDEAS AND PERSPECTIVES A. Critical Affordable Workforce Housing Common Themes The over 75 persons participating in the interviews and meetings identified a range of workforce housing issues. Vb'hile some offered a perspective from the same sector, they lived and worked in different parts of the Keys and the ideas they offered were not necessarily the same as others sharing that perspective. However, across the various perspectives the following six common themes regarding key workforce housing issues emerged: 1. A Shared vision of success for Workforce Housing in Monroe County will be important to guide and gauge the menu of strategies and actions needed to address workforce housing. 2. Action orientation. All acknowledge the workforce housing contest is complex and challenging but needs immediate focus and attention and that addressing gaps in workforce housing throughout the Florida Keys will require immediate and longer term actions, even if those interviewed had differences in emphasis on those options and actions. 3. Build upon the past affordable housing studies and reports. Many agreed with the following statement, "The comprehensive studies, recommendations and published works on tie topic do not need to be repeated. The metrics of this problem are well known and documented. The dynamics and facts have changed little over tie years." 4. Define the problem(s) first. There needs to be a careful effort to define the shared workforce housing problem facing Monroe County in a multifaceted way (different levels and needs of workers, rental vs. ownership, different locations in the Keys) and then based on data and knowledge, move to identify, craft and implement "solutions. taM-jUweni_.P�ilriri�x��c'�,'az,mc i�5atit r t�r-Iiid Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder \ssessmcnt Report, April 2015 14 5. No single strategy. There does not appear to be a single strategy- to pursue but rather a menu of combined strategies to address the workforce housing challenges in the Florida Keys. Any committee should seek to develop a balanced package of both short term and longer -term strategies and actions that are targeted to addressing the needs of different sections of the workforce and to different parts of Monroe County. 6. Housing as community infrastructure. Given its importance to the local economy, the County should consider workforce housing as it considers other critical infrastructure such as transportation and water supply. Workforce housing should receive the policy, planning and financial attention that other areas of local infrastructure receive. The County should seek to better integrate the housing element with other plan elements such as the future land use, public facilities, transportation and capital improvements. B. Critical Affordable Workforce Housing Common Issues Issues generally identified as important to address from most perspectives included: 1. Addressing the ROGO system and workforce housing, including transfers and fractional ROGOs 2. Density and livable workforce housing 3. Relaxing height restrictions in light of Federal flood insurance changes and to create more workforce housing 4. Strengthen Monroe County Housing Authority's role in workforce housing 5. Address transportation and its relationship to and role in workforce housing 6. Update Monroe County's workforce housing site identification and audit of publicly owned property 7. Create new workforce housing units that are both affordable and livable with development incentives and public private partnerships 8. Preserve and maintain existing workforce housing and provide incentives to preserve workforce housing 9. Address related workforce issues due to high cost of housing (insurance, childcare, food insecurity- etc.) 10. Review and consider changes in the County, City and state affordable housing policies and regulations including length of deed restrictions Monroe Count% Workforce I lousing Stakeholder \sscssment Report, \pril 2015 15 N 11. Explore and expand funding sources to expand workforce housing in Monroe County C. Stakeholder Ideas and Perspectives on Workforce Housing Matrix The Stakeholder Assessment sought to identify how different stakeholder perspectives viewed the challenges of workforce housing facing Monroe County and its residents. The over 60 issues and ideas identified and summarized from the many interviews and meetings, help to shed light on the complexity of the issues and on the healthy diversity of views on how to best address the challenges. The assessment interviews were conducted with the understanding that the themes and ideas identified would be shared with the Commission and inform any committee that would engage in subsequent consensus building on workforce housing solutions. It was also understood that individual views would not be attributed but related perspectives would be summarized. Workforce housing ideas and issues identified in the Assessment from different perspectives and included issues displayed in the matrix below in the following nine categories: 1. Overall (12Issues/Ideas) 2. Workforce Housing Funding (7Issues/Ideas) 3. Workforce Housing Planning, Zoning & Enforcement (13 Issues/Ideas) 4. Workforce Housing & Transportation (4 Issues/Ideas) S. Workforce Housing & Site Identification (3 Issues/Ideas) 6. Workforce Housing Construction (4 Issues/Ideas) 7. Workforce Housing- Preserve Existing (7Issues/Ideas) 8. Workforce Housing & the Education Sector (2 Issues/Ideas) 9. Workforce Housing & Related Issues (67ssues/Ideas) Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, 1pril 2015 16 M ISSUES/IDEAS I STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ✓=Noted as issite/idea in the inter eas County City State Education Development Lod gixg/Hesfiitality Bxtinerf Non -Profit Military Tourism OVERALL 1. No single solution, menu of ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ �/ �/ options 2. Build on work to date ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ ✓ �/ studies, task forces, etc. 3. 'target different levels of ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ �/ �/ �/ ✓ ✓ workforce to provide WI I 4. lingige private and public ✓ ✓ ✓ y/ �/ �/ �/ ✓ ✓ sector employers in finding W1I solutions 5. Political will to implement ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ e/ 6/ ✓ solutions G. Focus on rental housing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ �/ �/ 7. .lddressing NINIB1' and ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ a/ �/ ✓ workforce housing 3. Encourage public private ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ �/ partnerships for Wl I I?ncouragc WI I affordability ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ e/ and IiNability 0. Support living wages in the ✓ Keys 1. Expand the Keys economy ✓ ✓ ✓ beyond tourism 2..\ddress negative impacts on be Heys communities of transient workforce 3. Collect data on Wl I ✓ ✓ �/ �/ rovided by hotchen ISSUES/IDEAS I I STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES County City State Education Development Lodging/Hotpitaliy Business Non -Profit Military Tourism WORKFORCE HOUSING FuND1NG 4. Workforce housing site ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ identification and audit 5. Changing the Tourist ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ Development Council (FDl law to allow those dollars to be used for affordable housing development. G. Remedc Sadowski Trust ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Ijund donor inc uin E. Land Authoriti funds for ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ y/ ✓ workforce housing, construction A. Dedicated local funding for ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ �/ workforce housing 9. Consider inclusionan WI I ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ fee fl..\ddress :fir B&B and ✓ impact on bed tax revenue 1. Provide assistance to workforce renters (do%%n avmentj deposit) WORKFORCE HOUSING- PLANNING, ZONING, ENFORCEMENT 2. Create a County Workforce ✓ ✓ s/ �/ �/ I fousin • Decclo ment Plan 3. Consider adjusting height ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ a/ �/ restrictions for more WI I 4..\llow increased density for ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ �/ WII 5.'l'ax Credit Property ✓ ✓ y/ ManigementaftLf 15 years G. Vncourage mixed use S/ Monnx Counh \\'orkforce I fousing Stakeholder \ssessment RefxM, April 2015 18 ■ M M In ISSUES/IDEAS STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES County Ciy State Educatio Development Lodging/Hospitaliy Business Non- Military n Tourism Profit 7. L'nforcc liousing (:odes ✓ ✓ ✓ 8.1?xplore "micro lousing" ✓ ✓ e/ 9.ROGO. flocationsand ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ �/ Transfers, Fractional ROGO 0. ROGO Formula ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 1. Address redevelopment and ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ WH 2. Encourage commercial ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ �/ construction of Wli bt reducing impact fee. 3. Explore the role of lice- ✓ ✓ ✓ aboard boats in WI I 4.1?ncourage hospitality ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 6/ industn to build WI1 5. Document and collect data ✓ ✓ ✓ on the hotelier's efforts to provide workforce housing WORKFORCE HOUSING & TRANSPORTA7ION 6. Increase highway capacity to ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ s/ ✓ adjust ROGO evacuation formula 7. Address related issues- ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ 0/ �/ Transportation options for Cott loyces N..Wdress transit issues in the ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ upper Kcvs 9..lddress & improvo transit ✓ ✓ �/ `/ 6/ issues in the lower Kcrs WORKFORCE; HOUSINC & SI"I E IDENTIFICATION W. Re -purpose land owned by ✓ �/ �/ 6/ local rocernmcnt for Wl I 1. Focus all 3-tier properties on ✓ WI i Nlonrm Counn U'orkforcc C lousing Sutkeholder Assessment Relxin, April 3015 19 m m ISSUES/IDEAS I STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES Cauny City State Education Development Lodging/Hospitality Business Non- Military Tourism Prop 2..\udit Local Government ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ owned public lands for WI I WORKFORCE HOUSING - CONSTRUCTION B. Waive building fees for WI I ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ W. Buy down interest rates for WH projects 5. Cut taxing rates on WI I ✓ O. Commercial properties for ✓ ✓ �/ Wli-tax and insurance breaks WORKFORCE HOUSING _ PRESERVE EXISTING WH 7.1)rescrve/maintain ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ affordable units S.Address "lost, \II/WII ✓ �/ units W. Revisit land trusts as a tool ✓ ✓ �/ 0. Pro\ ide for "no net loss" of ✓ ✓ affordable & WI I in Counts housing clement 1. Adopt a ` Icase form" for ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ local governments owning underlying land for W I 1 2. \ddress loss of deed ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ a/ �/ restrictions for :\1 I 3. \ddress RV /Trailer Parks as ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ �/ �/ y/ WI I and conversion issue, WORKFORCE HOUSING -= EDUCATION 4. Engage the school system as ✓ ✓ ✓ largest employer in WI 1 5. Improve teacher housing ✓ needs data collection Nlonme Counn \\ orkfotec I lousing Stakchulder \sse.ssment Report, \pril 3015 20 ISSUES/IDEAS I STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES County City I State I Education Development Lodging/Hospitality Business Non- Military Tourism Profit WORKFORCE HOt::SING °- RELATED ISSUES G..\ddress related issues ✓ ✓ e/ a/ �/ �/ �/ insurance costs- Ntind 7. Address 2018 1+F.1\1 1 flood ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ s/ �/ insurance issues. 8..\ddress related issues- ✓ ✓ Davcarc 9. I lomclessness & Workforce ✓ ✓ �/ �/ �/ I Iousin g 0. Protect mifitnn• buffer areas ✓ ✓ 1. Address "food security" and ✓ Wil N(onnm Counh \\"orkf arce I tousingStakeholder \ssessment Report, \pril 21115 ?1 m D. Stakeholder Ideas and Perspectives on Workforce Housing Over 75 persons participated in the interviews and meetings and identified a range of workforce housing issues. Below is a compilation summary of the input received from individuals representing different sectors (public, private and non-profit) and residing in different parts of Monroe County. 1. County Government- Ideas and Perspectives Build on affordable housing work to date •' We need to understand and build on what's been learned from various task forces and studies and apply to the current workforce housing situation in the Keys. Review what incentives are in ordinances and how have they worked. How do we retool to work better. %What about inclusionary zoning? What about density bonuses and density waivers? What they are how they work. How to retool to work better. What doesn't work. • Come up to speed on what was done previously so we know where things were when walked away. No silver bullet, no easy fix • We need a balanced menu of options. Acknowledge the broad range of different of solution and levels of housing. • There is no easy fix, no one way to handle this problem. Workforce Housing Shortages • We are short over 6000 units and under ROGO we will get 700 over the next 10 years. That does not come close to solving the problem. • The Affordable Housing Committee should focus initially on workforce. • We are short 6,800 units of work- force housing. This is a crisis and housing is the most expensive item on the County's list. • Housing affordability in the Keys includes insurance, the cost of food and the cost of daycare as well as housing. Rental workforce housing focus • Our most critical need is in lower income and service ranges and we should focus especially on rentals for this segment of the workforce. • 98% of the residents of county -run public housing is workforce housing for working individuals (with the exception of the elderly and disabled). Rent is capped to 30% of household income and the remaining amount is subsidized. Windstorm and Flood Insurance Rates • The current windstorm and flood insurance situation is huge affecting all residents not just lower income. • If you can't pay cash, you need insurance to secure a bank loan. • FIRM- Fair insurance rates for Monroe- is engaged in grass roots advocacy work. • The Federally subsidized program flood insurance program was amended and will set a new basis for Florida insurance rates, setting the stage for immediate dramatic increases flood insurance rates for both residential and commercial properties. County growth management and affordable housing. • Should affordable housing be part of the County growth management function which is built more to slow growth or placed elsewhere with good staff support to allow it to be more active in identifying parcels and developers in getting the job done? Empower and support the Affordable Housing Committee The Committee needs to consider a menu of recommended consensus workforce housing solutions as a package for the County Commission to consider and implement. Protect and support the Committee's affordable housing staff. • In the past considering the complex incentives and transactions for developers to build affordable housing has opened staff to attack by those opposing development in general. It has been a very public and vitriolic situation where staff have been personally attacked. Site Identification. • We should identify every piece of county property that is vacant, demolished, big enough for affordable housing and zoned properly. Preserve and maintain affordable units. • We've lost some affordable housing that was bought at low rates and sold at market rate and restrictions were ignored. We have to pay attention so games are not played with this and we lose these units. Mixed Use. • We should encourage this but it has not caught on except in Key West. • We should explore mixed use and mixed income levels vs. low income property projects makes for better self policing and safer and more livable communities. • The only exception to this is tax credit properties where everyone is low income with no one is over 60% AMI. Address Management on Tax Credit Properties after 15 years. ° For the first 15 years, the developer is liable and responsible to maintain the tax credits and the housing. After the 15"' year property management tends to deteriorate as less cash is devoted to upkeep. Consider allowing Land Authority bed tax funds for construction. • Currently they can only use the funding for land acquisition. • Consider changing the Tourist Development Council (TDC) law to allow those dollars to be used for affordable housing development. Height Restrictions. • Should be open to relaxing this where this could produce more workforce housing. • Consider handling this on a site specific basis. • There are areas in town where building higher would not block views. The City of Key West would have the capacity to implement this although it would first have to be approved by referendum. Explore Micro Housing. • This is being implemented in cities such as New York. It might be applied in cities in the Keys to cut down on the commute time. • Note that 1—bedroom units are the shortest in supply for the public housing and tend to be occupied longer, usually by elderly and disabled. Enforce Housing Codes. 0 Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, \pril 2015 23 • Enforce housing codes in terms of illegal multiple occupancy. ROGO ROGO allocation system for permits early on effectively eliminated affordable housing construction. 'Three things need to come together for successful workforce housing funding, available land and allocations. However these have not coincided. Years ago funding was available but land and allocation were not. Hospitality Industry and Workforce Housing. • The industry should step up and participate in efforts to provide more affordable workforce housing. Some are, others should. • Some wonder why County taxes would be used to subsidize the hotels' workforce housing. Hotels should do more. • We should collect data on what hoteliers are doing in providing workforce housing for their employees. Local Dedicated Funding Source. • We need a local dedicated funding source (sales tax, "sin" tax, etc.) that can support the construction of workforce housing not just land acquisition. Address Sadowski Trust Fund Donor Inequity. • Monroe County contributes 60% and gets back 8%. This should be addressed when funding resumes. Address NIMBY ° Historically there has been community reactions to the old low income projects. This may continue to be an issue. Related Affordability Issues • Insurance and Day Care can figure in challenges for workers in terms of costs on tight family budgets. • Many work 2-3 service jobs to be able to afford housing and other costs such as food. • The "situationally" homeless are part of the workforce housing puzzle in Monroe County. Hurricanes and Workforce Housing. • In the last hurricanes in the Keys transportation from Miami stopped and restaurant and lodging businesses in the Upper Keys had to shut their doors for lack of employees. 2. Municipal Government- Ideas and Perspectives Target the Levels of Workforce to Serve • We need to define more clearly what kind(s) of workforce housing we want for the community. Hourly wage earners may always be renters in the Florida Keys. There is a shortage of decent, reasonably priced, available housing, especially one -bedroom rentals. Engage Employers • We need the businesses in Monroe County with the different types of employees (hourly, salaried) to be at the table and part of the solution. Hotels have the highest occupancy rate and the most profits of any place in the country. They have begun to help with workforce housing and they should continue to do Monroe County Workforce I lousingStakeholder Assessment Re ort .\ ril 2015 2 P � P N more. Vacation rentals • We need to address this challenging issue and its impact on workforce housing in the current marketplace. Height restrictions • Ease height restrictions where there aren't view issues to allow for more workforce housing. Mixed use. • Seek more mixed uses with the school board and other public properties. Land Acquisition • Focus land acquisition on workforce housing properties. Focus on Redevelopment • Key West is nearing build out and most construction is redevelopment and remodeling. Loss of Deed Restrictions • Address and audit the Loss of Deed Restrictions. ("Of the total 1,089 affordable units, 223 are expected to have their deed restrictions expire, or have expired by the end of 2015." (See Appendix #6). "No net loss" of existing workforce housing • Amend the Comprehensive Plan's housing element so that future development will result in "no net loss" of existing workforce/affordable rental housing for households earning 80% or less than the area mean income. High land values limit tax credit funded affordable units • Difficult to both finance and construct units at any level except at the 60% of median through heavily subsidized tax credit funding. Lack of reasonably priced land has meant few of these projects have been built. • In the City of Key West, its annual allocation of 91 affordable housing BPAS units. Re -purpose land owned by local government • Land owned by the county should be re -purposed for affordable and workforce housing. Consider additional funding sources A tax on every alcoholic beverage sold or a 1% real estate transfer tax could generate funding for workforce housing. Relying upon the Land Authority funds won't be enough. Development Plan and Funding for Workforce Housing We need to figure out how to put the land authority/Housing Authority and bed tax money together and form development plan for affordable housing. ROGO AH Allocations • Each year in City of Key West there are 90 affordable housing ROGO allocations with the City able to borrow up to 10 years ahead to create more affordable housing. • Focus all tier-3 properties on workforce housing if it doesn't raise a property rights issue. Adopt lease form 0 • Cities should consider adopting a lease form with the public sector owning the Monroe County° Workforce l Tousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 25 ■ underlying land. Support non -profits and their work on affordable and workforce housing • Provide funding for nonprofit affordable housing entities. 3. State Government- Ideas and Perspectives FFHC Set Aside for Monroe County • Work to preserve the Monroe County set aside Florida Finance Housing Corporation competitive applications for affordable housing tax credit Sadowski Fund • Sadowski Fund affordable housing funding has not been available for affordable housing since 2006. Work to bring that funding back. Tourist Development Tax and Workforce Housing • Tourist Development Tax should support the building of workforce housing. Funds go to the Monroe County Land Authority ($4 million) and Key West ($8 million). • Consider changing the tourism bed tax statute to allow for supporting the construction of workforce housing. Combination of Issues • In the Keys need to consider four factors: hurricane evacuation; environmental protection of land and species; affordable housing; and water supply. • During the economic downturn there was less interest in building AH. Rising Rents • Rising rents represent a big challenge for workforce housing and strategies to address this should be considered. NIMBY issues and Workforce Housing • Monroe County needs to address the NIMBY issue that is a barrier to workforce housing. Protect Navy Noise and Crash Zone but look for workforce housing opportunities • Work with the Navy to protect noise and crash zones while looking for opportunities to build workforce housing. Support Deed Restrictions • Support the use of 99 year leases for $1- Affordable forever. Is Assess current state of enforcement of deed restricted land and work to extend leases to 99 years. Identify and Aggregate Workforce Housing Parcels • More could be done to identify parcels of land and aggregate them and analyze opportunities for workforce housing on surplus lands. • There may be opportunities for duplexes and quadaplexes on scarified small lots for rental units. Height Restrictions • Consider relaxing height restrictions especially in the center of the islands with existing tall buildings. This would provide additional workforce housing FEMA Flood Maps Monroe County Workforce 1 lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 26 • Address the impacts of the new FEMA flood maps on Monroe County and workforce housing. Homeless + Homeless are an important issue to address in a tourist economy. How many of the homeless are there because of lack of affordable housing in the Keys? ROGO System ROGO system has evolved and the modeling is scientifically and statistically defensible in terms of hurricane evacuation time. • There are affordable housing ROGOs that have not been used. • The most recent annual travel study that shows how long takes to get over the 22 segments of the U.S. 1 highway, indicates a segment starting to fail in Islamorada. Engage the Hotel and Hospitality Industry • Hoteliers should be more engaged in the workforce housing discussion. Convened a recent meeting for hoteliers in Islamorada to discuss this issue and only 3 came. Enforcement of Housing Ordinances • Need to address and enforce the ordinances regarding unlawful modifications of homes and overcrowding of residences. Mobile Homes and RV Parks and Workforce Housing • Need to address the question of the role of mobile/RV parks in supplying workforce housing and the impact of conversions of these parks on availability of affordable housing. 4. Education Sector Ideas and Perspectives Target the kind of housing needed • Education has the same levels of workforce housing needs as other sectors. • Have to focus on the target population in terms of addressing gaps in workforce housing, e.g. Teachers, support and administrative staff, service industry workers, etc. Partnerships for workforce housing • Interested and exploring partnerships for workforce housing development on school board owned property. Recruitment and Retention • Recruiting and retaining teachers and professors in the Keys is a very challenging problem due to the relatively high cost of housing. • Retention continues to be a problem and accessible and affordable workforce housing is part of it. There is a huge organizational cost to retrain. Student Enrollment Stable • The current contest in terms of student enrollment is stable but not increasing, having decreased during the economic downturn. Single vs. Family Teachers • "We have lot of young employees with over 70 new teachers." Young single teachers may rent space with roommate(s), but teachers with family is another matter as there is very little family friendly workforce housing. • Many teachers in Upper Keys commute to Miami Dade vs. secure housing in Monroe Crountt Workforce I lousing Stakeholder .lssessment Report, April 2015 27 Monroe County. • In Key West and the lower keys, the property values are the highest and present a challenge for young teachers and teachers with families. Involve the Public School System at the Workforce Housing Table • Since the Public School system one of the larger employers in the County in terms of teachers, support and administrative staff, there should be place at a workforce housing table for this perspective. Increasing reliability of teacher housing needs data • The School system is working on improving the reliability of their data and its collection related to employee housing needs. Public private partnerships • Encourage and support public private partnerships as part of the workforce housing solution. 5. Development Stakeholder Ideas and Perspectives Development Constraints • The critical areas of state concern and environmental issues constrain the available land for workforce housing. • The cost of labor and insurance is climbing so incentives for workforce housing will be an important stimulus. Authorize Land Authority to Build Workforce Housing • Fund the Monroe County Housing Authority or other similar successful organizations to build workforce housing. Convert public land for workforce housing • The school board and die city may have large tracts that can be converted for workforce housing. • Need to use infrastructure $$ making land improvements for property we should own- RFPs for developers. Tax credit housing and workforce Meridian West- 102 units for very low income. It has the lowest turnover of any very low-income housing project in Florida with 3 bedroom apartment renting for around $1100. The very low and low income are the best served in terms of affordable housing of the workforce population. Workforce housing is where the gaps are. Livability and Affordability • Tax credit developers- Designed for good purpose but because of bureaucratic overhead, can only do large scale projects that may look out of place and unattractive to the people living in and nearby the units/development. • Livability ideas are secondary with landscaping and signage not given a high priority. Need to consider "livability" not just tax credits and affordability when building workforce housing. • Scale is an issue here with smaller projects there is a greater chance of empowering residents to maintain their homes. The larger projects have ongoing maintenance and management costs Address Spectrum of Workers and Housing Needs Momoe County Workforce I lousingStakeholder, \ssese 2 .. .. ment Report — April _015 .-. • Have to clarif - what workers want and need in terms of housing. M-lat is the real need? Employees from Eastern Europe- Hawks Cay- Vast majority of employees- 6 months at a time. Is sharing an apartment for these workers a bad idea? • What portion of staff/employers made up of transient migrant workers? What are their needs? How many are working in City of Key West and where can their housing needs be best addressed? What role might dormitories play? Incentives for smaller unit projects • Consider providing incentives for more smaller unit projects that will be more livable. The tax credit resource funding for this doesn't practically work below 20-25 units because of costs. • Provide incentives for small apartment complexes, not big units, e.g. develop 10- 20 units with multiple occupancy. • They can be nicely done dorm style with shared kitchen consistent with character, built to code and also preserve green space. Hotels re -openings and workforce housing impacts • May not be new hotels coming on but those that were shut down are reopening. We need to be careful about what that means in terms of housing demand. There may not be growth in the population going forward. Workforce Housing and Live Aboard Boats • What are the City of Key West statistics on Mooring Fields. There may be more than 120 boats in mooring fields providing affordable housing. How many boats are there for a short or longer time? How many are providing workforce housing? What is the quality? Addressing Trailer and RV Parks as Workforce Housing • What role do existing trailer and RV parks play in affordable workforce housing in Monroe County? • What has been the enforcement experience with the 30% rule in converting trailer parks in the County? Waive building permit fees • Have local governments waive building permit fees for affordable and workforce housing projects. Political will Is there the political will to implement workforce housing solutions? •' There has been at times, for example the last Workforce Housing Task Force in 2007 had some of it recommendation implemented. Encourage mixed use • We should be encouraging mixed use in central areas throughout the Keys. Consider greater use of an inclusionary affordable housing fee • The County should set a fee for inclusionary housing such as the $40,000 per inclusionary housing credit that Marathon is proposing. This fee would be paid to the Monroe County Housing Authority in an affordable housing trust fund to be distributed to those who actually build affordable housing. This would create a subsidy paid from new market rate or transient (hotel) projects to be distributed to those who actually build the affordable housing. Monroe County Workforce I lousingStakeholder Assessm • � ` � 29 uir Report, \pril _015 • To assure the housing is built and completed, the subsidy would not be funded until the certificates of occupancy for the affordable housing are issued. • This type of commitment would incentivize those who are willing to build affordable housing, and the funds would come from those building the projects that require inclusionary housing without the market rate developer from having to use some of his/her market rate allocations on affordable housing. • All transient unit development and re -development should require inclusionary affordable housing ordinance, or impact fee assessment. Increase density and height • With limited lands on which to build affordable housing, increase the density and height (e.g. 40 feet vs. 35 feet) for affordable housing to make this feasible. • Increased density in appropriate zoning districts within commercial areas to facilitate workforce housing. • Increase height in appropriate areas. • Build up! Build new! Much of the KWHA properties are old, ugly, small and inefficiently sparse. Density needs to increase. Increase the capacity of highways • To increase ROGO allocation work together to secure funding to increase the capacity of highways. Review city and county owned lands for use as workforce housing • Identify all city and county owned lands for workforce housing that do not present environmental issues and utilize for workforce housing. Develop a workforce housing 10-year strategic plan. • Look for early successes in the first 3-5 years in adjusting regulations. Set a goal of cutting the gap in workforce housing by 50%. • The approach to "renter vs. ownership" should be "both/and." Address the 2018 FEMA changes • We need to prepare in required elevations (AE 7 becomes 9) and 60% of houses will be in jeopardy making them harder to resale or rebuild. Surplus land • The County and Cities should inventory surplus land and identify land that can be used for workforce housing. • Lift the cap on the number of credits, keep construction costs per unit low ($25,000) • Consider additional sales subsidy to help deals that are short. Identify and Aggregate Parcels of Public Land • County and the Cities haven't done enough to identify- parcels of land and aggregate them. We need to do more surplus land analysis. Additional density for workforce housing • We have to be creative. We should consider giving additional density to developers who are constructing a workforce community/development with a couple market rate units. Add commercial development and redevelopment • Based on employees and square feet (use industry standards and sales tax codes) for an impact fee assessment. Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder \ssessment Report, ,kpril 2015 30 N ROGO Transfers • Implement a ROGO transfer ordinance whereby a market rate unit may be dislodged if an affordable unit replaces the dislodged market rate. • Issue no market rate ROGO units for multi -unit development projects, instead, issue "affordables" and require developers to take the affordable units and deed restrict existing market rate properties and then dislodge the market rate for use elsewhere as their market rates. Buy Down Interest Rates for Workforce Housing Projects • Use land authority money or impact fees to buy down interest rates for development costs for work force housing projects. Cut Taxing Rates on Workforce Housing • Legislation to cut taxing rates on affordable and workforce housing. Commercial Properties for Workforce Housing • Give commercial properties that are used for workforce housing rental the same tax and insurance (flood) breaks as primary homestead properties. 6. Lodging, Hospitality and Tourist Development— Ideas and Perspectives The Hospitality Economy • Hospitality represents 80% of die economic activity in the Keys. Its workforce is very transient and generally looking to rent not purchase. Lodging Industry and Workforce Housing • Lodging industry may be only industry in the Keys that is trying to address workforce housing for new properties. For example the Westin in Key West has 75 units set aside housing 105 people from managers to cooks. Marketing and the Keys • Focusing on creating a year round destination with success in Key West. Spreading the marketing effort out over the year to increase visits and occupancy in the off season and slow season. Colorado recently decided it had marketed sufficiently and moved to disband their statewide marketing effort. The next season resulted in a big drop in tourism. Tourism remains the key part of the Key's economy. Importance of continuing to market the Keys • Colorado experience in cutting budget for statewide marketing led to big drop in the tourism economy. Environmental Land Acquisition vs. Affordable Housing • With the years in which funding was put towards environmentally land acquisition, relatively little was invested affordable housing. What is a smart split between the 2 purposes? Transportation and the Keys. • The transit service from Miami -Dade to Marathon and north in the Upper Keys is currently funded by the Dade County local transit 1/2 penny, state and federal dollars but no Monroe County support for the transit service. • As job opportunities grow in Miami Dade, what impact will this have on the supply of lodging industry and related tourist industry employees in the Upper Keys? "Getting on bus at Xy'almart in Florida City to go south for work, the Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, \pril 2015 31 question for workers is How available is work, where and how much does it pay.), • Homestead and Florida City provide high densities of immigrant populations which housing in Monroe County does not offer. • Hotels in the Upper Keys are interested in working with Monroe and Dade Counties in finding a solution to sustaining and improving the transit service that provides lodging and hospitality works from Marathon and north. Some hotels are supplementing the bus routes with their own busses. • We need better transit in the lower Keys to support the workforce transportation needs. • Better public transportation in the lower keys. Reliability and cost of public transportation options to deal with fact that more affordable housing is further away from jobs. • Need reliable transit from workforce housing to work especially with parking issues in Key West. Alternatives such as biking and scooters are not practical given weather. Consider using smaller and more transit vehicles in the Key West area. Employee turnover • Person dependent industries cannot outsource jobs. Need to find ways to reduce employee turnover which often relates to housing/rental costs. Vacation rentals and Preserving Affordable Units • This is a large problem throughout the Keys impacting the supply of workforce housing. However it may be that many are above the workforce housing price range. • More important than building new workforce housing is how can we maintain what is affordable for the median income workers. During the downturn property values went down while rentals went up. Workforce housing is primarily the rental housing market. Consider whether there might be restrictions or new regulations creating some disincentives for converting units to vacation rentals. Online Vacation Rentals Marketplace • Address the online market place for vacation rentals that connects users with property to rent with users looking to rent the space(e.g. AirBnB) and its impact on bed tax revenue • Also, related to this is the new addition of Air B&B and lack of regulation and enforcement. This raises safety issues as well as the "free ride" by not paying the bed tax. It may be much easier to rent through this approach than to a workforce tenant. Help Workforce Renters • Consider providing down payment/deposit assistance. Hospitality Industry Data • Hotels have been reluctant to share data on workforce housing as some is tied to employment contracts and privacy concerns. Disseminating Workforce Housing Information • V'e need more effective affordable housing information that is available to workers. 0 Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder .\ssessment Report.April 2015 32 Height restrictions • Can build more rental units on both 214d and Yd floors with first floor commercial in the lower Keys if the height restrictions are eased. For example consider strip malls with the upper level dedicated to housing. Public Property County and Cities may be the biggest land owners and should identify public property with buildings that might be torn down to build housing. Balance environmentally land acquisition with affordable housing •' investment. Historically, nothing or little has been allocated towards AH effort. What is a smart split between the 2 purposes. NIMBYism ("Not in my back yard") • Lodging industry did general marketing efforts focusing on nurses and police and workforce housing which helped. However, there continues to be a lack of creating new workforce housing. • Give Land Authority the ability to devote some of the bed tax funding to purchase workforce housing. Retention and the High Cost of Housing • Tourist Development Council data shows that 94% of those leaving the County are leaving because of high cost of living and housing. Rents going up • While land values dropped down during the recession, rentals went up as many owners faced with increases in wind storm and flood insurance and property taxes passed these on to tourism workers. 7. Business Sector including Real Estate Island economy and community • Housing has always presented a dilemma and changes in an island community and economy. 100 years ago the cigar manufacturers had to address this. • We have a dynamically changing environment with a finite piece of real estate and nothing else to fall back on. Over the past 15 years, credit should be given for successfully putting together affordable housing units in the face of regulatory and NIMBY hurdles, but we are still far short of bridging the gap and meeting the demand. • "Checks and land" can solve the workforce housing problem. Clarify our workforce targets for housing • It is not clear what kind of workforce and housing are we seeking to provide? Hotel, motel, restaurant or managers- each with a different set of problems. • Xxre don't know anymore what the community needs. Do we need single residential occupancy for 500 guest workers in Key West? Probably not. • We may not have an analytical feel for what we need in terms of workforce housing throughout the Keys. Impact on community of transient workforce • What are we doing to the cultural makeup of the community with a transient workforce? Children grow up and move to less expensive places instead of making Monroe County their home. \lonroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 33 N N Biggest concern is the character and flavor of Monroe county may be going away and losing our foundation. The next generation shrinking. Wind and flood insurance • Rising insurance costs are compounding the housing problem- driving rents up beyond affordability. Political will • We will need the political will to make changes to bridge the gap of workforce housing • Previous Task Forces on affordable housing have been very difficult and challenging to serve on in terms of pleasing the elected leaders and citizens. • Do we have the political will to continue grappling with this problem and implementing solutions? Is the problem only a shortage of affordable units suitable for workforce housing? • We have opportunities but do we have the political will to get this done? There's too much, "I've got mine," in the community. How many of our elected leaders works or owns a business? Land trusts as a tool • The Bahama Land Trust debacle has made serious discussion of land trusts as part of the tool kit very difficult. Prioritize units over "money in lieu of • Is it even possible to prevent gentrification on island that is 2X3 square miles? Don't look for $$ in lieu of as we need units. Hold off major changes to workforce housing pending the Affordable Housing Committee's work • The County appears to be getting ready, to change income limitations to target working households at the middle level. Hold off implementing changes until we have reinstituted and charged the Affordable Housing Committee. Permit Bed Tax to support purchase/building of workforce housing • Change the law to allow purchase and building of workforce housing. Put it where people can get to work. 8. Non -Profit Sector Ideas and Perspectives Living wages • Affordable housing programs for low income earners range from 80 to 140 % of AMI, yet real wages for career type workers are closer to 60°'a AMI. • Employers in Monroe County are not expected to pay a living wage. The wealth created in our tourist economy- depends upon low wage, high turnover, and low skill employees. Limited housing supply and investment wealth • The outside wealth that purchases a second home or invests in real estate in the Keys drives up the asking and selling prices for all properties where the dynamic of a limited supply of land and great wealth seeking investment churns on constantly. This dynamic is shared with other resort locations. The compromises workers make then is to work several jobs and/or to live in substandard housing or to leave. Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder Assessmcnt Report, \pril 2015 34 N ° We need to get more citizens of Monroe County invested in the future of this place. ROGO and affordable housing • The measured gap between the number of units needed and the available ROGOs demonstrates the futility of trying to build our way out of the crisis. The negotiations with DEO provide affordable housing units for the next 20 years within the frame work of evacuation limits. These new affordable units are critical but will not solve the need. The operative assumption for allowing more density for certain types of affordable housing is that all of the types of ROGOs are not necessarily equal. Consider assigning a ROGO value of less than one unit for affordable homes less than 600 square feet or so. The Comprehensive Plan, the DEO, and evacuation models can be examined for alternative methods to allow more density for affordable units that are smaller. The second home owners who are not necessarily in residence during the hurricane evacuation season is an example of units counted against evacuation times where the actual impact may not exist. The number of homes that are vacant in Monroe County due to second home ownership has been noted in several studies • The Area of State Critical Concern uses the dwelling unit as its basic unit of control. The management of and regulation of all home types will become critical to assessing evacuation time. Monroe County should audit all housing types and create an inventory detailing the status of each ROGO. Benefits from an audit would include identifying flood prone structures, uninhabitable units, illegal units, etc. • Change ROGO to square footage. Affordable housing has not been protected • When government has granted greater densities or used inclusionary zoning it has not always registered, audited or tracked compliance to ensure the permanency of these precious units. Deed restrictions were not monitored. • The temptation to convert affordable units into market rate units, rental or ownership, is too great and with little penalty or notice. Affordable housing "lost units" The community has a strong common interest in protecting those affordable units it has lost after subsidizing or underwriting their creation. If the will were to exist, these "lost "units could be investigated and the current owner asked to revert them to affordable status. Liens and other mechanisms exist to "take" on the public's behalf what was not proper to convert in the first place. Redevelopment and inclusionary zoning • Inclusionary zoning as a government policy has been in place for new development. It is time to explore requiring affordable housing units from redevelopment projects. Lower and Middle Keys different workforce housing issues • The lower and middle keys have different issues and solutions from the upper keys where day labor bused in from the mainland can assist in the workforce. But the market dynamics are found in common through all of the keys. Monroe Count), Workforce I lousing Stakeholder .\ssessment Report, April 2015 35 N Funding inequity • A strong argument can be made to correct the inequity of the donor/recipient that exists, based on the $6 million a year that Monroe County gives to The Sadowski Housing Trust Fund every year compared to the pittance of $300,000 in SHIP funds returned this year and in the past. Transportation • Lack of transportation infrastructure makes workforce housing more problematic. New workforce housing partnerships needed • Many differing approaches in scope and scale will be required with various partnerships between government, private, for profit and nonprofit developers. Affordable yet substandard housing • Rental housing that costs less than $900 a month, regardless of size or condition, is termed affordable despite being unsafe or substandard or very small. Political will • The political will to make real changes in policies, incentives, regulations and to commit resources remains to be sustained. Don't repeat studies, focus on action • The comprehensive studies, recommendations and published works on the topic do not need to be repeated. The metrics of this problem are well known and documented. The dynamics and facts have changed little over the years: outside wealth creates seasonal homes that are not available; the profit generated from transient units puts pressure on dense mobile home and RV parks; tourist industry wages are low, turnover is high, landlords can rent substandard units due to high demand for any type of housing, etc. Other related issues • While workforce housing is the focus of the moment, there are important related issues of food insecurity, education, child care for employees are critical to the workforce housing discussion. • While addressing workforce housing, we should address homelessness (and the growing youth % of this population) and help with the path back to working for families. • Where will the employees of the new lodging establishments be housed? • There has been a huge uptick in the demand at food pantries across the County and not just among homeless people but with working families still in homes. 47% of families countywide widl kids under 18 are eligible for reduced lunch. Of this population, 46% are minorities. Lack of affordable workforce housing has led to food insecurity. If we didn't have a housing problem we wouldn't have a food security issue. • Many elected leaders are not aware of tie childcare challenges faced by those working and living in the Keys. Those who haven't raised family here are not aware of tie lack of child care options and its impact on the work force. • If we can't control housing costs for working families, all other costs such as childcare, food prices, etc. are related and compounded. Expand the Keys Economy. • We need to think outside the box and expand our efforts to build a future Keys Monroe Counte Workforce 1 lousing Stakeholder .\ssessment Report, .\pril 2015 36 N E economy beyond tourism. • We need all parts of the demographic in Monroe County. 9. Military Sector Ideas and Perspectives Recruitment and retention • Workforce housing affects the recruitment and retention. The housing set aside for the base workforce has a long wait list. Housing is the #1 issue for their civilian workforce. There is not a week where the Commander is not involved in a family housing issue. Communication and coordination • In terms of the Naval Air Station lines of communication and coordination have been improved with the Commander now the point of contact for coordination. Presence in the community • In terms of presence in Monroe County, there are roughly 1600 military (including Coast Guard), 1000 civilians and 400 contractors or about 3000 employees and about 5500 including families, spouses and dependents. Evacuation procedures • In terms of evacuation, the Commanding Officer implements the recommendations of the County Emergency Manager and will close the base and issue evacuation orders for military personnel. Civilian workers are urged to evacuate and are provided travel orders and funds to evacuate. The 550 RV units in the Naval Air Station campgrounds evacuated first. Need for buffer areas and workforce housing • In terms of searching for solutions to locating workforce housing in Key West, the Naval Air Station strives to protect public health and welfare and its mission by keeping buffer areas separate without housing in the high noise of unsafe areas surrounding the base. • The Naval Air Station does not get directly involved in growth issues such as density and intensity unless it directly impacts the buffer areas. Only exception to this was their support for the widening of the 18-mile stretch of US 1. • General concern with the impact of vacation rentals on the supply of workforce rental housing for the over 5,500 Base employees and their families, spouses and dependents. Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder .Wessment Report, April 2015 37 N N N IV. WORKFORCE HOUSING PROCESS- STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES A. Information Needed to Inform Consensus Building on Workforce Housing Monroe Counts staff has gathered a draft detailed baseline data that included an inventors- of affordable and workforce housing projects completed over the past 2 decades in Monroe Counts, along with the public incentives that were made to assist in the housing development. (See. Ilti ), f Coll Sell ,US..fsLl.edLi, A�tqK f(.)Tce 1-101-1sili v... C owittw lI 1- I_foustna_Q(-N e1op 1jLeq.� fluid lnceiidc ,; % 9- 1 f The maps that provide the locations of the developments included in the Table throughout Monroe County: Middle Kew .. Lower Kew &mmm .ra aarvmanTM•v � �aw� Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 Upper Keys 4l5le 3 W m Monroe Count% Workforce 1 lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 39 m m m Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder assessment Report, April 2015 40 Staff also provided information on the ROGO system and annual allocations. Based on the affordable housing units that are in the Affordable and Workforce Housing Projects Table, the distribution of deed restricted affordable housing units is currently: The balances of Affordable Housing Allocation" available as of Quarter 3 Year 23 Qan. 13, 2015-April 13, 2015) are: a. Big Pine/No Name Key Subarea affordable housing allocation breakdown into the two income categories are as follows: 1) very- low, low, & median income 8 allocations and 2) moderate income 8 allocations; and b. Unincorporated Monroe County excluding the Big Pine/No Name Key Subarea affordable housing allocation breakdown into the two income categories are as follows: 1) very low income, low income and median income 11.1 allocations and 2) moderate 112 allocations. The additional affordable allocations by Subarea up through 2023 include 710 total including 20 to Big Pine Key /No Name Key Subarea and 690 available for countywide allocation except for Big Pine Key/No Name Key subarea In the course of the assessment interviews and meetings, various studies and data sources 10 The 110GO) subareas are defined in Section 138.20 of the land development code as follows: Sec. 138-20. - General provisions. (c) The ROGO) allocation system shall apply within the unincorporated area of the county outside of the county mainland, and such area, for purposes hereof, has been divided into subareas as follows: (1) Upper lies: the unincorporated area of the county north of'Favernier Creek and corporate limits of the Village of Islamorada (approximately mile marker 90). (2) Lower Keys: the unincorporated area of the county from the corporate limits of the lage of Is) amorada (approximately mile marker 72) south to the corporate limits of the City of Ke1 West at Cow Key Bridge on U.S. I lighwa\ l {approximatch mile marker 4). excluding; Big fine lies and No ?dame Key. (3) Big fine lie\ and No dame Kcy: the islands of Big Pine Key and No Name lies within unincorporated the county, 'Monroe County Code Sec. 138-24. Residential ROGO allocations...... (1) Yearly residential RO)GO allocation ratio, Mach Subarea shall have its number of market rate residential ROGO allocations available per ROGO) year. \ffordable 1MG0 allocations shall be available for county wide allocation except for Big Pine lieu and No Name Key. The annual allocations for Big Pine Key and No Name Key shall be eight market rate and two affordable dwelling units. 0 ;Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, .\pril 2015 41 N were identified on best practices from other jurisdictions and ideas developed or considered but not implemented by previous affordable housing task forces. These background papers can be found at: 'r c>a f,r ���Z e x a }. c_i�r, 4 orkfor c I ousu ,-Assessment,' B. Workforce Housing Stakeholder Perspectives on the Process Going Forward Among the range of stakeholders interviewed, all expressed the need for a focused and comprehensive county -wide workforce housing dialogue that involved those with a stake in the outcome. Many believed that such a committee should develop a package of consensus recommendations, informed by data and the range of stakeholder and public perspectives, that can provide for both short and longer term actions for the Board of County Commission's consideration. While some of those interviewed remained skeptical that there will be sufficient "political will" to implement the Committee's recommendations as has been the case in the past, many believed that this was an urgent and timely issue for the County to address in light of hotel redevelopment and the economic upturn. As one stakeholder put it, "the re-establishing of the Affordable Housing Committee is a good step. Funding staff to work with it will be a measure of the commitment to effect real solutions. The mix of expertise, perspective and operating experience that the committee can bring to bear has great potential value. However, the community support and political will must be nurtured for difficult decisions on the demonstrated effective approaches of density, height and permanent protection and the mix of rentals and ownership." In the Fall of 2014, following the initiation of this Assessment, the Commission re- appointed members to the existing Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and with the thought of convening and charging them with addressing workforce housing issues and providing the County Commission with its recommendations. The reconvened committee would review this assessment report and other data as it addressed its charge. A workforce housing committee, ad hoc or otherwise, appointed and charged by the County Commission to address workforce housing issues in the Florida Keys was explored in the assessment interviews. A significant number of those interviewed applauded the County Commission's action in re -purposing die existing Affordable Housing Advisory- Committee to focus, at least in the short term, on workforce housing. It was suggested that this approach could provide representation from each District in the County, offer workforce housing perspectives from the public, private and nonprofit sectors, and minimize confusion and any duplication of effort that an ad hoc workforce housing committee might create. It was also pointed out that this charge would be consistent with the Committee's current mission to address affordable housing opportunities in Monroe County for both "residents and workforce." (emphasis added) A workforce housing committee, ad hoc or otherwise, appointed and charged by the County Commission to address workforce housing issues in the Florida Keys was explored in the assessment interviews. A significant number of those interviewed suggested the County Commission should consider utilizing and re -purposing the existing Affordable Housing Nfonroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, .April 2015 42 N Advisory Committee to focus at least in the short term on workforce housing. 1'- It was suggested that this would provide representation from each District in the County and minimize confusion and any duplication of effort that an ad hoc workforce housing committee might create in relation to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. It was also pointed out that this would be consistent with the Committee's current mission to address affordable housing opportunities in Monroe County. The Ordinance also provides that, "The advisory committee may perform additional responsibilities related to affordable housing at the request of the BOCC, including creating best management practices for the development of affordable housing in the community." [2-701(c)] The Commission should review the current Committee appointments to ensure that a balance of workforce housing stakeholder perspectives are included in its membership. If the Commission charges the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee to develop consensus recommendations on workforce housing actions for consideration by the Monroe County BOCC, most stakeholders interviewed suggested there should be a sufficient range of stakeholder perspectives represented and participating in the consensus building. This would allow the Committee to develop informed workforce housing consensus findings and recommendations that stakeholders might support and the County Commission could act upon." There is a great deal of public and stakeholder interest in the workforce housing issues the Committee will take up. The membership requirements, as set forth in both Florida statute and the Monroe County Resolution, do not reference representation of the municipalities in the County, the military, the Monroe County School Board and perhaps other organizations impacted by workforce housing policies and programs and with a stake in contributing to solutions to improve the availability of workforce housing in the Florida Keys." The format for the Committee meetings should encourage constructive public and stakeholder input. The Commission might consider charging the Committee with establishing an engagement strategy to involve a broader range of stakeholders in their development of findings and recommendations. This might be accomplished through opportunities for public input during their own meetings, as well as through Committee sponsored advisory work -groups, joint workshops with municipal taskforces and city 12'Phis would be consistent with their responsibility for developing every three years an affordable housing incentive recommendations report to the BOCC. The next triennial report will be due December 31 2017 13 The Current membership includes the following 11 member.: Sylvia Murphy, ;Monroe County BOCC, Iixpires 11 /2015, Tim Root, District 1, Expires 11/2016, 1 leather Roberts, District 1, Expires 11 /2016, )amen D. Cameron, District 2, Expires 11 /2018, Randy Wall, District 2, I-;xpires 11 /2018, Warren Leamard, District 3, Expires 11 /2016, Ken Navlor, District 3, Expires 11 /2016, l Jana I?skra, District 4, Expires 11 /2018, Edwin Swift Il 1, District 4, Expires 11 /2018, William Wiatt, District 4, I :xpires 11 / 2016, Jim Saunders, District 5, Expires 11 /2016 and Stephanie Scuderi District 5, 1{xpires 11 /2016. 14 yes ctat : �: DOC AIUIV LINr I I� �7���,„' NC,%.c?; The membership follows the requirements of Florida Statute 420.9076 and Nfonroc County Resolution 062-2009, and calls for representation from those involved in affordable housing in: the residential home building industry from both a business and labor perspective, the mortl . ge and banking industry, the real estate industry, an advocate for low income persons, a for profit and a not for profit provider of affordable housing, a representative of employers in the ('punt\ and a member of the local planning, and a representative of essential services personnel. Monroe County Workforce I lousing Stakeholder Assessment Report, April 2015 43 N IN commissions, workshops at key moments in the development of options and recommendations, online surveys and other techniques. (See Appendix #7 forAdvirorn, Group process recommendations). It was observed by many that an advisory committee developing recommendations on workforce housing will require dedicated staff, including legal and planning expertise, and facilitation support for the Committee to do its work expeditiously. This is because of the complexity of the charge, the intense public interest in the issue, the linkages with other issues and programs and activities in the public, private and non-profit sectors, and the desire for timely actions to address the current workforce housing challenges. V. WORKFORCE HOUSING IN MONROE COUNTY --NEXT STEPS The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners should review this Assessment Report and charge the Affordable Housing Committee to focus its efforts in the coming year on workforce housing. With a charge from the County Commission, the Committee should establish its procedures and approach and a schedule for meetings that would permit it to deliver back to the BOCC its workforce housing recommendations by mid-2016. The Committee should consider: • Developing a shared vision of success; • Jointly defining the workforce problems faced in the Florida Keys; • Reviewing the range of issues and options identified in previous studies; • Reviewing the experience and lessons learned with successful workforce housing projects developed in the Keys to date; Reviewing this Stakeholder Assessment Report; and • Developing a package of consensus findings and recommended solutions for consideration by the Monroe County Board of County Commission. Thus stakeholder assessment report confirms that there is wide agreement that Monroe County is facing a significant and growing workforce housing crisis with shortages for both affordable rental and ownership units. There is also agreement that no single strategy will solve this crisis. Instead the challenge ahead for Monroe County and municipalities and the range of stakeholders interested in workforce housing, is to craft a balanced package of targeted options that have been refined through discussion and debate and that can serve as a consensus framework for addressing and implementing solutions. Monroe (:punt%, Workforce I lousing; Stakeholder \sscssment Report, April 2015 4 ,. �,.. Exhibit 6 to Staff Report Key West White Paper •nL"�14n.[. -Y OF M EY WEST o�q 0MIcc Bt•t I 0W K- `:,'eat. PI. 33W I H09 (305) S09 1700 I Date: September 4, 2014 j To: Jim Scholl, City Manager From: Donald Leland Craig, AI'CP Planning Director and Nicole Maio, AICP, Planner II Subject: Affordable Housing Needs Solutions Copy To: Sarah Spurlock, Assistant City Manager and Shawn Smith, City Attorney Attachments: 1. 2012 Comprehensive Plan Affordable Housing Data and Analysis Report 2. 2014 U.S. HUD Income and Rent Limits 3. City of Key West 2014 Income and Rental Limits 4. 2008 South Florida Workforce Housing Best Practices S. Florida Statutes 259 - Land Acquisitions for Conservation or Recreation 6. Florida Statutes 420.5095 — Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program 7. U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2010-2012 Median Household income for the City of Key West Purpose This presentation is in response to requests from the City Commission to improve the way the City's workforce housing issues are addressed. Over the next ten years the City will be receiving over 500 residential Building Permit Allocation System (BPAS) units that are required to be deed restricted affordable. The availability of these new BPAS units provides the City an opportunity to create a significant number of net new affordable housing units for the first time in over a decade. The following discussion describes several key scenarios for potential action to provide workforce housing in order to maintain a sustainable local economy. Method This presentation is the result of staff review and discussion of relevant data, the Comprehensive Plan and site visits to certain City and Key West Housing Authority owned properties which could be candidates for the construction of affordable housing. It is also the product of several meetings with the Executive Director of the Key West Housing Authority to discuss specific methods for creating new 0 y. Affordable Housing Needs Solutions October, 2014 City Commission Presentation housing and updating the Workforce Housing Ordinance. Finally, staff reviewed key state statutes whose subject matter is, or relates to, affordable housing, and Identified Land Development Regulations (LDRs) in local Florida jurisdictions addressing affordable housing which may be models for amendments to the City's LDRs. Problems and Key Findines Identified There are currently 508 privately held affordable housing units, with varying degrees of deed restrictions and subsidy assistance, and 581 public housing units in the City representing 7% of the 14,892 residential dwelling units in the City, as identified by staff in the May 2010 Affordable Housing Deed Restriction Audit. The 2010 Census and the City Comprehensive Plan report a lower number of 14,107. Of the total 1,089 affordable units, 223 are expected to have their deed restrictions expire, or have expired by year's end. However, according to the findings of the 2012 Data and Analysis report (Attachment 1), prepared to support the Comprehensive Plan and confirmed by updated data provided by the Key West Housing Authority (08/2014) there continues to be and will continue to be a significant number of cost burdened households and a shortage of decent, reasonably priced, available housing, particularly one bedroom rentals. Specifically, data from the Comprehensive Plan and the 2010 Census Indicate that at every income level from 30% to 140% of the Monroe County Median Income ($63,500 in 2014), individuals and families are cost burdened as to amount paid for rent or mortgage. The City's Comprehensive Plan, the City's Land Development Regulations, and U.S. HUD guidelines indicate that not more than 30% of incomes should be expended for housing costs. In Key West over seventy-five percent (77%-10,352) of all households, both renters and owners are cost burdened utilizing this guideline. According to the Comprehensive Plan and the University of Florida Shimberg Center for affordable Housing, there is 0 a need (deficit) of affordable housing units across the income spectrum. The deficit is at least 6,500 units. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the City of Key West median household Income as $52,004 while the average annual wages earned by a worker in the City are approximately $37,844, Indicating that by standard guidelines for mortgage lending at the median level a home should cost no more than $156,012, or three time the median income. This is clearly inconsistent with actual cost of housing In the City, when the Key West Board of realtors' reports that at the end of July 2014 the median sales price of 162 single family homes sold in the preceding 7 months was $630,000, and the median sales price for Condo/Townhouses was $368,000. Clearly persons and and families making the median income or average wage cannot afford for sale housing, even if such were being built. N As to rental housing, the situation is no better. Even though dated and most assuredly higher the 2010 reported median gross monthly rent in the City was $1,359. In order to be affordable to the average wage earner in the City, the then monthly rent should be no more than $946. Rent such as this Is not available in the City at this point in time, and resu►t in workers sharing housing in increasing numbers, or paying 40-5096 of their income for housing. The Workforce Housing Ordinance (WFHO) of the City' Land Development Regulations has not been updated since 2005. At the time the WFHO was created real estate values, affordable housing stocks, and demands were different. The WFHO's stratification across the income spectrum from 80% to 140% of the median income at the Monroe County level (now $63,500) is out of date with the actual incomes of today's workforce, Further, at the time and up until 2012, there were very, very few BPAS allocations available to create new housing, regardless of the WFHO's emphasis for housing for all income groups, resulting in very few new deed restrictions being built. Since 2008 lending practices have been tightened and it is very difficult to both finance and construct units at any level except at the 60% of median through heavily subsidized tax credit funding, and none of these types of project have been built In the City due to the lack of reasonable priced land. Additionally, the cost of constructing units Is extremely high at $200-$250 per square foot. Factored into the equation the focus in recent years has been to use Page 2 of 6 in Affordable Horasing Needs Solutions October, 2014 City Commission Presentation Land Authority Funds to acquire property together with Habitat for Humanity processes to reconstruct and manage the units. This has resulted In an emphasis being place on the acquisition of existing units, often at high prices, which though deed restricted, require renovation and result in no net new units. There are not enough very low (60% AMI) to low (80% AMI) income deed restricted units in the City to meet the needs of the local workforce. Yet the mechanisms to provide this housing are limited by outdated regulations and state statutes. For instance, In addition to the outdated Workforce Housing Ordinance, the Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA) statute, as presently written, does not work efficiently for Key West because it is limited to the purchases of land for three distinct purposes: 1. Conservation of environmentally sensitive lands; 2. Preservation of coastal access and recreation; 3. Affordable Housing. The first two objectives have been met in the City as all conservation lands are now In the public realm and the access to coastal areas assured and adequate monies allocated through Infrastructure taxes and Tourist Development Council grants. The third use of MCLA funds for affordable housing has experienced some successes, but at a very high price due to the very high cost of land. The City of Key West MCLA fund is presently approximately $7 million which has been generated primarily from transient unit bed tax, as the City accounts for approximately 49% of the hotel rooms in the County. The $7mil'lion is expected to increase to approximately $8mililion after the start of the new fiscal year. While the funds have increased steadily the opportunities to use the funds have proven difficult to identify due to high land and costs and until recently the lack of new BPAS allocations. Possible Solutions invest In Immediate Solutions while Planning for the Long Term While there is an array of long term solutions which should be pursued, some of which are listed below, there may also be a nearer solution. This specific method can utilize existing publicly owned land together with MCLA funds, in order to create monies to build or subsidize net new affordable housing. The method has the following steps: 1. Identify land held by the City of Key West or the Key West Housing Authority which is capable of further development as affordable housing. 2. If necessary, rezone the property to achieve a higher density, which In Key West would be Medium Density Residential (MDR) at 16 units per acre, or High Density Residential (HDR) at 22 units per acre. If necessary, the Comprehensive Plan designations can be amended in an expedited manner for parcels whose use is to be affordable housing, enabled by state statute 163.3187. As a part of this effort the City may borrow forward one year from its annual allocation of 91 BPAS units. 3. The City of Key West sells its interest in the land to the Monroe County Land Authority, and restricts its use in the conveyance, consistent with the MCLA statute, to affordable housing. 4. The MCLA conveys the land to the Key West Housing Authority, and the city modifies its existing Inter - Local agreement with the KWHA to provide for the construction of affordable housing in partnership with city, and/or a developer partner. 5. The City uses the funds yielded from the sale of the property for the direct construction of the affordable housing on the site or uses the funds to otherwise subsidize the cost or operation of the affordable housing. The housing remains the property of the Housing Authority and or the City depending on the parcel and the arrangement reached with the transfer of the property to the Housing Authority. 6. Target projects which can accommodate mixed income users that provide relief to developers of affordable housing projects. Page 3 of 6 Affordable Housing Needs Solutions October, 2014 -- City Commission Presentation 7. Repeat the process with other City or Housing Authority properties until all remaining affordable housing BPAS units are utilized. Provide a Holistic Approach to Adjusting All Elements of Affordable Housing Tool 1. Work towards reducing wind and flood insurance premiums which increase the cost of homeownership and rental rates. If the proposed referendum on building height flexibility in response to FEMA insurance rates passes the ability to lower Insurance rates may occur. 2. Amend Comprehensive Plan — Add policy(ies) to the City's Comprehensive Plan Housing Element to provide that all future development shall not result in a "net loss" of existing workforce/affordable rental housing for households earning 80% or less than the area mean income. (Findings of Municipal Scorecard for Affordable Housing Delivery: Best Management Case Study for South Florida. Prepared for the South Florida Regional Business Alliance by FIU Metropolitan Center). 3. Ask State Representative Raschein and State Senator Bullard to Sponsor Legislation to Amend the Land Authority Statute as It Applies to the City of Key West Currently the statute has been interpreted by local attorneys such that it allows the funds accumulated to be used for land purchases only. As has been demonstrated the cost of land reasonably priced for affordable housing in the City is very sparse. Also demonstrated is that conservation lands in the City have been acquired and protected. Couple that with the fact that the City has already protected its undeveloped lots with sufficient BPAS allocations to prevent inverse condemnation( "takings") litigation against the City. Therefore , new state legislation to allow the City the ability to use MCLA funds for construction or other subsidy to provide affordable housing. 4. Revise the Workforce Housing Ordinance: The Planning Department has requested proposals for a consultant who will assist staff with amendments to the Land Development Regulations, specifically the Workforce Housing Ordinance. Staff has researched the American Community Survey to extract data for the City's area median income (AMI) in order to compare it to that of the County's, which is used as the current baseline. However, the ACS survey shows that the County's and City's AMI are within a few thousand dollars of each other with the City's being higher In a few critical income household sizes, Further, petitioning HUD to allow the City to use the ACS numbers instead of the universally excepted US Census figures to establish the AMI may put our federal funding in jeopardy when using such federal subsidies. However, if the model put forth above as immediate action is pursued and no federal funds or subsidies are utilized or otherwise compromised, the use of the lower City median income may be possible. The Workforce Housing Ordinance, based on income and workforce data from the early 2000, is confusing and out of date. As a result the inclusionary housing provisions (122-1467) and eligibility requirements (122-1469) are out of touch with the current housing needs. The ordinance also lacks incentive programs to encourage private developers to build new affordable housing. Based on meetings with Manny Castillo, Executive Director of the KW Housing Authority and planning analysis supported by the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Data and Analysis, staff recommends the following approach to amending the WFHO: a. Add provisions for inclusionary housing for redevelopment, not just new development. Page 4 of 6 N Affordable Housing Needs Solutions October, 2014 City Commission Presentation b. Revise Section 122-1496 for required income category mix - Determine what the target incomes are and use current income level data to establish new ratios for 30% rule, such as more lower income category units. Reestablish inclusionary housing provisions requiring more low (80% AMI) and median (100% AMI) income level units. This can only be provided for by applying an approach like that used by the Village of Islamorada, wherein significant expansions of residential and commercial development, or net new development is evaluated, by type, as to the employees and jobs created to serve the new or expanded development, and thus the need for new affordable housing. A specific economic analysis for Key West, must be created to support the incluslonary housing provisions, recognizing the unique market of the City of Key West. b. Revise Eligibility Requirements (Section 122-2469) - Maintain category income range within the low, median, moderate etc, categories for pro forma purposes, but allow the actual sales and rental levels to be determined based on a person's actual percentage of income (25-30%). Currently the City's one bedroom rental rates are higher than HUD's rates but the City's three and four bedroom rental rates are all lower than HUD's. The City needs to find a method to lower rents for the most sought after units (1 bedroom). This may require the mixing of market rate units in mixed income projects to provide indirect subsidy to the affordable units. c. Create innovative regulatory and financial Incentive programs for building workforce housing and maintaining rental housing. Such as: 1. Tax abatement etc. 2. Waiver all permitting fees (except impact fees which guarantee bond obligations). 3. Expedited review. S. Potential Funding Opportunities L Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program loans and State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (F.S. 420.5095). 2. Staff 1. Create a City Affordable Housing Officer, whose responsibility it would be to assist workers in finding and qualifying for housing. 2. Create an Economic Development Officer whose responsibility it would be to identify possible Public private partnerships for redevelopment/development potential and who can offer incentives. 3. SHIP —State Housing Incentive Program; 4 HOME — Need more information S. CDBG — Community Development Block Grants 6. TIF—Tax Increment Financing 7. Surtax —Such as additional sales tax on alcoholic beverage sales 8. CHDO - Need to establish CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) per Section 122- 1471 a non-profit organization, to serve as developer for AH on City owned property and administer the Affordable Housing Trust Fund 10. Create a rental affordable housing trust fund for providing security deposits for rental housing The possible solutions described above are all consistent to one degree or another with the City's Strategic Plan and previous recommendations off many study groups dealing with eh affordable housing issue. Page 5 of N CITY OF KEY WEST 2012 UPDATES TO THE DATA AND ANALYSIS FOR EAR -BASED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS APPENDIX A Introduction The City completed its first Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) in 2005, and due to the State mandated schedule was required to update the 2005 EAR the following year. There is very little difference between the two reports or the resulting recommendations. It is now the City's desire to implement the recommendations from the two EAR documents, however due to the years that have passed, the supporting data and analysis needs to be updated in order to be meaningful and to provide the most accurate amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Department identified several areas that needed updating, and these are as follows: Affordable Housing Needs Analysis Population Estimates Hurricane Evacuation Analysis Land Use Analysis Level of Service Analysis The following provides some background from the 2005 and 2007 EARS and the updated analysis in the areas identified above. Chapter 1. Affordable Housing Needs Analysis The 2005 EAR listed "Affordable Housing" as one of the issues to be addressed during the updates to the Comprehensive Plan. Some of the contributing factors to the need for affordable housing included lower wage tourism based jobs; loss of military families that lived in housing subsidized by the government; increased demand for second homes; government limitations on growth; the loss of housing due to conversion to guesthouses; and the lack of available vacant land. In the 1990s the construction of transient units was permitted pursuant to the City's Building Permit Allocation System (BPAS), and as a result, approximately 874 transient units were built. However, due to Comprehensive Plan policy 1.3.12.3, which limits the percent of new units that may be allocated for transient use, no new transient allocations can be granted under the City's existing BPAS. Policy 3-1.1.3 of the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that 30 percent of units constructed each year be affordable. At the time of the 2005 EAR, it was noted that this policy has been successful, however at that time there was still a recognized shortage of affordable units. In 2605, the City adopted a workforce housing ordinance which requires that 30 percent of new market rate housing units be affordable to members of the workforce who earn at or less than 80 percent of the median household income. The affordability of units permitted under these policies is maintained through deed restrictions. It is estimated that 504 units have been allocated affordably since the implementation of the BPAS; however, not all of these units were subject to the requirements in the 2005 workforce housing ordinance. The current policy is that the affordability periods for these units remain in place for perpetuity, however some of the earlier units have affordability periods that have or will expire. It is estimated that approximately 233 affordable deed restrictions have expired. However, it is important to City of Key Vest Comprehensive Plan A-' Adopted March 5, 2013, Ordinance No, 13-04 Data and Analysis note that not all of these units have been allocated as part of the BPAS. In addition to requiring private developers to provide a percentage of affordable units, the City has historically taken a proactive approach in providing affordable units. The City has worked within the limits of the BPAS policies and, while being mindful of evacuation planning, has signed agreements with the State and with private developers to allow in ore affordable units. On the legislative side, the City has implemented policies to allow accessory apartments to single family homes, to facilitate infill of affordable units, and to facilitate apartments above commercial developments. The 2005 EAR identifies methods in which the City has sought community involvement to address the affordable housing issue. On March 30, 2001 the City held a special summit meeting of residents to gain insight on ways to address housing. From that meeting, there were approximately 40 suggested actions that would address the problem from many different angles. Many creative suggestions were made, including ideas on how t o preserve the housing stock, ways to seek out additional funding sources and suggestions to build new units or subsidize rents. In 2009, Florida International University's Metropolitan Center conducted a Housing Needs Assessment for Monroe County that included information specific to the City of Key West. In order to update the City's housing needs assessment, the information contained in the 2005 EAR and 2009 Housing Needs Assessment was revised in 2012 using the most recently available information from the 2010 Census, the University of Florida's Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, and other relevant data sources. The provision of decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing to all residents continues to be one of the most daunting challenges that the City of Key West faces. The City's scarcity of land for new development, growth in the second home market, high quality of life and desirability, and unique and historic housing stock all contribute to property and housing values that are among the highest in the State. The City's economy is largely based on tourism and service industries, which generally pay lower wages than many other industries. These dynamics result in a pronounced affordability gap that continues to challenge the City even in the current economic downturn. A summary of the estimates of the City's existing housing stock is provided on Table Al-1 below. As can be seen, there is a small discrepancy between the figures from the Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (AHNA), the Census, and a May 2010 estimate prepared by City staff. For the purpose of this report, the 2010 Census figure will be used since it is the most recent, and because it is closer to the City estimate than the AHNA or the U.S. Census 2009 American Fact Finder data. Use of the City's estimate is constrained by the lack of information about occupancy or tenure. 'fable AI -I. City of Key West's 2010 Housing Stock by TVDeand Tenure Total units UnitsUnits Occupied*4,175 Renter 09 AHNA 13,307 11,0175,993 2010 Census 14, I07 10,9296,409 009 US Census 2American FactFinderu 13,274 8,925 4,757 May 2010 Estimate I 14,452 permanent plus "0 mobile homes The median single family home sales price in the City of Key West in 2010 was $382,450. This value is higher than the 2001 median value of $305,000, but significantly lower than the median value of City of Key West Comprehensive Plan A 2 Adopted March 5, 2013, Ordinance No. 13-04 Data and Analysis $776,000 in 2005. The median condominium sales price in 2010 was $318,000, higher than the 2001 sales price of $222,000 but lower than the peak of $575,000 in 2005. The decrease in sales prices between 2005 and 2010 is reflective of the economic downturn. The 2010 median gross rent for a rental unit in the City was $1,359.' "Housing cost burden", defined as the percent of a household's income that is used to pay for housing costs, is frequently used as a measure for determining whether or not housing is affordable. According to federal housing program guidelines and the Shimberg Center, housing costs should not exceed 30 percent of a household's income in order to be considered affordable. Federal guidelines define an extremely low income household as a household whose income is at or below 30 percent of the median household income for the area, a very low income household as a household whose income is at or below 50 percent of the median household income for the area, a low income household as a household whose income is between 50 and 80 percent of the median for the area, and a moderate income household as a household whose income is between 80 and 120 percent of the median for the area. The median household income in the City in 2010 was $52,0042, While the average annual wages earned by a worker in the City are approximately $37,8443. 1n order to be affordable, an owner- occupied home should not cost more than three times a household's annual income. In order to be affordable to a household at the median level, a home should therefore cost no more than $156,012. In order to be affordable to the average wage-earner in the City, a home should cost no more than $113,532 (Note that this does not account for combined household incomes). In order to be affordable to a household earning at or less than 80% of the median for the area, a home should cost no more than $124,891. The 2010 median sales price of $382,450 for a single family home indicates an affordability gap of $226,438 for households earning at or below the median household income, while the median sales price of $318,000 for a condominium unit indicates a lower but still significant affordability gap of $161,988. The 2010 median gross monthly rent in the City was $1,359. In order to be affordable to a household at the median income level, monthly rent should be no more than $1,300.10. In order to be affordable to the average wage-earner in the City, monthly rent should be no more than $946. In order to be affordable to a household earning at or below 80% of the median, monthly rent should be less than $1,040. Approximately 50% of the City's rental units are affordable to residents at the median income level, while approximately 37% are affordable to average wage-earners and households at 80% of the median. Table Al-2 below identifies and Mects the number of households in the City by income level for the period between 2000 and 2030. The projections contained in this Table, provided by the Shimberg Center, are not consistent with the noted trend toward a slight population decrease in the City. Generally, however, they do provide a proximate count of households by income type for 2010. This Table indicates that 12% of the City's housing stock should be affordable to households earning less than 30% of the median, 1 l % should be affordable to households earning between 30% and 50% of the median, 18% should be affordable to households earning between 50% and 80% of the median, 24% should be affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of the median, and 34% should be affordable to households earning over 120% of the median. 1 University of Florida Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, Housing ;deeds Summary, Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, 2gl'2 2 2005-2009 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau 3 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Quarter 2 Year 2011. Florida DEO Labor Market Statistics Center 4 2005 2009 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau 5 University of Florida Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, Housing Needs Summary, Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, 207 1 City of Key West Comprehensive Plan Adopted March 5, 2013, Ordinance No. 13-04 A-3 Data and Analysis 1-01 Table Al-2. Projected Households by Income 2000 - 2030 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 0-30% 1,295 1,295 (12%) 1,378 1,469 1,543 1,605 30-50% 1,200 1,203 (11 %) 1,297 1,399 1,487 1,559 50 - 90% 1,995 1,857 (1894.) 1,873 1,892 1,906 1,913 80 -120% 2,724 2,518 (240/6) 2,516 2,515 2,507 2,497 120%+ 3,744 3,620 (34%) 3,665 3,715 3,735 3,750 Total 10,955 10,493 10,729 101990 11.178 11,324 Table A 1-3 below documents the number of cost burdened households in the City by tenure for 2010.5 As can be seen, 35 percent of homeowner households and 42 percent of renter households in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing. Table A1-4 documents cost burdened households by income type. As expected, the level and severity of cost burden increases as income levels decrease. Table Al-3. Cost Burdened Households by Tenure 2009 % of for housing paid 0-30% 30-50% 50% plus Total Owners 3,325 (65%) 909 (18%) 844 (17%) 5,078 Renters 3,065 (58%) 1,159 (22%) 1,050 (20%) 5,274 Table Al 4. Cost Burdened A % of income paid for housing 0-30% median income olds by Income Group. 2009 0-30% 1 30-50% 1 50% plus Total 357 (28%) I 160 (13%) 1 754 (59%) 1 1,271 30 - 50% median income 357 (30%) 355 (30%) 464 (39%) 1,176 50 - 80% median income 855(4601.) 611 (33%) 373 (20%) 1,839 80% + median income 4,821 (79%) I 942 (1501.) I 303 (45".) I 6,066 3 Univers ty of F7onda Sbimberg Center for Affordable Housing, Housing Needs Summery, Florida Housing Dam Cleariogbouse, 2011 City of Key West Comprehensive Plan Adopted March 5, 2013,' Ordinance No. 13-04 A-4 Data and Analysis Table Al-5 below indicates the deficit or surplus of affordable housing units by income category in the City for 2010.6 This information provides perhaps the best indication of unmet affordable housing need. As can be seen, there is a deficit of housing units affordable for all income types, with the exception of rental units for households at 120 percent of the median. Table A1-5. Affordable Housing Deficit/Surplus by Income Grout). 2009 30% of median 10% of median 80% of median 120% of median 200% of median Owners -500 -951 -1,571 -2,225 -2,101 Renters -349 -796 -214 +270 -288 The City of Key West has taken a proactive approach to addressing the affordable housing needs of its residents. There are currently a total of 508 federally, State and locally assisted units and 581 public housing units in the City. In order to encourage the provision of private sector affordable and workforce housing, single family units are allowed and encouraged to have accessory units that provide a more affordable housing option for the City's workforce and residents. In 2005 the City adopted a workforce housing ordinance which requires that 30 percent of new market rate housing units be affordable to members of the workforce who earn at or less than 80 percent of the median. In addition, Peary Court, a military housing complex, is transitioning from military ownership to civilian ownership, providing an additional 160 market rate housing units. Application ofthe workforce housing requirement would provide an additional 48 affordable or workforce housing units. Gauging the need for special needs housing and homeless assistance is another important consideration for the City. There are currently approximately 136 beds for special needs housing, 122 beds for transitional housing, and 175 homeless shelter beds in the City. Based on a count conducted in 2011, 246 homeless persons were identified in the City. A partial listing of special needs and transitional housing facilities is provided below: l . AIDS Help — 96 Units 2. Kathy's Hope — 16 rooms with communal facilities 3. Samuels House — 13 rooms with communal facilities 4. Casa de Meredith — 9 units 5. Florida Keys Outreach Coalition — One s.f house (2 bedroom) 6. Neece Center — 20 beds for men 7. Poinciana —102 beds for men and women Chapter 2. Population Estimates Population projections are an important component of local comprehensive plans. They provide the statistical framework for future development and redevelopment, and for projecting the ability to provide key infrastructure and services at adopted levels of service. The population of Key West, a built - out community with natural and policy constraints that limit future development potential, is projected to decrease slightly during the short, mid and long range planning periods, as documented in the following analysis. 6 University of Florida Shimbeag Center for Affordable Housing, Affordable Housing Needs Assessment, 2011 City of Key West Comprehensive Plan A-5 Adopted March 5, 2013, Ordinance No. 13-04 Data and Analysis ■ ■ Affordable Housing Needs Solutions October, 2014 City Commission Presentation Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Commission direct staff to immediately proceed with the Land Authority/City of Key West/City of Key West Housing Authority program outlined above, while prioritizing the analysis of items 1 through 8 above. Page 6 of 6 M Fh CITIVOF KEY NVEST )N,'oj-k Force Housing Incorne and Rental Limits 2,014 Bllstd v' Monroe C,w4y AW)VA Nledlw; Income (A.14j) fil,,r ;, 6on6h, jfrAn. )f (City Commission Resojution 14-05,1) Per city Ord. Sec-122-1469(13) Per ury ura. beC.12Z-1455 Definitions Income limits are based upon figures provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and published by Florida Housing Finance Corporation M N ("ITYOF KEY AVES] Work Force 1-1oushig Owner Occupied Income and Sales Limits 2014 oj,-f)E, Cf w Av ei.w3v a I Nfedinn kwnn-,1f! flat- a 1-aAv of fou� ofs (City Commission Re5oijrsor. 14-053) Per LItV urcl. Sec.122-1469(13) Per uly Vro. bec.;L22-2466 vetinitions Income limits are based upon figures provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and published by Florida Housing Finance Corporation Note: The hold harrrdess prodeiona of IRC limits a 142 greater, E) mean that Pr*cfa with at beat one building placed In tservice on or before the and of the 45 da Heady released flmfffi use whichever Ihnits are Oraaier, the cu►rent-year Omits or the Omlb in use the Preceding year. HUD released 12MINW13 Y Uansition period for FHFC Posted 12r2.1=13 2014 Income Limits and Rent Limits Florida Housing Finance Corpomlon Multifamily Rental Programs- �Eac^pt OME and SNIP corm It by 611mrDer of Persons in Household Coo"y 2596 1 114,425 2 18,5t"J 3 19,550 4 20,600 5 22,25D 6 7 8 9 10 28°ti 16,156 18,480 2(1,7T6 23,072 24,92D 26,768 25.550 27,200 28 8'0 30,408 _ .33% 17.310 19800 22,260 b`,720 747M 28,880 28,616 30,464 32,301 34,147, 19,D41 21,780 24.486 27,192 2835%,370 31.M8 30,880 32,i D 34,608 38,386 20,195 23,100 25,970 28,840 31,150 33,480 33,726 35,9D4 38,089 40,244 _. 40% 23,080 26,400 28,880 32,980 35,800 35,770 40,880 38,080 40,376 42,683 '15X' 25,985 29,700 33, 37M 40M 38,240 _ 43,029 43,b20 48.144 48,781 50% 28,850 33,000 37,100 41,2DD 44AW 47,8D0 45,69D 48,960 61,912 6096 - 34,6'20 39:� 44,520 49, =40 544M 57,3611 51,100 61,320 54,40D 57.00 80,976 � 48,160 52,8p 5%360 65,92D 11,200 78,490 8i,7M0 55,290 O9,Zi6 _ T3,171 ... 120% �,240 79200 89,o40 98,880 106,800 114,720 122,640 87,04D 92,288 97,582� 14096 80,T80 92400 103,880 115,380 124,600 133,840 143,080 130,560 139,432 14f>562 HkttA t 1JrnNtS 1 2+i9G-HS 86.550 98,000 111, 123,8U0 1 33,500 143,400 14300 152,320 163,200 161,504 173,040 170,733 Per s" 142(d!(Z M 28%• H5 15,175 16,996 17,%o 1%625 21,875 23,426 25.T50 �' 5 30'345 192,928 32,079 ( 219 3t1i6-H5 18,210 19,432 20.820 21 24,276 28,236 28,188 30,128 32,060 33,986 35,920 P®ruseby +Y t J3396> HS "20,031 22,9D2 23,43D A30 25,773 TBA10 29,11D 30.18D 32,28D 37,350 30,414 38,Qg5 3S%- 21,2r5 21,290 21,335 28,611 30,921 33,198 35,5M 37,785 40,055 42,344 any ®H$ 24,28E1 27,760 31,240 30,345 32,795 35,210 37.660 ��6 42,483 44,911 45%-HS 27,316 ._ 31,230 35.145 34:6M 39,015- 37.48D 40,24D 43040 45,6QD 48,552 51.326 50%-HS 30,3M 34.700 39,050 43,350 42,185 45,270 57,253 54,621 6016 - HS 38AZ0 41,60 45M 52,02p 48,850 50,300 53,800 53.8W is can 57,250 ee _-- 60,890 64,158 64,156 "orids ".Sbp Flnanoe Corporell. (FHFC) in -me and rent limlls are beaed upon }prep Provided subJeat to change. Updated aehedules wl0 be Provided when changes cam , by the United t3fApes Dapartment of Housing and Urban Davelo Pmsnt (HUD) and am 11 Universe: Households 2010-2012 American Community Survey 3-Year Esdmates Supporting documentation on code iisbt, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website In the Date and Documentation aectiom Semple Stzs and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocaOM rates, and response rates) can, be found on the Anhettcan Community Suntffy webaite In the Melhodoiogy !section. Although the American Communily Survey (AC$) produces popwstl=, demographic and housing unit eatmates, it Is the Census Bureau's Popuaton Estimatss Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties. cities end Towne and estimates of housing units for states and counties. Flond® Throe County, Flonds Key. Ylleat cflhp� --a _ _ _ Eabmaie INnrgrn of Error a tanate �letlFan household anwrne in pre past 12 months (tin 2012T_ _ -_ .. , 45,637 4 —+�17'7'",_`^..`•._... _ � _— inflettop-aQ�'gtedrjo({gisi ISM c ! g ® ; ƒ j 3 = k \- � § � k �} k � {i \ � f:) |)) MH 7 ) \#..99999 2,0 % %&\/Q } § J g!f {�§/)§) el �)�{/ ! «e a CL t „ =�t ty Sf(�i1 � ems t i °✓Iry r eIle At t j 4 mt F Al w` IAI TO � "� it,• :}���t� 1� 1141, p �t > IP{ tip, t r� 1�4p 1 .� 4t � s s � 4 2000 � t I Mll t, a q of } al� .. t N E N Exhibit 9 to Staff Report Trip Generation Analysis MEMORANDUM To: Barton W. Smith, Esq. Smith Oropeza, P.L. From: Karl Peterson, P.E. Date: August 11, 2014 Subject: Rockland FLUM — Rockland Key, Florida Trip Generation Analysis Pursuant to our teleconference on Monday, July 28, 2014 we have conducted the additional trip generation analyses for the various permitted uses and land use categories. The results of these analyses are summarized below and on the following pages. Parcel Information: Trip Generation: MCF to MC I to MC 2.50 acres 12.33 acres I to COMM 29.59 acres Total 44.42 acres or 1,934,935 square feet ITE Trip Generation Manual (91h Edition) All daily trip calculations are based upon average rates as requested by the County's traffic engineering consultant. Trip Differential: Based upon the foregoing trip generation analyses, the maximum trip generation potential associated with the existing land use categories is 84,367 vehicle trips per day. The maximum trip generation associated with the proposed land use categories is 76,434 vehicle trips per day. The result of the proposed land use plan amendment is a trip generation reduction of 7,933 vehicle trips per day. University Drive., , Tamarac, Florida 33321 .,, N N N Industrial (light) 43,560.00 304 Industrial (heavy) 43,560.00 65 Marinas (acres) 2.50 52 Commercial Fishing (acres) 2.50 17 Manufacturing 43,560.00 166 Commercial Retail 43,560.00 1,860 Residential (DU) 2 13 Public (Govt Office) 43,560.00 1,216 Elementary School 43,560.00 672 Middle/Jr. High School 43,560.00 600 Jr./Community College 43,560.00 1,197 Church 43,560.00 397 Day Care Center 3,60.00 3,22 Cemetery (acres) 2.50 12 Library 43,560.00 2,450 Hospital 43,560.00 576 Industrial (light) 65,340.00 455 Commercial Fishing (acres) 2.50 17 Manufacturing 65,340.00 250 Office 65,340.00 721 Commercial Retail 65,340.00 2,790 Residential (DU) 2 13 Public (Govt Office) 65,340.00 1.824 Elementary School 65,340.00 1,008 Middle/Jr. High School 65,340.00 900 Jr./Community College 65,340.00 1,796 Church 65,340.00 595 Day Care Center 65,340.00 4,839 Cemetery (acres) 2.50 12 Library 65,340.00 3,675 Hospital 65,340.00 864 Parcel Trip Differential: +1,613 daily vehicle trips 9 W, Industrial (light) 322,256.88 2,246 Industrial (heavy) 322,256.88 483 Commercial Fishing (acres) 12.33 86 Manufacturing 322,256.88 1,231 Office 322,256.88 3,554 Commercial Retail (max of 5,000 sf per parcel) 161,128.44 6,880 Residential (DU) 12 80 Public (Govt Office) 322,256.88 8,997 Elementary School 322,256.88 4,972 Middle/Jr. High School 322,256.88 4,441 Jr./Community College 322,256.88 8,859 Church 322,256.88 2,936 Day Care Center 322,256.88 2,866 Cemetery (acres) 12.33 58 Library 322,256.88 18,124 Hospital 322,256.88 4,260 Industrial (light) 322,256.88 2,246 Commercial Fishing (acres) 12.33 86 Manufacturing 322,256.88 1,231 Office 322,256.88 3,554 Commercial Retail 322,256.88 13,760 Residential (DU) 12 80 Public (Govt Office) 322.256.89 R 997 Elementary School 322,256.88 4,972 Middle/Jr. High School 322,256.88 4,441 Jr./Community College 322,256.88 8,859 Church 322,256.88 2,936 Day re Center 322,2S&88 23,866 Cemetery (acres) 12.33 58 Library 322,256.88 18,124 Hospital 322,256.88 4,260 Parcel Trip Differential: 0 daily vehicle trips 3 N N Industrial (light) 773,364.24 5,390 Industrial (heavy) 773,364.24 1,160 Commercial Fishing (acres) 29.59 206 Manufacturing 773,364.24 2,954 Office 773,364.24 8,530 Commercial Retail (max of 16,511 5,000 sf per parcel) 386,682.12 Residential (DU) 29 193 Public (Govt Office) 773.364.24 21A92 Elementary School 773,364.24 11,933 Middle/Jr. High School 773,364.24 10,657 Jr./Community College 773,364.24 21,260 Church 773,364.24 7,045 Day Care Center 773,36414 57,275 Cemetery (acres) 29.59 140 Library 773,364.24 43,494 Hospital 773,364.24 10,224 Industrial (light) 644,470.20 4,492 Office 644,470.20 7,109 Commercial Retail 644,470.20 27,519 Residential (DU) 0 0 Public (Govt Office) 644,470 20 17,994 Elementary School 644,470.20 9,944 Middle/Jr. High School 644,470.20 8,881 Jr./Community College 644,470.20 17,716 Church 644,470.20 5,871 Day Care Center 644,470,20 47,729 Cemetery (acres) 29.59 140 Library 644,470.20 36,245 Hospital 644,470.20 8,520 Parcel Trip Differential: -9,546 daily vehicle trips 1H Creech -Gail (D From: Arrieta, John <john.arrieta@urs.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:42 PM To: Koconis-Ed Cc: Santamaria-Mayte; Smith -Patricia; Haberman -Joe Subject: RE: Revised Trip Generation Hello Ed, Yes, I concur with your statement below regarding the impact of the maximum FAR application in the trip generation. The trip generation analysis indicates a maximum potential trip generation reduction of 7,933 vehicle trips per day. Thank you,. John Arrieta, P.E., PTOE Senior Traffic Engineer/Transportation Planner URS Corporations Souther 7800 Congress Avenue, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33487-1350 Office: 561.994.6500 Direct: 561.862.1113 Fax: 561.994.6524 From: Koconis-Ed mailto:K orns E ilrdionro Con FL ov) "; Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:58 AM To: Arrieta, John Cc: Santamaria-Mayte; Smith -Patricia; Haberman -Joe Subject: FW: Revised Trip Generation John, Please see attached. The differences from the previous August 5h version is that in this version the maximum FAR is used for all uses. The conclusion is that the same uses are the maximum trip generators. Only the last page which has 29.59 acres going from the Industrial PLUM category to the Commercial PLUM category has a change that affects the total trips. That being that the Commercial PLUM now correctly calculates the trip generation from a 0.50 FAR rather than 0.40 FAR previously, which results in the trip change from a-19,091 daily trips to -9,546 daily trips for this FLU change and an overall change in trip generation from-17,478 daily trips to -7,933 daily trips inclusive of the entire application. Please confirm your agreement with the analysis. Thank you. Ed Ed Koconis, AIC Growth Management Permit Manager 102050 Overseas Highway Key Largo, FL 33037 Office: 305.453.8727 E-mail: Koconis-d onroeCont-FL. ov I ! § ~ k � ]2 \a � ` ! E0 �, / ■� )] . ;4 away. 7 et §Ag U- /�;•� ) ; S2¥..k D O ® V 0r © ! ) ■■ , { /� / , J 7 ƒ J ° $ § ƒ « / / Exhibit 11 to Start Report Applicant's revised Subarea Policy Policy 107.1.6 Bia Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 -To Provide Limitations on Development and Specific Restrictions Development in the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall be subject to regulations applicable to the Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) Future Land Use Designation as well as an additional restriction set out below: 1. Residential units developed on the Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1 shall be restricted to affordable housing.only with a minimum mix of at least -3AS% median and- at least -31820% a combination of low, awed -3&°��very low income categories) and subject to affordable housing regulations pursuant to Section 130-161 of the Monroe County Code of Ordinances. 2. There shall be no non-residential Uses. Accessor�' uses to the residential develoj)ment sggl as a clUb house or rec�re tioml activities are isen-nitted, 3. No market rate or transient residential units shall be te:•rnitted. 4. There shall be no dredging. 5—There shall be no light industrial uses, . All habitable buildings located within the 65-69 DNL (Day -Night Average Sound Level) noise contour pursuant to the 2013 Navy Environmental Impact Statement shall be sound attenuated to achieve an indoor Noise Level Reduction of at least 25 decibels. -75. No residential buildings shall be located within the 70-74 DNL. 6. Apy develo grjttlg_gtcd..,_wthi: the I3i �o itt Fixed CJse Area I shall riot Utilize Puerta [give for iiiaress and qiress. The Big Coppitt Mixed Use Area 1, with Real Estate No. 00120940-000100 is approximately 14.8 acres of vacant land and is legally described as:... 00055444-v1