Item O3 0.3
t, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County of Monroe Mayor Sylvia Murphy,District 5
The Florida Keys l'U � � Mayor Pro Tern Danny Kolhage,District 1
�pw° Michelle Coldiron,District 2
Heather Carruthers,District 3
David Rice,District 4
County Commission Meeting
March 21, 2019
Agenda Item Number: 0.3
Agenda Item Summary #5101
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Emily Schemper(305) 289-2506
3:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: An ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners amending Monroe County Land Development Code Section 139-1, Affordable and
Employee Housing Administration, to specify that when calculating overall density on a parcel,
affordable housing density and hotel/motel density shall not be counted cumulatively against each
other (operating as a density bonus for the development of affordable/employee housing on
properties with a hotel/motel). (File 2017-075)
ITEM BACKGROUND: On May 23, 2017, the Planning and Environmental Resources
Department received an application from Barton W. Smith of Smith Hawks on behalf of Longstock
II, LLC, ("the Applicant") to amend Subsection 139-1(a)(5) of the Monroe County Land
Development Code (LDC) to exclude affordable housing density from cumulative density/intensity
calculations for hotel/motel development on a site. Subsection 139-1(a)(5) of the LDC already
excludes affordable housing density from cumulative density/intensity calculations for
nonresidential development on a site.
The Applicant's full explanation and justification of the proposed amendment is included in the file
for the application (File 42017-075).
Staff has reviewed the Applicant's position and supporting documentation, and agrees with the
position that inadequate availability of affordable housing is currently a primary issue facing
permanent residents of unincorporated Monroe County. In 2015, the BOCC acknowledged the
County's workforce housing issues and adopted Resolution 189-2015, assigning additional duties to
the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee directing the committee to make recommendations for
steps the County may take to address the need for more workforce housing options. The committee
presented their recommendations to the BOCC at their regular meeting on August 17, 2016. The
BOCC held a special meeting on December 6, 2016, to discuss the recommendations, and provided
direction to staff to move forward on several measures to encourage and incentivize the provision of
affordable and workforce housing within the County.
Additionally, Monroe County suffered the loss of a significant number of housing units due to
Packet Pg. 1876
0.3
damage caused by Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. The BOCC has acknowledged that the
pre-existing affordable housing issues facing the County are even greater and immediate now due to
storm-related losses. Significant damage has occurred to the housing stock that is largely the lower
cost housing options to the members of the workforce.
Monroe County faces the quadruple impact of high land values, land limited by geographic and
environmental features, housing supply limited by controlled growth (the permit allocation systems)
and a tourism economy with a prevalence of lower paying service-sector employment.
The housing affordability problem of Monroe County has widespread economic impacts, including a
growing recognition of the important link between an adequate affordable housing supply and
economic growth. Many of the business sectors in the Keys, including professional services, retail
trade, tourism and health care, find it increasingly difficult to attract and maintain workers.
Affordable housing has posed and continues to pose a major challenge for local governments, public
agencies and the private sector in the Keys. The service and retail industries generate high demand
for affordable housing from low income earning workers, while the limited land area and linear
geography of the Keys severely limit the potential supply and locations of housing in the County.
Furthermore, unlike other areas in the State, working families cannot find affordable housing nearby.
As a result, a severe imbalance exists between supply and demand, resulting in escalating housing
prices. This imbalance is worsened by a number of other contributing factors, including:
• strong demand for second homes which reduces the supply of housing for permanent
residents;
• conversion of permanent housing for transient use as vacation rentals which reduces the
housing supply and increases affordable housing demand;
• high construction costs due to transportation costs of goods, limited labor market, and
caprock conditions;
• higher costs due to regulations and insurance (building standards are among the most
rigorous in the State);
• limited permit allocations due to hurricane evacuation standards, habitat protection and water
quality objectives; and
• limited non-profit and private sector capacity for funding assistance and housing production.
The need to protect and preserve an adequate inventory of affordable/workforce accessible housing
is a continual as well as a growing challenge in the County.
Concept Meeting
On June 28, 2017, staff held a Concept Meeting with the Applicant regarding the proposed
amendment, as required by LDC Section 102-158(d)(3). During the Concept Meeting it was
determined that the proposed text amendment would have a county-wide impact, as it would apply to
affordable housing and hotel/motel development proposals throughout the entire unincorporated
County. For reference, maps showing the locations of existing Tier III hotel/motel properties, per
Monroe County Property Appraiser data, are attached, as examples of sites that could potentially
receive additional density as a result of the proposed amendment.
Community Meeting and Public Participation
Packet Pg. 1877
0.3
On December 6, 2017, the applicant held a community meeting, in Marathon, regarding the
proposed amendment, as required by LDC Section 102-159(b)(3) for text amendments determined to
have a county-wide impact.
BOCC Impact Meeting and Public Participation
On January 17, 2018, at a regular public meeting, the BOCC held an Impact Meeting regarding the
proposed amendment, as required by LDC Section 102-159(b)(2) for text amendments determined to
have a county-wide impact. Topics raised by the BOCC during the discussion item included:
applicability and compliance with existing bulk regulations; interaction of the proposed amendment
with the upcoming BOCC-directed proposed amendments to incentivize workforce housing
following Hurricane Irma; affordable income categories; potential for decreased impacts on
traffic/transportation when employees live and work on the same site; incentive for hotel
owners/developers to provide housing if they are still able to build the maximum number of hotel
rooms on a site. The BOCC did not give any formal direction to staff regarding the proposed
amendment, but was generally favorable towards the idea.
Development Review Committee and Public Input
On April 24, 2018, the Monroe County Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the
proposed amendment at a regular meeting, provided for public comment and recommended approval
through Resolution 07-18.
Planning Commission and Public Input
On May 30, 2018, at a regular public meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
regarding the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission chose to continue the item,
requesting that the Applicant meet with Staff and address the following items before scheduling a
second public hearing:
1. Limit to"employer-owned rental housing" per definition in Section 101-1;
2. Limit the ROGO allocations to the very low and low income categories with a small
percentage(5%) to be median income;
3. Provide a potential cap (actual 4 or %) of total density (cumulative of affordable units and
hotel units); and
4. Clarification that density bonus applies to redevelopment only (existing ROGO or
recognized through an LDRD).
On August 27, 2018, the Applicant submitted revised language based on comments received at the
May 30, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. On October 24, 2018, at a regular public meeting, the
Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed amendment and provided for
public comment. The Planning Commission considered the application, the staff report, and the
comments from the public in their discussion, and recommended approval with changes, as
discussed at the public hearing, of the proposed LDC text amendment(Resolution P42-18). The
changes requested were to:
1. Require that of the affordable units developed on a parcel, a minimum of 50% or one (1)
dwelling unit, whichever is greater, are low or very low income;
Packet Pg. 1878
0.3
2. Require that of the affordable units developed on a parcel, 50% of new affordable units are
allotted to on-site personnel;
3. Cap the combined for hotel/motel rooms or spaces and affordable or employee housing
density at 25 dwelling units per buildable acre; and
4. Limit the text amendment to Stock Island.
During the October 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting, the agent for the Application requested
the scope of the proposed text amendment be limited to Stock Island. In a letter dated December 28,
2018, the agent indicated that he had been contacted by Hawk's Cay who have expressed an interest
in developing additional employee housing on their property and requested to be included in the
proposed text amendment. The Agent did not specify any further changes.
L PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
The following amendment is proposed by the Applicant (deletions are shown in stl:ike t4ett
additions are shown in underline). Changes recommended by the Planning Commission in
Resolution P42-18 are shown re(I with deletions shown as a su it<etti o ugli, and additions in as an
!jn(jefl ni . Staff recommended changes, following the public hearings and public input, are shown in
purple with deletions shown as a 4f4 &ate, and additions in as a��ld >rla1.2 .).
Sec. 139-1. Affordable and Employee Housing; Administration.
(a) Generally.
(1) Notwithstanding the density limitations in Section 130-157, the owner of a parcel of land
shall be entitled to:
a. Develop affordable and employee housing as defined in Section 101-1, on parcels of
land classified as Urban Residential (UR) at an intensity up to a maximum net
residential density of 25 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified as
Mixed Use (MU) at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 18
dwelling units per acre.
b. Develop affordable and employee housing, as defined in Section 101-1, on parcels of
land classified as Suburban Commercial (SC) at an intensity up to a maximum net
residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified as
Urban Residential (UR) at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 25
dwelling units per acre.
c. Develop market rate housing, as defined in Section 101-1, as part of an affordable or
employee housing project in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section,
provided that on parcels of land classified as Urban Residential (UR), the maximum
net residential density shall not be greater than 18 dwelling units per acre.
(2) The maximum net residential density allowed per district and by this section shall not
require Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for affordable and employee housing
and market rate housing developed in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section.
Packet Pg. 1879
0.3
(3) Market rate housing developed in accordance with subsection (a)(8) below shall be
eligible to receive points pursuant to Section 138-28(a)(6).
(4) The requirements of this Land Development Code for the provision of impact fees shall
be waived for affordable and employee housing and any market rate housing developed
in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section.
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, when calculating density, any existing
lawfully established or proposed affordable or employee housing on a parcel and the
floor area thereof shall be excluded from the calculation of the total gross nonresidential
floor area and hotel/motel density development that may be lawfully established on the
parcel, provided, however, that the total residential density allowed on the site shall not
exceed the maximum net density for affordable and employee housing.
In order for affordable density to be excluded from hotel/motel density on a parcel
�! wwas set forth in Subsection (5) above, .......................
, , ll frA tl
...........
:..........: such...... development must meet the
following criteria:
a. All affordable units developed must be deed restricted as employee housing, as
defined in Section 101-1;
b. The ratio of affordable units developed on .� a parcel must adhere to the
following schedule:
i. A minimum of 25% low income very low �iietlllie.,, �al...._0.11e........�
dwcllin unit whichever is greater and a maximum of 25% moderate
c. The total maximum ..................l,net density of any such parcel shall not exceed 4 'it
u a ( tyy�D ly a"aye (L( dwelling units per .2ildable acre for-l2otel./I otel,
1:.Q 1n:s..._ I.._s.p ccs �Ed.._afford.�:.�b.1:e.._or em to cc liousin p combined. In no case shall
1.1otclllnotcls..._m2l..n.s...._of..._spaces exceed the maximum allocated density(without
the atse of �.D s) or the maximum net density (with the use of"1 D12s) sct forth
in Section 130--162. In no case shall affordable or em to ce housin Y exceed the
maximum net density as set forth in Section 130--157,
d. Any such development shall not be available for parcels � ,wwcont�aining
hotel/motel units for which the transient 10G0 allocations were e
awarded or transferred after the effective date of this ordinance;;
e. The owner of the hotel/motel must provide the employees of the hotel/motel a
right of first refusal for lease of any affordable housing to be developed under
this subsection, and
f. The subject property must be designated Tier III.
II. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Packet Pg. 1880
0.3
Staff agrees with the Applicant's assertion that Monroe County is experiencing a significant and
growing workforce housing crisis in terms of affordable rental and affordable ownership as
identified in the 2015 Monroe County Workforce Housing Committee Stakeholder Assessment
Report. The proposed amendment is one such mechanism that the County could utilize to incentivize
both the development and redevelopment of hotel/motel facilities and the development of employee
or affordable housing.
The proposed amendment would provide an incentive to develop affordable housing on parcels
containing development or contemplating development in conjunction with hotels/motels and/or
nonresidential floor area. Currently, the LDC only allows the exclusion of nonresidential floor area
from cumulative calculations of intensity with affordable housing density. The proposed amendment
would expand this exclusion to include hotel/motel rooms for properties that contain existing
lawfully established hotel/motel rooms or spaces.
There is limited land area suitable for residential development remaining in the County. Current
regulations do not allow the award of Affordable Housing ROGO allocations within Tier 1
designated parcels. Amendments to the LDC are necessary to ensure that despite the limited
availability of developable lands, the County's existing and future housing stock includes adequate
affordable housing opportunities. Escalating land and predevelopment costs contribute to the cost of
housing and tend to restrict the development of affordable and employee housing. The proposed
amendment would potentially encourage the addition of affordable and/or employee housing as
hotel/motels are developed and redeveloped. Further, the application proposes a cap on the total
number of hotel/motel rooms or spaces and affordable units. Staff has proposed modifications to the
proposed language to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC.
Both the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC include maximum net density provisions, which allow
development at a higher density with development of affordable housing. Density would still be
constrained by all other applicable land development regulations, including but not limited to:
setbacks, height, maximum net residential density, open space, parking requirements, clearing
limitations and stormwater management.
The existing regulations require that maximum net density calculations are cumulative: hotel/motel
rooms, affordable units and market-rate units are combined when determining development
potential. Only nonresidential floor area is not counted against affordable housing development
potential. This is done to incentivize and encourage the development of mixed use projects that
contain components of affordable housing.
The proposed amendment would only require a cumulative calculation of density between affordable
dwelling units and market rate dwelling units on the parcel proposed for development or
redevelopment; and a cumulative calculation of density and intensity between nonresidential square
footage, hotel/motel units and/or market rate dwelling units on the site. The proposed amendment
may make projects more economically viable, assisting the local economy and furthering affordable
housing, by reducing potential land acquisition and infrastructure costs.
Packet Pg. 1881
0.3
A secondary effect of the proposed amendment would be to incentivize the redevelopment of aging
hotel/motel infrastructure. The proposed amendment addresses two key issues facing Monroe
County: 1)inadequate availability of affordable housing; and 2) the need for redevelopment of aging
hotel/motel infrastructure. The County's 2012 EAR's Major Issues Analysis (2012) identified aging
hotel/motel infrastructure as an economic sustainability issue for the unincorporated County. The
EAR points out that only 25 percent of hotel rooms within all of the Keys are located in the
unincorporated portions of the County. Of these hotel rooms, 54 percent are within structures older
than 40 years, which is considered the useful life of buildings and structures from a building use and
architectural perspective. By 2030, 84 percent of the hotel/motel structures will have surpassed their
useful life and will require either replacement or extensive renovation.
The EAR includes the following recommended strategy for addressing the issue of aging hotel/motel
infrastructure:
Provide incentives for redevelopment of existing outdated hotel/tourist facilities should be instituted.
Such incentives may include the ability to expand the building footprint. Recommend some
relaxation, where appropriate, of current zoning regulations to reduce the cost of upgrade
compliance is also important and should be considered for green building and/or green lodging
certification.
During the October 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting, the agent for the Application requested
the scope of the proposed text amendment be limited to Stock Island after discussion with person's
present at the Planning Commission meeting. In a letter dated December 28, 2018, the agent
indicated that he had been contacted by Hawk's Cay who have expressed an interest in developing
additional employee housing on their property and requested to be included in the proposed text
amendment. The Agent did not specify any further changes.
Following the recommendations of the Planning Commission through Resolution P42-18, staff
offers additional thoughts for consideration by the BOCC:
• There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed
text amendment to Stock Island and/or Duck Key. Allowing this amendment to remain
with a county-wide may provide encouragement and incentives for all existing hotels to
redevelop consistent with recommended strategies developed through the EAR.
• The Planning Commission recommended that 50% of affordable units be allotted to "on-
site personnel". There is no definition for "on-site personnel". The County Code has an
existing definition for"employer owned rental housing":
En,?plgy e oiv,Fwd rental housiorig means, an attached or detached divellinlg wait owned by
a firm, business, educational institution, no -governnnental or governunental agency,
corporation or other entity that is intended to serve as affordable, permanent housing
for its employees. This category of employee housing, shall be located on the sane
parcel of land as the nonresidential use.
Packet Pg. 1882
0.3
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
On January 17, 2018, at a regular public meeting, the BOCC held an Impact Meeting regarding the
proposed amendment, as required by LDC Section 102-159(b)(2) for text amendments determined to
have a county-wide impact. Topics raised by the BOCC during the discussion item included:
applicability and compliance with existing bulk regulations; interaction of the proposed amendment
with the upcoming BOCC-directed proposed amendments to incentivize workforce housing
following Hurricane Irma; affordable income categories; potential for decreased impacts on
traffic/transportation when employees live and work on the same site; incentive for hotel
owners/developers to provide housing if they are still able to build the maximum number of hotel
rooms on a site. The BOCC did not give any formal direction to staff regarding the proposed
amendment, but was generally favorable towards the idea.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the BOCC consider the recommendations of
the Planning Commission through Resolution P42-18.
Following the recommendations of the Planning Commission through Resolution P42-18, staff
offers additional thoughts for consideration by the BOCC:
• There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed text
amendment to Stock Island and/or Duck Key. Allowing this amendment to remain with a county-
wide may provide encouragement and incentives for existing hotels to redevelop consistent with
recommended strategies developed through the EAR.
Staff recommends approval, with changes as noted in this staff report and shown in the attached
draft ordinance, of the proposed amendments to Land Development Code Section 139-1(a)(5).
DOCUMENTATION:
Staff Report- Hotel/Affordable Density LDC Amendment 2017-075
2017-075_Ordinance
Hotels TierIII vl
Rental Limits
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date: N/A
Expiration Date: N/A
Total Dollar Value of Contract: N/A
Total Cost to County: N/A
Current Year Portion: N/A
Budgeted: N/A
Source of Funds:
CPI: N/A
Packet Pg. 1883
0.3
Indirect Costs: N/A
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: N/A
Revenue Producing: N/A If yes, amount: N/A
Grant: N/A
County Match: N/A
Insurance Required: N/A
Additional Details: N/A
REVIEWED BY:
Emily Schemper Completed 02/28/2019 5:33 PM
Steve Williams Completed 03/01/2019 12:39 PM
Maureen Proffitt Completed 03/04/2019 8:36 AM
Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley Completed
03/04/2019 1:36 PM
Budget and Finance Completed 03/05/2019 9:37 AM
Maria Slavik Completed 03/05/2019 9:43 AM
Kathy Peters Completed 03/06/2019 11:21 AM
Board of County Commissioners Pending 03/21/2019 9:00 AM
Packet Pg. 1884
0.3.a
2
., . / 0
3
4
5 MEMORANDUM
6 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
7 We strive to be caring,professional and fair
as
8
9 To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
10 0
11 Through: Emily Schemper, AICP, CFM, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources
12 0
13 From: Cheryl Cioffari, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager CL
14
15 Date: February 21, 2019
16 a
17 Subject: An ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending the
18 Monroe County Land Development Code Section 139-1, Affordable and Employee X
19 Housing Administration, to specify that when calculating overall density on a parcel, to
20 affordable housing density and hotel/motel density shall not be counted cumulatively
21 against each other (operating as a density bonus from the development of
22 affordable/employee housing on properties with a hotel/motel). (File 42017-075)
23
24 Meeting: March 21, 2019 04
25
CD
26 I. REQUEST E
27 a
28 On May 23, 2017, the Planning and Environmental Resources Department received an application <
29 from Barton W. Smith of Smith Hawks on behalf of Longstock 11, LLC, ("the Applicant") to amend U
30 Subsection 139-1(a)(5) of the Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC) to exclude affordable
31 housingdensity from cumulative density/intensity/intensit calculations for hotel/motel development on a site.
Y Y Y P
32 Subsection 139-1(a)(5) of the LDC already excludes affordable housing density from cumulative
33 density/intensity calculations for nonresidential development on a site.
34
35 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
0
36
37 The Applicant states "the proposed text amendment will encourage the provision of severely needed
38 affordable housing by increasing the effective density of hotel/motel parcels so that affordable housing 0
39 may be established on site.......the public policy justification for the proposed amendment is the same
40 as the justification for not counting affordable housing against non-residential floor area: to encourage 0
41 development of affordable and workforce housing as infill on existing or proposed commercial
42 properties. Hotel/motel uses, unlike other residential uses which require/utilize residential density, do
43 not create permanent housing for Monroe County residents....The proposed amendment will co
44 encourage the development of affordable housing stock in Monroe County by incentivizing developers
45 and current hoteliers to utilize the currently unutilized or underutilized portions of proposed projects
46 and existing development for affordable housing. The proposed amendment makes it feasible for these
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 1 of 17
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 1885
0.3.a
CD
1 economic-drivers to develop necessary affordable housing with reduced land acquisition and S
2 mobilization cost."
3 Z:
4 The Applicant cites the following documents/data:
5 1. Monroe County Workforce Housing Stakeholder Assessment Report, 2015, by FCRC
6 Consensus Center, FSU; and
7 2. Florida Housing data compiled by the University of Florida.
8
0
9 The Applicant's full explanation and justification of the proposed amendment is included in the file
10 for the application (File 42017-075). 0
11
12 Staff has reviewed the Applicant's position and supporting documentation, and agrees with the g
13 position that inadequate availability of affordable housing is currently a primary issue facing
14 permanent residents of unincorporated Monroe County. In 2015, the BOCC acknowledged the
15 County's workforce housing issues and adopted Resolution 189-2015, assigning additional duties to a
16 the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee directing the committee to make recommendations for
17 steps the County may take to address the need for more workforce housing options. The committee
18 presented their recommendations to the BOCC at their regular meeting on August 17, 2016. The X
19 BOCC held a special meeting on December 6, 2016, to discuss the recommendations, and provided U
20 direction to staff to move forward on several measures to encourage and incentivize the provision of
21 affordable and workforce housing within the County. LO
22
23 Additionally,Monroe County suffered the loss of a significant number of housing units due to damage
24 caused by Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. The BOCC has acknowledged that the pre-existing
25 affordable housing issues facing the County are even greater and immediate now due to storm-related
26 losses. Significant damage has occurred to the housing stock that is largely the lower cost housing
27 options to the members of the workforce.
28
29 Monroe County faces the quadruple impact of high land values, land limited by geographic and
30 environmental features, housing supply limited by controlled growth (the permit allocation systems)
31 and a tourism economy with a prevalence of lower paying service-sector employment.
32
33 The housing affordability problem of Monroe County has widespread economic impacts, including a
34 growing recognition of the important link between an adequate affordable housing supply and Z
35 economic growth. Many of the business sectors in the Keys, including professional services, retail
36 trade, tourism and health care, find it increasingly difficult to attract and maintain workers. Affordable
37 housing has posed and continues to pose a major challenge for local governments,public agencies and
38 the private sector in the Keys. The service and retail industries generate high demand for affordable 0
39 housing from low income earning workers, while the limited land area and linear geography of the
40 Keys severely limit the potential supply and locations of housing in the County. 0
41
42 Furthermore, unlike other areas in the State, working families cannot find affordable housing nearby.
43 As a result, a severe imbalance exists between supply and demand, resulting in escalating housing
44 prices. This imbalance is worsened by a number of other contributing factors, including:
45 strong demand for second homes which reduces the supply of housing for permanent residents;
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 2 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1886
0.3.a
CD
1 • conversion of permanent housing for transient use as vacation rentals which reduces the S
2 housing supply and increases affordable housing demand;
3 • high construction costs due to transportation costs of goods,limited labor market, and caprock Z:
4 conditions;
5 • higher costs due to regulations and insurance (building standards are among the most rigorous
6 in the State);
7 • limited permit allocations due to hurricane evacuation standards, habitat protection and water
8 quality objectives; and
9 • limited non-profit and private sector capacity for funding assistance and housing production.
10
11 The need to protect and preserve an adequate inventory of affordable/workforce accessible housing is Z:
12 a continual as well as a growing challenge in the County.
13
14 Concept Meeting 'a
15 On June 28, 2017, staff held a Concept Meeting with the Applicant regarding the proposed
16 amendment, as required by LDC Section 102-158(d)(3). During the Concept Meeting it was
17 determined that the proposed text amendment would have a county-wide impact, as it would apply to E
18 affordable housing and hotel/motel development proposals throughout the entire unincorporated X
19 County. For reference, maps showing the locations of existing Tier III hotel/motel properties, per is
20 Monroe County Property Appraiser data, are attached, as examples of sites that could potentially 25
21 receive additional density as a result of the proposed amendment. `z"
LO
22 V.-
23 Community Meeting and Public Participation
24 On December 6, 2017, the applicant held a community meeting, in Marathon, regarding the proposed
25 amendment, as required by LDC Section 102-159(b)(3) for text amendments determined to have a
26 county-wide impact. E
27
28 BOCC Impact Meeting and Public Participation
29 On January 17, 2018, at a regular public meeting, the BOCC held an Impact Meeting regarding the
30 proposed amendment, as required by LDC Section 102-159(b)(2) for text amendments determined to
31 have a county-wide impact. Topics raised by the BOCC during the discussion item included:
32 applicability and compliance with existing bulk regulations; interaction of the proposed amendment
33 with the upcoming BOCC-directed proposed amendments to incentivize workforce housing following
34 Hurricane Irma; affordable income categories;potential for decreased impacts on traffic/transportation
35 when employees live and work on the same site; incentive for hotel owners/developers to provide
36 housing if they are still able to build the maximum number of hotel rooms on a site. The BOCC did
37 not give any formal direction to staff regarding the proposed amendment, but was generally favorable
38 towards the idea.
39 Z:
40 Development Review Committee and Public Input
41 On April 24, 2018, the Monroe County Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the
42 proposed amendment at a regular meeting, provided for public comment and recommended approval
43 through Resolution 07-18.
44
45
46
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 3 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1887
0.3.a
I Planning Commission and Public Input
2 On May 30, 2018, at a regular public meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
3 regarding the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission chose to continue the item, requesting
4 that the Applicant meet with Staff and address the following items before scheduling a second public
5 hearing:
6 1. Limit to "employer-owned rental housing" per definition in Section 101-1;
7 2. Limit the ROGO allocations to the very low and low income categories with a small percentage
8 (5%) to be median income; 0
9 3. Provide a potential cap(actual 4 or%)of total density(cumulative of affordable units and hotel
10 units); and
11 4. Clarification that density bonus applies to redevelopment only (existing ROGO or recognized
12 through an LDRD).
g
13
14 On August 27, 2018, the Applicant submitted revised language based on comments received at the
15 May 30, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. On October 24, 2018, at a regular public meeting, the
16 Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed amendment and provided for E
17 public comment. The Planning Commission considered the application, the staff report, and the X
18 comments from the public in their discussion, and recommended approval with changes, as
19 discussed at the public hearing, of the proposed LDC text amendment (Resolution P42-18). The
20 changes requested were to:
LO
21 1. Require that of the affordable units developed on a parcel, a minimum of 50% or one (1)
22 dwelling unit, whichever is greater, are low or very low income;
23 2. Require that of the affordable units developed on a parcel, 50% of new affordable units are
24 allotted to on-site personnel;
25 3. Cap the combined for hotel/motel rooms or spaces and affordable or employee housing density
26 at 25 dwelling units per buildable acre; and E
27 4. Limit the text amendment to Stock Island.
�s
28
29 During the October 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting, the agent for the Application requested
30 the scope of the proposed text amendment be limited to Stock Island. In a letter dated December 28,
31 2018, the agent indicated that he had been contacted by Hawk's Cay who have expressed an interest
32 in developing additional employee housing on their property and requested to be included in the
33 proposed text amendment. The Agent did not specify any further changes.
34
35 Following the recommendations of the Planning Commission through Resolution P42-18, staff offers
36 additional thoughts for consideration by the BOCC:
37 • There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed text
38 amendment to Stock Island and/or Duck Key. Allowing this amendment to remain with a 0
39 county-wide may provide encouragement and incentives for existing hotels to redevelop
40 consistent with recommended strategies developed through the EAR.
41 • The Planning Commission recommended that 50% of affordable units be allotted to "on-site (n
42 personnel". There is no definition for "on-site personnel". The County Code has an existing
43 definition for"employer owned rental housing":
c�
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 4 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1888
U)
Ei?iplqyer-o),i,!rivd rental housing meaiis an attached or detached dwelling unit owned by
0
a firin, business, educational institution, non-governinental or goveniniental agency,
Corporation or other entity that is intended to serve as affordable, pernianerit housing,
for its ein loyees. Tbis, category o�f employee housing shall be located on the same
P 0
2 parcel of land as the nonresidential use.
3
0
4 111. PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
5
0
6 The following amendment is proposed by the Applicant (deletions are shown in stl:ike t4ett
7 additions are shown in underline). Changes recommended by the Planning Commission in Resolution 2r-
.
8 P42-18 are shown re(I with deletions shown as a and additions in as an un(led ne. Staff
0.
9 recommended changes, following the public hearings and public input, are shown in purple with 0
10 deletions shown as a4, F4iethfeu0, and additions in as a uiiderliiie).
.................................................
12 E
13 Sec. 139-1. Affordable and Employee Housing; Administration. X
14 (a) Generally.
15 (1)Notwithstanding the density limitations in Section 130-157, the owner of a parcel of land shall a
16 be entitled to:
LO
17 a. Develop affordable and employee housing as defined in Section 101-1, on parcels of land
18 classified as Urban Residential (UR)at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density V
19 of 25 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified as Mixed Use (MU) at an
N
20 intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre.
21 b. Develop affordable and employee housing, as defined in Section 101-1, on parcels of land E
22 classified as Suburban Commercial (SC) at an intensity up to a maximum net residential r-
23 density of 18 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified as Urban Residential E
24 (UR) at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 25 dwelling units per acre.
25 c. Develop market rate housing, as defined in Section 101-1, as part of an affordable or
26 employee housing project in accordance with subsection(a)(8)of this section,provided that
U)
27 on parcels of land classified as Urban Residential(UR),the maximum net residential density
28 shall not be greater than 18 dwelling units per acre.
29 (2) The maximum net residential density allowed per district and by this section shall not require .2
30 Transferable Development Rights (TDR)for affordable and employee housing and market rate
31 housing developed in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section. 0
32 (3)Market rate housing developed in accordance with subsection (a)(8)below shall be eligible to
33 receive points pursuant to Section 138-28(a)(6).
0
34 (4) The requirements of this Land Development Code for the provision of impact fees shall be
35 waived for affordable and employee housing and any market rate housing developed in �
0
36 accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section.
37 (5)Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, when calculating density, any existing lawfully
38 established or proposed affordable or employee housing on a parcel and the floor area thereof
39 shall be excluded from the calculation of the total gross nonresidential floor area and
40 hotel/motel density development that may be lawfully established on the parcel, provided,
41 however, that the total residential density allowed on the site shall not exceed the maximum E
42 net density for affordable and employee housing.
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 5 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1889
0
1 In order for affordable density to be excluded from hotel/motel density on a parcel
2 ............. .as set forth in Subsection (5) above, 0
3 such development must meet the following criteria: Z:
4 a. All affordable units developed must be deed restricted as employee housing, as .0
M
5 defined in Section 10 1-I
0
6 b. The ratio of affordable units developed on a parcel must adhere to the
7 following schedule: 2
8 a.. A minimum of 25% low income or very low ijj��Qj g., �T 2ng 0
............ 2
9 d c I it a unit whichever is _greater and a maximum of 25%
0
10 moderate incotll e., and
11 aa.. 0% ol' allordaWe unks dev6:)ped sluffl be foal to on ske
.2
12
0
13 c. The total maximum teA4 net density of any such parcel shall not exceed Ili�!°1Y-lj ye
14 f!L ! !]!.y live....(,2�) dwelling unilLper �U.!Iildablc acre for hotel/t otel rooms
.......................... ...........................................................
15 s aces and affordable or em to cc housin a combined. In no case shall hotel/motels
E
M
16 root s o spaces exceed the maximum allocated ut the use of"I'DRs)
....................D...............1 X
17 or the m qx im u1n net density 'with the use of''I'D set forth in Section 130..-
........ .. ...... ................................ ....... .... .....
18 In no case shall affordable or..etn o cc housiiMy exceed the maximum net density
.................................................................................................................................................................pLy--------
19 as set forth in Section 13015-7- 1
..................................................................................................................................................... LO
I-
20 d. Any such development shall not be available for parcels Q
21 hotel/motel units forwhich the transient ROGO allocations were a4eeat-ed awarded
...............................................................
22 or transferred after the effective date of this ordinance...-
..................... .1.
23 e. The owner of the hotel/motel must provide the employees of the hotel/motel a right
E
'a
24 of first refusal for lease of any affordable housing to be developed under this
25 subsection, and E
26 f. The subject property must be designated Tier 1117t±ftd-
27 9-
28 U)
29
30 .2
31 IV. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
32 0
33 Staff agrees with the Applicant's assertion that Monroe County is experiencing a significant and
34 growing workforce housing crisis in terms of affordable rental and affordable ownership as identified
0
35 in the 2015 Monroe County Workforce Housing Committee Stakeholder Assessment Report. The Z:
1
36 proposed amendment is one such mechanism that the County could utilize to incentivize both the 1�
0
37 development and redevelopment of hotel/motel facilities and the development of employee or
38 affordable housing.
39
40 The proposed amendment would provide an incentive to develop affordable housing on parcels
41 containing development or contemplating development in conjunction with hotels/motels and/or r_
42 nonresidential floor area. Currently, the LDC only allows the exclusion of nonresidential floor area E
43 from cumulative calculations of intensity with affordable housing density. The proposed amendment
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 6 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1890
0.3.a
CD
1 would expand this exclusion to include hotel/motel rooms for properties that contain existing lawfully S
2 established hotel/motel rooms or spaces.
3 Z:
4 There is limited land area suitable for residential development remaining in the County. Current
5 regulations do not allow the award of Affordable Housing ROGO allocations within Tier 1 designated
6 parcels. Amendments to the LDC are necessary to ensure that despite the limited availability of
7 developable lands, the County's existing and future housing stock includes adequate affordable
8 housing opportunities. Escalating land and predevelopment costs contribute to the cost of housing and
9 tend to restrict the development of affordable and employee housing. The proposed amendment would
10 potentially encourage the addition of affordable and/or employee housing as hotel/motels are
11 developed and redeveloped. Further,the application proposes a cap on the total number of hotel/motel Z:
12 rooms or spaces and affordable units. Staff has proposed modifications to the proposed language to
13 ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC.
0.
14 'a
15 Both the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC include maximum net density provisions, which allow
16 development at a higher density with development of affordable housing. Density would still be
17 constrained by all other applicable land development regulations, including but not limited to: E
18 setbacks, height, maximum net residential density, open space, parking requirements, clearing X
19 limitations and stormwater management.
20
21 The existing regulations require that maximum net density calculations are cumulative: hotel/motelLO
22 rooms, affordable units and market-rate units are combined when determining development potential.
23 Only nonresidential floor area is not counted against affordable housing development potential. This
24 is done to incentivize and encourage the development of mixed use projects that contain components
25 of affordable housing.
26 E
27 The proposed amendment would only require a cumulative calculation of density between affordable
28 dwelling units and market rate dwelling units on the parcel proposed for development or �E
29 redevelopment; and a cumulative calculation of density and intensity between nonresidential square
30 footage,hotel/motel units and/or market rate dwelling units on the site. The proposed amendment may
31 make projects more economically viable, assisting the local economy and furthering affordable
32 housing, by reducing potential land acquisition and infrastructure costs.
33
34 A secondary effect of the proposed amendment would be to incentivize the redevelopment of aging 2
35 hotel/motel infrastructure. The proposed amendment addresses two key issues facing Monroe County:
36 1) inadequate availability of affordable housing; and 2) the need for redevelopment of aging
37 hotel/motel infrastructure. The County's 2012 EAR's Major Issues Analysis (2012) identified aging
38 hotel/motel infrastructure as an economic sustainability issue for the unincorporated County. The EAR
39 points out that only 25 percent of hotel rooms within all of the Keys are located in the unincorporated Z:
40 portions of the County. Of these hotel rooms, 54 percent are within structures older than 40 years,
41 which is considered the useful life of buildings and structures from a building use and architectural
42 perspective. By 2030, 84 percent of the hotel/motel structures will have surpassed their useful life and
43 will require either replacement or extensive renovation.
44
45 The EAR includes the following recommended strategy for addressing the issue of aging hotel/motel
46 infrastructure: E
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 7 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1891
0.3.a
1 �
2 Provide incentives for redevelopment of existing outdated hotel/tourist
3 facilities should be instituted. Such incentives may include the ability to
4 expand the building footprint. Recommend some relaxation, where
5 appropriate, of current zoning regulations to reduce the cost of upgrade
6 compliance is also important and should be considered for green building
7 and/or green lodging certification.
8
0
9 During the October 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting, the agent for the Application requested
10 the scope of the proposed text amendment be limited to Stock Island after discussion with person's
11 present at the Planning Commission meeting. In a letter dated December 28, 2018, the agent indicated Z:
12 that he had been contacted by Hawk's Cay who have expressed an interest in developing additional
13 employee housing on their property and requested to be included in the proposed text amendment. The
0.
14 Agent did not specify any further changes.
15
16 Following the recommendations of the Planning Commission through Resolution P42-18, staff offers
17 additional thoughts for consideration by the BOCC: E
18 • There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed text X
19 amendment to Stock Island and/or Duck Key. Allowing this amendment to remain with a
20 county-wide may provide encouragement and incentives for all existing hotels to redevelop
21 consistent with recommended strategies developed through the EAR. LO
22
23 • The Planning Commission recommended that 50% of affordable units be allotted to "on-site
24 personnel". There is no definition for "on-site personnel". The County Code has an existing
25 definition for"employer owned rental housing": E
26 a
.Emp1gyer°- )iv.e,d rental housing means an attached or detached dwelling unit owned by
a firnn, business, educational institution, non-geven nental or governimentall agency,
corporation or other entity that is intended to serve as affordable, pernnanent housing
ffor its en7 toyees. This category of employee housing, shall be located on the same
27 parcel of land as the nonresidential use. �
28 2
29 V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE
30 PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND THE LAND
31 DEVELOPMENT CODE.
32
33 A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe
34 County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically,it furthers: 0
35
36 GOAL 101
37 Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of (n
38 County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
39 E
40 Objective 101.2
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 8 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1892
0.3.a
CD
1 As mandated by the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 380.0552, F.S. and Rule 28-20.140, S
2 F.A.C., and to maintain the public health, safety, and welfare, Monroe County shall maintain a
3 maximum hurricane evacuation clearance time of 24 hours and will coordinate with the State Land
4 Planning Agency relative to the 2012 Memorandum of Understanding that has been adopted
5 between the County and all the municipalities and the State agencies.
6
7 Objective 101.3
8 Monroe County shall regulate new residential development based upon the finite carrying capacity
9 of the natural and man-made systems and the growth capacity while maintaining a maximum
10 hurricane evacuation clearance time of 24 hours.
0
11
12 Policy 101.3.3: Monroe County shall allocate at least 20% of the annual allocation, or as may be
13 established by the State of Florida, pursuant to Administration Commission Rules, to affordable
0.
14 housing units as part of ROGO. Any portion of the allocations not used for affordable housing
15 shall be retained and be made available for affordable housing from ROGO year to ROGO year.
16 Affordable housing eligible for this separate allocation shall meet the criteria specified in Policy
17 601.1.4 and the Land Development Code, but shall not be subject to the competitive Residential E
18 Permit Allocation and Point System in Policy 101.6.4. Any parcel proposed for affordable housing X
19 shall not be located within an area designated as Tier I as set forth under Goal 105 or within a Tier
20 III-A Special Protection Area as set forth in Policy 205.1.1.
21LO
22 Policy 101.3.10: Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, ROGO allocations utilized for
23 affordable housing projects may be pooled and transferred between ROGO subareas, excluding
24 the Big Pine/No Name Keys ROGO subarea, and between local government jurisdictions within N
25 the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern (ACSQ. Any such transfer between local a
26 government jurisdictions must be accomplished through an interlocal agreement between the E
27 sending and receiving local governments.
28 E
a�
0
0
0
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 9 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1893
p0hev
Mcmyc,e County hereby adcpts the fAlowing,den its intensity stanckirdls,,fbi� U)
the fature huhi,use categofies,whichue Ghown on the FLUIA and&sciibedl in 0
Policies 101 5.1 - 101.5.20 [§163,31T7(6)(a)1-FS.1
Fuft,rre LanA Uw Den sides and Intensities
Resideuti,q] Nonresidential muUmum 0
'Open Space
Putilre,Land Usie Category F-qtic"I
Maimumn Net Diew,'ity 4)
And Corresponding AUccated DiEmity mamimum lutemiry
ZQBLU!g (per upland acre) (11013T arEiR Mlio 0
(per buildable acre), 2
Z
AEmculrura,,Aqu2cuL,hue 0 din. 17,A 2 5 Per
0 rooms,'waices ],;,,A underlyiing 0
(mD dueoh;correiipcmditig zoning,
zomnma
Airport ADS 0 din. 1;,A 0.10 0.20
(AD,zomny,� 0 rooms,'waices 1;'A 91
0
Conunerml(CMIM) 0 din. ],;,,A 0 151-4). 4) 0.24)
(Cl and C2 zoning,) 0 rooms,'waices
Conservation(C) 0 do ],;,,A 4).4)51 0.910 C
(CD zommg) 0 rooms,'waices 4)
E
Educanon CE�"mi 0 din. ],;,,A 4).30 per
(mo dueahv corre,.pomdzig uadezlymg
x
zommg) 0 rooms,'waices D w. , zommly,
hidm-trial(Ip V diti, 2 du 0 and-0.,ND 0.20
(I and M!zommg,) 0 rooms,'waices 1;'A
Iustitudomal 0 da 17,A Per LO
(mo dueahl;corraiipomdzig 4).30 underlying
zonmg) 15 roomy space, 24 rooms,'spmea zomag,
N23mlamd,Nati've,(Nla) 0.01 du 1;',A O.P.5-0.99
C14
(Nnl zoning,) 2 Epaices'11 D w. , .N.03
C
Nfilmar y(TA 6 din 12 diti 0.30-0.'50 0.20 0
WF zoainy,� 14)roomy space 20 rooms,'spaceE E
'a
Mtvled Ulle"Comamercial ➢du(DR,MU,MI� 2 du(NO) ;D.10-0.4, C
(mcy',Ixl 2du(SC) 6-1 Bdxi(SQ" (5 U c, C7 DIRL7 M u� 0
E
(SC,UC,DR,RV,NEE 6 din(1-FUl 12 din(UCj 0.24)
and,d CoummeTrial AparrmenN 12-18 din(NfU) 27'100 SF'(RtiT)
zoning) IS du(D�PL�
0.30-0.60(NM
5-15 rooms,'EpaceE R 0-25 rooms/Epa c a s
Mtvled Ulle"Comamercial V din, 12 du(CTA,CFS D) U)
C
FLsbmg(NICT)"' (CTSQ-24)�'r'
(CFA,CFV,CF5D1 3 du(CFA,all other 0 25-04) 0.24)
zoning,) MD)
R dwlot(CF1yr) 1;;A(CFV�
0 rooms,'waices 1;'A
0
Preservanon(P)' 0 din 1;',A
(P zoning,) 0 rooms,'waices 0 1.041)
Public Bujldmgs,Iandy 0 din, 1;',A 0.30 Per 0
(PB)1111 uaderlymg
(no dueahl;cormipomdzig 0 rooms,'waices zoning,
zoning)
0
RUM]c 0 din, ],;,,A 4).30 per 0.
Facilities 0 rooms,'waices 111711A underlying
(no dueahl;cormipomdzig zoning,
zonmg)
Recreation(R) 0 din, 4.,N.2 0 0.910
TR zoming) 2 rooms,'waices
C
Residendal Conservinou 4.)-0.14.)du(0 5) ],;,,A 0-0 20 0.91, 0
(RC) 0 2 5 din t3,;A) E
2 (0T�and NA zoning,) 0 rooms,'waices
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 10 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1894
Residential Low(RL) 4).5 4)d i 1 3 du(SR-L) 4).251 0(sR 7
(55,RI,and SR-L zoning) 5 du(SR) SR-L)
or 0
1 du-lot(SR)'""' 0 so(S&� Z:
0 rooms,'�Paces N;A(S,S) 0
]',;,,'A .0
Residertial Nfedium(RIA) ➢d'u"101(Is.IS-1v`7 IS.- ],;,,A
(IS7 IS-NI and IS-D"' NI) 0
zoning) 2 da1w,(IS.-DV) 0 0.24)
0 room s,'sPaices
Residertial High(FLH) 6 da(UFL l2-25 do
0
J&-D'n"UP2,1,,URMy -L R du]ot(UP24,TJR24-L) 1,.;,,A(IS-Di,UMvI7
,and TJR zoning) 2 da1w,(IS.-Di) UR-IA:-L) 0 0.24)
0-10 rooms,'sp!L.e 0
L 0-20 roomvspacei
Norei:
(a) The allocated densities for submerged. landi, salt ponds, freshivmer ponds, and m2ng;roves ilsall be, 0 and the,
0
mnaximum net density bonuses shall not lie available 91
0
a"dp The Maxim mu Net DensiM n the maximum deasiM allowable ivi th the use of TDRs".or for qunlifyingaffordiible 'a
homing development. TD,R:;c�an ble utiLmed roarnsin the density Between the allocated density Aaudard up to the,
mnaximum net density standard. Deed restricted affordable dwelling units may de built up to the maxiinum net deasity
without the use of TDRs. mEaw that maxinaitin neltdensiM bonnsei shall not beavadable. BuHdabLeacrei
rnEaw the portion of a parcel of Isad thtt is deveLDpable and is not required open space. E
(c) Additional open space requirements may apply based ou eni:tronmental Protection crne:rm: in these,cmies,the most
resn:icri-�e,requirement shall apply X
(dp Future land.we categories of.Pgr'irumdritm,Agnarukure Education,ItmtrutiDual,PreserviricaL,Pub�hc BuiLdings,�L'ands7
and.Public Fadlhies,which have no directly corresponding zomag.,m2y be used with new or existing zomag clistncts
mapprophate.
(e) Walim the M;aiahmcl Native funtre land inie chstrbcr,cimpg;ointd spaces and noarEiidendal bwlchngs shall only be,
permitted.for edimaticynal,research or sanitary pitrpo,sei.
(f„ For properties consisting of lsammocl.s7 pnyelands or distitrbed wedaack within the Mixed Uiie,' Co,inmetrial end
Mined Use,' Commercial Kilning funue, lacid,use, categonei7 the, m2acmum floor area ratio shall be, 0.14) and, the,
maxiinuin net density bonuses shall not lie available.
C14
A mixturs,of uses shFdl be,maintained for paxceh deii guated is NII zoning district that are-within the,M C furure land
use category WorEng waterfront iad warer dependent usei7 Eim�h m manai, 8sh bouie,m2r1e�,, boat repxi.T� boat
buildiag,boat =age, or other similar usei7 shall c�ompn,�e,i minimum of 35%of the iTLaud area of the properry, E
adjacent to the iliorelme,puisu=to PoIicy ROI.S.d.
(hI In the RV zoning diszict,commetrialapartmenn sht,Il be allowed,nor to exceed ROAD of total spaice�s allorved or in
e:cn;te3Y.,e on the site,whichever is less E
(i) The allocated density for the, 0"FSD-20 zoning district (Little Torch Key) shall ble I dwelling, unit Per acre, Or I
dwelling unit phonep erpercel for phone percels,existing Is ofseptember 15" R93,67 whichever n legs,andthe m mma axiinet
densiM bonuses shall not be available.Residentsal deasiM shall be a Llowed.in addition to the permitted.nonresidential -j
aces and iataanTY(i,E,.,demilysad iniensity sball not be counted curmdanvely)-
(j) Within IS mbdiJsious with imarily single founily residential units,IS-Li zomay,may be,usLd wnha P.M future,land,
U)
u,e designation for platted lots which haves duplex that was lawfully established Prior to September R 5 7 R 93,16.
(k)The maximum net den,i ty ilia 11 be 25 dxv]Muldable alcre,for the UP.zoning;disrmcl and,shall ba R 3 dubuddabLe acre for
the NEE and,SC zoniag,district for development whete,all unm are,deed restncted affordable dwelling umts.For the,
UR zoning,district rnaAet rare,housing,m2y be,developed is part off anaffordable-or employee hoining project with a
mxximuin net den i Lry not exceeding IS du,'bualciableacre.
d Vesseh Luc ludiag live-aboanivessels,or mwciated,ivet slLpsare,not coasidered dwelling units and do not count when
calculating density. 0
(m Within the Rasidenrial Low funtre land uile category,the mayinaitiniensiry for platted.Lws of Less than 4).40 grins
p
acres withibi the SR zoniag,distncnh'Il ble l dwelling,unit er platted lot pmlided all of the foIlommy,coadidonsare
2
2 met:
0
3
4
5 Policy 101.13.2: The Maximum Net Density is the maximum density allowable with the use of 0
6 TDRs, and shall not exceed the maximum densities established in this Plan. TDRs may be utilized W
7 to attain the density between the allocated density standard up to the maximum net density tt:
8 standard. Deed restricted affordable dwelling units may be developed up to the maximum net
9 density without the use of TDRs. The assignment of TDRs to Big Pine Key, No Name Key, and r-
10 North Key Largo from other areas of the County shall be prohibited. E
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 11 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1895
0.3.a
1 GOAL 102
2 Monroe County shall direct future growth to lands which are most suitable for development and
3 shall encourage conservation and protection of environmentally sensitive lands (wetlands, beach Z:
4 berm and tropical hardwood hammock). [§163.3177(6)(a), F.S.]
5
6 GOAL 601
7 Monroe County shall adopt programs and policies to facilitate access by residents to adequate and
8 affordable housing that is safe, decent, and structurally sound, and that meets the needs of the 0
9 population based on type, tenure characteristics, unit size and individual preferences.
10 [§163.3177(6)(f)l. and 3., F.S.]
11
12
13 Policy 601.1.4
14 All affordable housing projects which receive development benefits from Monroe County,
15 including but not limited to ROGO allocation award(s)reserved for affordable housing, maximum
16 net density, or donations of land, shall be required to maintain the project as affordable for a period
17 of 99 years pursuant to deed restrictions or other mechanisms specified in the Land Development E
18 Code, and administered by Monroe County or the Monroe County Housing Authority. X
19
20 Policy 601.1.9
21 Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which may include density bonuses, `O
22 impact fee waiver programs, and other possible regulations to encourage affordable housing.
23
24 Objective 601.2 c„
25 Monroe County shall adopt programs and policies to encourage housing of various types, sizes a
26 and price ranges to meet the demands of current and future residents [§163.3177(6)(f)l. and 3, E
27 F.S.].
28
29 B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
30 Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes.
31
32 For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan a
33 with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles
34 shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation
35 from the other provisions.
36
37 (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
38 government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
39 designation. Z:
40 (b) Protecting shoreline and benthic resources,including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
41 wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. 0
CL
42 (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
43 vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
44 their habitat.
45 (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
46 development.
47 (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
ca
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 12 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1896
0.3.a
CD
1 (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and S
2 ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
3 (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. �
4 (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major 2
5 public investments,including:
6 0
7 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
8 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
9 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
10 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
11 5. Transportation facilities;
12 6. Federal parks,wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
13 7. State parks,recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
14 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
CL
15 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. 0
16
17 (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation,maintenance, and
18 replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal E
19 facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
20 disposal systems. X
21 (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of U
22 wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
23 applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through LO
24 permit allocation systems.
25 (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
26 (1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
27 (m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural
28 or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan.
E
29 (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
30 Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
31
32 Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7)Florida Statutes,the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with
33 the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
34
35 C. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
36 Specifically, the amendment furthers:
as
37
38 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve
39 and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and
40 resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively
41 with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their 0
42 jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning,it is intended that units of local
43 government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort,
0.
44 good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general
45 welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage,
46 schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and 2
47 conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions.
48 a
SR sOCC 03.21.19 Page 13 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1897
0.3.a
CD
1 163.3161(6),F.S. —It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have the legal
2 status set out in this act and that no public or private development shall be permitted except in
3 conformity with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof, prepared and adopted Z:
4 in conformity with this act.
5
6 163.3177(1), F.S. — The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, c
7 and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental,
8 and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan 0
9 and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent
10 manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are
11 implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, Z:
12 generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's
13 programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated,modified,or continued
0.
14 to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to
15 require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to
16 require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will
17 be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that E
18 describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. X
19 The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of
20 land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and
21 use regulations. �
22 CD
23 163.3201, F.S. — Relationship of comprehensive plan to exercise of land development regulatory
Ir-
CD
24 authority. It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans or elements thereof
25 shall be implemented,in part,by the adoption and enforcement of appropriate local regulations a
26 on the development of lands and waters within an area. It is the intent of this act that the E
27 adoption and enforcement by a governing body of regulations for the development of land or
28 the adoption and enforcement by a governing body of a land development code for an area E
29 shall be based on, be related to, and be a means of implementation for an adopted
30 comprehensive plan as required by this act.
31
32 D. The proposed amendment is consistent with one or more of the required provisions of LDC a
33 Section 102-158(d)(7)(b):
34
35 1. Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from those on which the text or
36 boundary was based;
37 Per the Applicant:
0
0
SR sOCC 03.21.19 Page 14 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1898
CD
The Board of County Commissioners may consider an amendment if the change is based on one S
U)
or more factors, including changed projections and assumptions regarding public service needs
0
and demographic trends along with new issues. The data cited in the "Reason for Proposed Text
Amendment" Section of this memorandum, above, support that there is a significant and growing
shortage of affordable workforce housing, both rental and ownership, which needs to be
addressed. 0
Per the Stakeholder Report attached hereto as Exhibit "A", Monroe County faces the quadruple 2
0
impact of high land values, land limited by geographic and enviroiu-nental features, housing
supply limited by controlled growth (the Rate of Growth Ordinance), and a tourism economy
0
with a prevalence of lower paying service-sector employment, The data clearly shows that the
growing lack of affordable housing needs to be addressed. The Proposed Amendment will assist
this goal by providing incentive for developers of hotel/motel uses and owner/operators of
current hotels/motels to develop affordable housing in suitable, currently underutilized or 0
unutilized areas.
2
E
3 2. Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends);
X
4 Per the Applicant: 2
U
The Board of County Commissioners may consider an amendment if the change is based on one
or more factors, including changed projections and assumptions regarding public service needs
and demographic trends along with new issues. The data cited in the "Reason for Proposed Text LO
Amendment" Section of this memorandum, above, support that there is a significant and growing
shortage of affordable workforce housing, both rental and ownership, which needs to be
addressed.
E
'a
Per the Stakeholder Report attached hereto as Exhibit "A", Monroe County faces the quadruple
impact of high land values, land limited by geographic and environmental features, housing E
supply limited by controlled growth (the Rate of Growth Ordinance), and a tourism economy
with a prevalence of lower paying service-sector employment. The data clearly shows that the
growing lack of affordable housing needs to be addressed. The Proposed Amendment will assist
this goal by providing incentive for developers of hotel/1-notel uses and owner/operators of
current hotels/rnotels to develop affordable housing in suitable, currently underutilized or
5 unutilized areas.
6
7 3. Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features described in 0
8 volume I of the plan;
0
9 N/A
10 0
11 4. New issues;
12 Per the Applicant:
E
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 15 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1899
CD
The Board of County Commissioners may consider an amendment if the change is based on one S
U)
or more factors, including changed projections and assumptions regarding public service needs
0
and demographic trends along with new issues. The data cited in the "Reason for Proposed Text
Amendment" Section of this memorandum, above, support that there is a significant and growing
shortage of affordable workforce housing, both rental and ownership, which needs to be
addressed, 0
Per the Stakeholder Report attached hereto as Exhibit "A", Monroe County faces the quadruple
0
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. The data clearly shows that the 0
growing lack of affordable housing needs to be addressed. The Proposed Amendment will assist
this goal by providing incentive for developers of hotel/inotel uses and owner/operators of
current hotels/motels to develop affordable housing in suitable, currently underutilized or
0
unutilized areas.
2
3 5. Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or E
X
4 N/A
5
6 6. Data updates;
LO
I-
7 N/A
8
cv
9 7. In no event shall an amendment be approved which will result in an adverse community change
10 to the planning area in which the proposed development is located or to any area in accordance E
'a
11 with a livable communikeys master plan pursuant to findings of the board of county
12 commissioners. E
13 Per the Applicant:
There will be no adverse change to unincorporated Monroe County at large if the text
amendment is approved. As a general principle, areas suitable for hotel/motel development are
suitable for affordable residential use. Properties nearby proposed affordable housing
development under the Proposed Amendment will not be adversely impacted, as any
development of affordable housing under the Proposed Amendment will still be required to be an 2
authorized use in the applicable land use (zoning) district. Furthermore, all sucl-.t development 0
will be required to comply witli level of service, concurrency, and performance standards as set
14 forth in the Land Development Code,
0
15
16 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 0
17
18 Staff recommends the BOCC consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission through
19 Resolution P42-18.
20
21 Following the recommendations of the Planning Commission through Resolution P42-18, staff offers E
22 additional thoughts for consideration by the BOCC:
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 16 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1900
0.3.a
CD
1 • There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed text S
U)
2 amendment to Stock Island and/or Duck Key. Allowing this amendment to remain with a 0
3 county-wide may provide encouragement and incentives for existing hotels to redevelop
4 consistent with recommended strategies developed through the EAR.
5 0
6 Staff recommends approval, with changes as noted in this staff report and shown in the attached draft
7 ordinance, of the proposed amendments to Land Development Code Section 139-1(a)(5).
8 c
9 VII. EXHIBITS
10 :
11 1. Draft Ordinance
c
12 2. Tier III hotel properties (per Property Appraiser).
13 3. 2018 Affordable Housing Income Limits
x
LO
cv
a�
0
0
0
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 17 of 17
File 42017-075
Packet Pg. 1901
0.3.b
F �
ZN
6 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
�
7 1 IONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ISSIONERS 2
8 ORDINANCE NO 2019cm
10
11 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD, OF
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ENDI CI COUNTY
13 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 139-I, AFFORDABLE
14 AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING,, ADMINISTRATION: TO SPECIFY
15 THAT WHEN CALCULATING VE ALLY DENSITY ON A
16 PARCEL, AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY AND
1.7 HOTEL/MOTEL DENSITY SHALL NOT BE COUNTED
18 CUMULATIVELY AINST EACH OTHER (OPERATING S
19 DENSITY IICINUS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF �
20 AFFORDABLE/EMPLOYEE HOUSING IiI 1 PROPERTIES WITH
21 PROVIDING HOTEL/MOTEL);� I' OV
�PROVIDING FORSI��"�E LI'T 1
22 FOR REPEAL L CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
23 PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAN
24 PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE
25 PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
TY
26 CODE; PROVIDING I FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2017-075)
27
28
29
30 WHEREAS, on May 23, 2017, the Planning and Environmental Resources Department
31 received an application fi-on- Barton W. Smith of Smith Hawks one behalf of Longstock 11, l�, .,C, �
32 "the Applicant," to amend the Monroe County Land Development Code Section 139-1(a)�(5) to
33 clarify that the calculation of density for any existing lawfully established or proposed affordable
34 or employee housing on a parcel shall be excluded from the calculation of the total gross
35 nonresidential floor area development and hotel/motel density that may be lawfully established on
36 a parcel; and
37
38 ` IIERE,4,'S, Florida Statute Sections 163.3194 and 163.3201 require land. development
39 regulations to be consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan; and
40 0i
41 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee ( . RC) considered the LO
42 proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 24"' day of April, 2018 and �
43 recommended approval; and
44
Ord -2019 Page 1 of 5
File 2017- 75
Packet Pg. 1902
I WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 29,
2 2018, -for review and recommendation on the proposed amendment, and tabled the proposed
amendment; and
4
5 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on October
6 24, 2018, for review and recommendation on the proposed amendment; and
7 .2
U)
0)
8 WHEREAS, based on discussion and. public input at the hearing, the PC recommended r_
0
9 approval through Resolution P42-18 of the proposed amendment with the following changes:
10 1. Require that of the affordable units developed on a parcel, a minimum of 50% or one
11 (1) dwelling unit, whichever is greater, .are low or very low income;
0
12 2. Require that of the affordable units developed on a parcel, 50% of new affordable units
I are allotted to on-site personnel;
14 Cap the combined for hotel/motel rooms or spaces and affordable or employee housing
15 density at 25 dwelling units per buildable acre; and
16 4, Limit the text amendment to Stock Island. U)
0
17 Z:
18 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 21' day of March, 20�19, the
19 Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing,considered the staff report,
20 and provided for public comment and public participation in accordance with the requirements of 0
21 state law and the procedures adopted for public participation in the planning process; and <
22 2
0
23 WHEREAS, based upon the documentation submitted and information provided in the
24 accompanying staff report, the BOCC makes the following, Conclusions of Law:
0
25
26 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, ObJectives and Policies of the
27 Monroe County Year 20')0 Comprehensive Plan; and
0
28 2. 'I"he proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development
29 for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Sec. 380.,0552(7), F.S.; and
30 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute; and
It I E
4. The proposed amendment is necessary due to changed projections, changed
32 assumptions and new issues, as required by Section 102-158 of the Monroe County X
33 n 2
Code.
34 zz�
3,5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
36 COMMISSIONERS OF MC NROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
_3 7
38 Section 1® The Monroe County Land Development Code is hereby amended as follows 0
LO
V.-
39 (Deletions are shown stfteke*44ough; additions are shown underlined):
40
41 C14
42
E
43 See. 139-1. Affordable and Employee Housing; Administration.
44 (a) Generally.
Ord -2019 Page 2 of 5
File 2017-075
Packet Pg. 1903
(1) Notwithstanding the density limitations in Section 130-157, the owner of a parcel of
2 land shall be entitled to:
a. Develop affordable and employee housing as defined in Section 10 1-I, can parcels of N
4 land classified as Urban Residential (Ulf) at an intensity up to a maximum net
5 residential density of 25 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified as
6 Mixed Use (MU) at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 18 0
U)
7 dwelling units per acre.
0
8 b. Develop affordable and employee housing, as defined in Section 101-1, on parcels
9 of land classified as Suburban Commercial (SC) at an intensity up to, a maximum
U)
10 net residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified
0
11 as Urban Residential (UR) at an intensity Lip to a maximum net residential density
12 of 25 dwelling units per acre.
U)
13 c. Develop market rate housing, as defined in Section 10 1-1, as part of an affordable or
14 employee housing project in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section,
U)
15 provided that on parcels of land classified as Urban Residential (Ur), the maximum
0
16 net residential density shall not be greater than 18 dwelling units per acre. Z:
17 (2), The maximum net residential density allowed per district and by this section shall not .2
18 require Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for affordable and employee housing
0
19 and market rate housing developed in accordance with subsection(a)(8)of this section,
20 ()) Market rate housing developed in. accordance with subsection (a)(8) below shall be
0
21 eligible to receive points pursuant to Section 13)8,-28(a)�(6).
22 (4) 'Fhe requirements of this Land Development Code for the provision of impact fees shall
0
Z:
23 be waived for affordable and employee housing and any market rate housing developed
24 in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section,
25 (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, when calculating density, any existing
0
'a
26 lawfully established or proposed affordable or employee h0LIsing on a parcel and the
27 floor area thereof shall be excluded from the calculation of the total gross nonresidential
28 floor area and hotel/motel density development that may be lawfully established on the E
29 parcel, provided, however, that the total residential density allowed on the site shall not X
30 exceed the maximum net density for affordable and employee housing.
31
zz�
2 In order for affordable density to be excluded from hotel/motel density_pR_A_pqEgel as
33 set forth in Subsection (5) above, such de/elopment must meet the following criteria:
3)4 a. All affordable units develo ed must be deed restricted as ern vlomg It o�u s i n p
35 as defined in Section 1 0
36 b. The ratio of affordable units developed on a parcel must adhere to the LO
37 following schedule:
38 i, A maximum of 25% moderate income., and a minimum of'
39 25% low income or very low income, or one-CLI,dwelling
E
40 unit, whichever is greater, and
Ord -2019 Page 3 of 5
File 2017-075
Packet Pg. 1904
ii. 50%of affordable units developed shall. be allotted LO
to on-site I-
2 personnel;
c. The total maximum net density of any such parcel shall not exceed twenty cv
-
4 five (25) dwelling units per buildable acre for hotel/motel rooms or spqqes
5 and affordable or employee housing combined. In no case shall.hotel/motels
0
6 rooms or spaces exceed the maximum allocated density (without the use of
U)
0
7 TDRs) or the maximum net density with the use of TDRs),..set forth in a
0
8 Section 1')0-162. In no case shall affordable or employe ge sing h ou exceed
9 the maximum net density as set forth in Section 1.30-1.57;
U)
10 d. Any such development shall not be available for parcels containing
0
11 hotel/motel units for which the transient ROGO allocations were awarded
12 or transferred after the effective date of this ordinance-, U)
13 e. The owner of the hotel/motel must provide the employees of the hotel/motel
14 a right of first refusal for lease of- any affordable housing to be developed
15 under this subsection-, and
0
16 f. The subiCCt Droverty must be designated Tier 111. Z:
17
18,
19 0
20 Section 2. SeIKEghili . lf any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or
21 provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, 0
22 such judgment shall not affect, impair, invalidate, or nullify the remainder of this ordinance, but
23 the effect thereof shall be confined to the section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence, or 0
24 provision immediately involved in the controversy in which such judgment or decree shall be
25 rendered.
26
0
27 Section 3. Conflicting Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with
28 this ordinance are hereby repeated to the extent of said conflict.
29
E
30 Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted to the Florida State [,and
31 Planning Agency as required by F.S. 380.05 (11) and F.S. 380,0552(9). X
2
33 Section 5. Filing. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State zz�
34 of Florida but shall not become effective pursuant to Section 9 until a final order is issued.according
35 to F.S. 380.05(6) by the Florida State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission
3 6 approving the ordinance, and if the final order is challenged, until, the challenge to the order is
37 resolved pursuant to F.S. Chapter 120, 0
8
LO
39 Section 6. Inclusion in the Monroe C29pty Code, The provisions of this Ordinance shall
40 be included and incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of the County of Monroe, Florida, as an
41 addition to amendment thereto, and shall be appropriately renumbered to conform to the uniform
42 marking system of the Code.
43) E
Ord -2019 Page 4 of 5
File 2017-075
Packet Pg. 1905
�
I Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective as provided by law and i;
2 stated above.
4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
5 Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of
6
.2
7 Mayor Sylvia Murphy, District 5 U)
0
8 Mayor Pro Tein Danny L. Kolhage, District I r-
0
9 Commissioner Michelle Coldiron, District 2
10 Commissioner 1--leather Carruthers, District ')
U)
11 Commissioner David Rice, District 4
r-
12 0
I
14
15 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
16 OF MONROE COIJNTY, FLORIDA
U)
17
0
18, BY Z:
19 Mayor Sylvia Murpliy Z
20 (SEAL)
21 0
22 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK
23
0
24
25 DEPUTY CLERK
0
Z:
0
E
x
"O"OE COU"ATTOgtMy zz�
KTT,
ASS
WILLIAla
ISTANT
cOUNTY ATTORNEV
Date 2
0
LO
C14
E
Ord —-2019 Page 5 of 5
File 2017-075
Packet Pg. 1906
0.3.d
° MONROE COUNTY,FLORMA
f PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
2798 Overseas Hwy,Suite 400,Marathon,FL 33050; (305)289-2500
�..�w
e
Rental Affordable Housing Units
Monroe County 2018 Qualifying Income Limits
Income Limits for Sin le Persons
Very Low Low Median Moderate
Household Size 50% 80% 100% i 120%
1 Person $30,900 $49,400 $61,800 $74,160
2 Persons $35,300 $56,450 $70,600 $84,720
3 Persons $39,700 $63,500 $79,400 $95,280
4 Persons $44,100 $70,550 $88,200 $105,840
5 Persons $47,650 $76,200 $95,300 $114,360
6 Persons $51,200 $81,850 1 $102,400 $122,880
7 Persons $54,700 $87,500 1 $109,400 $131,280
8 Persons $58,250 $939150 $1169500 $139,800
Per MCC§101-1.Affordable Housing Definitions
as
Income Limits for Married or Domestic Partners
Very Low Low Median Moderate
Household Size 50% 80% 100% 120% as
2 Persons $47,067 $75,267 $94,133 $112,960
3 Persons $52,933 $84,667 $105,867 $127,040
4 Persons $58,800 $94,067 $117,600 $141,120
5 Persons $6 ,533 $101,600 $127,067 $15 ,480
6 Persons $68,267 $109,133 $136,533 $163,840
7 Persons $72,933 $116,667 $145,867 $175,040
8 Persons $77,667 $124,200 $155,333 $186,400
Per MCC§139-1(a)(6)0)
as
E
Maximum Monthly Rental Rates
Unit Size Very Low Low Median Moderate
I 50% 80% 100% 120%
fficiency $773 $1,235 $1,545 $1,85
1 bedroom $883 $1,411 $1,765 $2,118
2 bedrooms $993 $1,588 $1,985 $2,382 ®I
3 bedrooms $19103 $19764 $2,205 $2,646
4+bedrooms $1,191 $1,905 $ ,383 1 $ „859
Per MCC§139-1(a)(6)(i)and MCC§101-1.Affordable Housing Definitions
E
Ls
Updated 04/03/2018
Packet Pg. 1907
0.3.d
MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA
ta
PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
2798 Overseas Hwy,Suite 400,Marathon,FL 33050; (305)289-2500
e
Owner Occupied Affordable Housing Units
Monroe County 2018 Qualifying Income Limits
Income Limits for Single Persons
Very Low Low Median Moderate Moderate
Household Size 50% 80% 100% 120% 160%
1 Person $30,900 $49,400 $61,800 $74, 0 $98,880
2 Persons $35,300 $56,450 $70,600 $84,720 $112,960
3 Persons $39,700 $63,500 $79,400 $95, 80 $1 7,040
4 Persons $44,100 $70,550 $88,200 $105,840 $141,120
5 Persons $47,650 $76,200 $95,300 $114,360 $152,480 a
6 Persons $51,200 $81,850 $102,400 $122,880 $163,840
7 Persons $54,700 1 $87,500 $109,400 $131,280 $175,040
8 Persons $58,250 $93,150 $116,500 $139,800 $186,400
0
Per MCC§101-1.Affordable Housing Definitions
as
Income Limits for Married or Domestic Partners
0
Very Low Low Median Moderate Moderate
Household Size 50% 80% 100% 120% 160% as
2 Persons $47,067 $75,267 $94,133 $112,960 $150,613
3 Persons $52,933 $84,667 $105,867 $127,0 0 $169,387
4 Persons $58,800 $94,067 $117,600 $141,120 $188,160
5 Persons $63,533 $101,600 $127,067 $15 ,480 $203,307
6 Persons $68,267 $109,133 $136,533 $163,840 $218,453
7 Persons $72,933 $116,667 $145,867 $175,040 1 $233,387
8 Persons $77,667 $124,200 $155,333 $186,400 $248,533
Per MCC§139-1(a)(6)0)
as
E
Maximum Sales Price
County
Unit Size Median Ratio Maximum
Income Sales Price
Efficiency $84,400 3.75 $316,500
1 Bedroom $84,400 3.75 $316,500 ®I
Bedroom $84,400 4. 5 $358,700
3 Bedroom $84,400 4.75 0,9$4000 as
Per MCC§101-1. Definition of Maximum sales price, owner
occupied affordable housing unit E
Ls
Updated 04/03/2018
Packet Pg. 1908