Item P2 P.2
G 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
July 17, 2019
Agenda Item Number: P.2
Agenda Item Summary #5101
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Emily Schemper(305) 289-2506
1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider approval of 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. 3100
P.2
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. 3101
P.2
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. 3102
P.2
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.
(3) Market rate housing developed in accordance with subsection (a)(8) below shall be
Packet Pg. 3103
P.2
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 den sit to be excluded from hotel/m n otel densit o a arcel
..............................
..............:
..._ __as set forth in Subsection (5) above, ro1d� _ ._ � 4 '
.: .:........................:...:.:...: ! development must meet the
:................................................. such,............................
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_aww2fL a ;.arcel must adhere to the
following schedule:
i. A minimum of 25/o low income or very low incoe or one
.. .... ° ..................................._ .....................................a. ..........................................
dw.gl,lbl % moderate
J12 c Qtmg,...and
G , allordaWe unks devekmed ..be fflotted to on ske
c. The total maximum .................,.rict density of any such parcel shall not exceed 4 'it
uuV� (, 5) !Hy�Huly a"aye (L) dwelling units per .2ildable acre for-l'ot'e t'not'e
12.oln:s..�ar_s�aces and alford��le or ern loves h�o�sin�p combined In no case shall
hotel/motels rooms or s aces exceed the maxiinum allocated densit without
the use of '1,DI2 s or the inaxiino�m nsit net de with the use oI`'1 DI2 s set forth
in Section 130--162. In no case shall affordable or em to ee housin Y exceed the
In.Axa,�ilu1n i1c.1._dellsa11:as set forth in Section 130--157•
................................::.............::.........................::.............::....................,::................................::....::.............................................::......................::........................::...............................................................:.
ed. 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
1e. The subject property must be designated Tier IIltf�i4
II. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Packet Pg. 3104
P.2
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. 3105
P.2
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 hotelltourist 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":
mplolyer°-o)i ned renta 1i,ausing means an attached or detached dwelling, unit owned by
a fnrnn„ business, educational institution, non-governunentall on• govcrnun entalagency,
corporation or other entity that is intended to serve as, affordable, permanent housing
for its employees.. This categoii , of employee housing shall be located on the ,same
parcel of land as the nonresidential use.
Packet Pg. 3106
P.2
• There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed
text amendment to parcels that contain hotel/motel units for which the transient ROGO
allocations were awarded or transferred, prior to the effective date of the proposed
ordinance. This language would prohibit a new hotel/motel from utilizing this
opportunity to provide affordable housing on the same parcel as the hotel/motel
development; which may limit options for implement inclusionary requirements for
transient units.
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.
• There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed text
amendment to parcels that contain hotel/motel units for which the transient ROGO allocations were
awarded or transferred,prior to the effective date of the proposed ordinance. This language would
prohibit a new hotel/motel from utilizing this opportunity to provide affordable housing on the same
parcel as the hotel/motel development; which may limit options for implement inclusionary
requirements for transient units.
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).
Packet Pg. 3107
P.2
DOCUMENTATION:
2017-075 BOCC SR REV 07.17.19
STAMPED 2017-075_Ordinance (7 8 19)
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
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 Completed 03/21/2019 9:00 AM
Packet Pg. 3108
P.2.a
!f
r
3 .5 .
4 =
0
5 MEMORANDUM
6 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
U)
7 We strive to be caring,professional and fair
8
9 To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
10
11 Through: Emily Schemper, AICP, CFM, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources
12 =
13 From: Cheryl Cioffari, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager
0
14
15 Date: February 21, 2019; 24, 20II
16
17 Subject: An ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending the 0
18 Monroe County Land Development Code Section 139-1, Affordable and Employee
19 Housing Administration, to specify that when calculating overall density on a parcel,
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 0
22 affordable/employee housing on properties with a hotel/motel). (File #2017-075)
23
24 Meeting: March 21, 2019 (Tabled); Jifl,Y II7, 20II
25
26 L REQUEST
27
28 On May 23, 2017, the Planning and Environmental Resources Department received an application M
29 from Barton W. Smith of Smith Hawks on behalf of Longstock II, LLC, ("the Applicant") to amend X
30 Subsection 139-1(a)(5) of the Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC) to exclude affordable
31 housing density from cumulative density/intensity calculations for hotel/motel development on a site.
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 IL BACKGROUND INFORMATION f
36
37 The Applicant states "the proposed text amendment will encourage the provision of severely needed f
38 affordable housing by increasing the effective density of hotel/motel parcels so that affordable housing cof
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 ,nf
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
44 encourage the development of affordable housing stock in Monroe County by incentivizing developers cm
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 E
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 1 of 17
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3109
P.2.a
I economic-drivers to develop necessary affordable housing with reduced land acquisition and
2 mobilization cost."
3 U)
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
U)
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 #2017-075).
11
12 Staff has reviewed the Applicant's position and supporting documentation, and agrees with the S
13 position that inadequate availability of affordable housing is currently a primary issue facing 0
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
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
19 BOCC held a special meeting on December 6, 2016, to discuss the recommendations, and provided 0
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. 0
22
23 Additionally,Monroe County suffered the loss of a significant number of housing units due to damage 0
24 caused by Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. The BOCC has acknowledged that the pre-existing a
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 X
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
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 W
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 CO
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 ,ni
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: cm
45 strong demand for second homes which reduces the supply of housing for permanent residents; r_
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 2 of 17
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3110
P.2.a
1 • conversion of permanent housing for transient use as vacation rentals which reduces the
2 housing supply and increases affordable housing demand;
3 • high construction costs due to transportation costs of goods, limited labor market, and caprock U
4 conditions; _
0
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 0
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
12 a continual as well as a growing challenge in the County. C
13 �
14 Concept Meeting
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
18 affordable housing and hotel/motel development proposals throughout the entire unincorporated
19 County. For reference, maps showing the locations of existing Tier III hotel/motel properties, per
20 Monroe County Property Appraiser data, are attached, as examples of sites that could potentially
21 receive additional density as a result of the proposed amendment.
22
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 0
26 county-wide impact.
27
28 BOCC Impact Meeting and Public Participation E
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 0
31 have a county-wide impact. Topics raised by the BOCC during the discussion item included: 0
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 w
37 not give any formal direction to staff regarding the proposed amendment, but was generally favorable
38 towards the idea. co
39
40 Development Review Committee and Public Input 0
41 On April 24, 2018, the Monroe County Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the °°i
Ln
42 proposed amendment at a regular meeting, provided for public comment and recommended approval
43 through Resolution 07-18.
44
cm
45
46
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 3 of 17
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3111
P.2.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 U
4 that the Applicant meet with Staff and address the following items before scheduling a second public r_
5 hearing:
6 1. Limit to "employer-owned rental housing" per definition in Section 101-1;
U)
7 2. Limit the ROGO allocations to the very low and low income categories with a small percentage r_
0
8 (5%) to be median income;
9 3. Provide a potential cap(actual#or%)of total density(cumulative of affordable units and hotel U)
10 units); and
11 4. Clarification that density bonus applies to redevelopment only (existing ROGO or recognized
12 through an LDRD). �
0
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
17 public comment. The Planning Commission considered the application, the staff report, and the
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:
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 a
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
27 4. Limit the text amendment to Stock Island.
28 0
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 >
w
35 Following the recommendations of the Planning Commission through Resolution P42-18, staff offers i
36 additional thoughts for consideration by the BOCC: co
37 • There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed text 0�
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 L�
40 consistent with recommended strategies developed through the EAR.
41 • The Planning Commission recommended that 50% of affordable units be allotted to "on-site
cm
42 personnel". There is no definition for "on-site personnel". The County Code has an existing
43 definition for"employer owned rental housing":
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 4 of 17
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3112
Einplqyer-o),i,!�ned rental housing rneaiis an attached or detached dwelling utut owned by
0
a firin, business, educational instifirtion, non-governinental or govenunental agency, U)
CoTporation or other entity that is intended to serve as affordable, peen ianerit housing, 0
-J
for its employees. This category o�f employee housing shall be located on the same
2 pucel of land as the nonresidential use. U)
3 • There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed text 0
M
4 amendment to parcels that contain hotel/motel units for which the transient ROGO allocations
U)
5 were awarded or transferred, prior to the effective date of the proposed ordinance. This r_
0
6 language would prohibit a new hotel/motel from utilizing this opportunity to provide
7 affordable housing on the same parcel as the hotel/motel development;which may limit options E
U)
:3
8 for implement inclusionary requirements for transient units.' 0
9
10 111. PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
11 0
12 The following amendment is proposed by the Applicant (deletions are shown in str-ike thr-etfgh; 1<
13 additions are shown in underline). Changes recommended by the Planning Commission in Resolution @
0
:: : A
14 P42-18 are shown n�d with deletions shown as 1 and additions in as an Staff
15 recommended changes, following the public hearings and public input, are shown in purple with
16 deletions shown as a 4F4Eed+Feu0, and additions in as a an rl n-� 0
...................
17
.
18 2
19 Sec. 139-1. Affordable and Employee Housing; Administration. 0
20 (a) Generally.
21 (1)Notwithstanding the density limitations in Section 130-157, the owner of a parcel of land shall r_
22 be entitled to: E
23 a. Develop affordable and employee housing as defined in Section 101-1, on parcels of land
X
24 classified as Urban Residential (UR) at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density
25 of 25 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified as Mixed Use (MU) at an
26 intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre.
27 b. Develop affordable and employee housing, as defined in Section 101-1, on parcels of land
28 classified as Suburban Commercial (SC) at an intensity up to a maximum net residential
29 density of 18 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified as Urban Residential
30 (UR) at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 25 dwelling units per acre. >
W
31 c. Develop market rate housing, as defined in Section 101-1, as part of an affordable or 0
32 employee housing project in accordance with subsection(a)(8)of this section, provided that �
co
33 on parcels of land classified as Urban Residential (UR),the maximum net residential density
34 shall not be greater than 18 dwelling units per acre.
0
35 (2) The maximum net residential density allowed per district and by this section shall not require ca I
36 Transferable Development Rights(TDR)for affordable and employee housing and market rate Ln
37 housing developed in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section.
C14
County Staff is working on a proposed text amendment related to inclusionary requirements for nonresidential and transient E
units.
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 5 of 17 <
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3113
P.2.a
1 (3)Market rate housing developed in accordance with subsection (a)(8)below shall be eligible to
2 receive points pursuant to Section 138-28(a)(6).
3 (4) The requirements of this Land Development Code for the provision of impact fees shall be U
4 waived for affordable and employee housing and any market rate housing developed in r_
5 accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section.
6 (5)Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, when calculating density, any existing lawfully
7 established or proposed affordable or employee housing on a parcel and the floor area thereof
8 shall be excluded from the calculation of the total gross nonresidential floor area and
9 hotel/motel density development that may be lawfully established on the parcel, provided,
10 however, that the total residential density allowed on the site shall not exceed the maximum r_
11 net density for affordable and employee housing.
12 In order for affordable d.ens�ly to be excluded from hotel/motel density on a parcel
13 ..... ....e..Vmeat as set forth in Subsection (5) above, t 1
............................................................................................................................................................................
14 such ftatdgkitdevelopment must meet the following criteria:
15 a. All affordable units developed must be deed restricted as employee housing, as
16 defined in Section 101-1;
17 b. The ratio of affordable units developed one a parcel must adhere to the
18 following schedule:
19 A minimum of 25% low income_or very low j!j!qg ga gE.._gn!�.....
20 dwelling......_gnit whichever is $rester, and a maximum of 25%
0
21 moderate incom. , zinu�„:�:
22 zffbgtl;rdA",
23 �:;u �puuuu�:;q
24 c. The total maximum total net density of any such parcel shall not exceed d i, 4 0
25 dwelling units per buildable acre for hotel/motel rooms or
..... P ...................................
26 5,p�!des„and„�;,C'C'r��b e..o _em loyee housing combined. In no case shall hotel/motels E
27 r.g.o�, or-spaces- xce d the aximaarr allocated dens l�(without the use of'1'1:)IIs`p
28 Q.�the.._m.a..c m.u.m n.e.t..._der-s ly..._(with the use o� 1'1: �s p set forth in Section a 30....a 62.
t�
29 In.._no.._c�:se..._shall.._a:�:'�'ordable.._o1.._err��loyee housino, exceed the maximum net density
30 as.._set .oath inSection....1:_3_0'.::::.a:57;
31 d. ................:...:..:................................:....:.....................................................:...........................................................................:...:.........................................:.....................
32 lletewfflete d._awefded
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
33 T used �fha� s �¢nme �ha... ('tT�bn �m
.................................................................. � .
34 e. The owner of the hotel/motel must provide the employees of the hotel/motel a right i
35 of first refusal for lease of any affordable housing to be developed under this co
36 subsection, and
c�
37 f The subject property must be designated Tier III:a;
38 i
g. .. Ln
39
40 *****
41 cm
42 IV. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
43
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 6 of 17
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3114
P.2.a
I Staff agrees with the Applicant's assertion that Monroe County is experiencing a significant and
2 growing workforce housing crisis in terms of affordable rental and affordable ownership as identified
3 in the 2015 Monroe County Workforce Housing Committee Stakeholder Assessment Report. The U
4 proposed amendment is one such mechanism that the County could utilize to incentivize both the r_
5 development and redevelopment of hotel/motel facilities and the development of employee or
6 affordable housing.
U)
7
8 The proposed amendment would provide an incentive to develop affordable housing on parcels
9 containing development or contemplating development in conjunction with hotels/motels and/or
10 nonresidential floor area. Currently, the LDC only allows the exclusion of nonresidential floor area
11 from cumulative calculations of intensity with affordable housing density. The proposed amendment
12 would expand this exclusion to include hotel/motel rooms for properties that contain existing lawfully
13 established hotel/motel rooms or spaces.
14 x
15 There is limited land area suitable for residential development remaining in the County. Current
16 regulations do not allow the award of Affordable Housing ROGO allocations within Tier 1 designated
17 parcels. Amendments to the LDC are necessary to ensure that despite the limited availability of
18 developable lands, the County's existing and future housing stock includes adequate affordable
19 housing opportunities. Escalating land and predevelopment costs contribute to the cost of housing and
20 tend to restrict the development of affordable and employee housing. The proposed amendment would
21 potentially encourage the addition of affordable and/or employee housing as hotel/motels are
22 developed and redeveloped. Further, the application proposes a cap on the total number of hotel/motel
23 rooms or spaces and affordable units. Staff has proposed modifications to the proposed language to r_
24 ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC.
25 0
26 Both the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC include maximum net density provisions, which allow
27 development at a higher density with development of affordable housing. Density would still be
28 constrained by all other applicable land development regulations, including but not limited to: E
29 setbacks, height, maximum net residential density, open space, parking requirements, clearing
30 limitations and stormwater management.
31
32 The existing regulations require that maximum net density calculations are cumulative: hotel/motel
33 rooms, affordable units and market-rate units are combined when determining development potential.
34 Only nonresidential floor area is not counted against affordable housing development potential. This
35 is done to incentivize and encourage the development of mixed use projects that contain components
36 of affordable housing. w
37 1
38 The proposed amendment would only require a cumulative calculation of density between affordable co
39 dwelling units and market rate dwelling units on the parcel proposed for development or
40 redevelopment; and a cumulative calculation of density and intensity between nonresidential square 0
41 footage, hotel/motel units and/or market rate dwelling units on the site. The proposed amendment may °°i
Ln
42 make projects more economically viable, assisting the local economy and furthering affordable
43 housing, by reducing potential land acquisition and infrastructure costs.
44
cm
45 A secondary effect of the proposed amendment would be to incentivize the redevelopment of aging
46 hotel/motel infrastructure. The proposed amendment addresses two key issues facing Monroe County:
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 7 of 17
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3115
P.2.a
1 1) inadequate availability of affordable housing; and 2) the need for redevelopment of aging
2 hotel/motel infrastructure. The County's 2012 EAR's Major Issues Analysis (2012) identified aging
3 hotel/motel infrastructure as an economic sustainability issue for the unincorporated County. The EAR 0
4 points out that only 25 percent of hotel rooms within all of the Keys are located in the unincorporated r_
5 portions of the County. Of these hotel rooms, 54 percent are within structures older than 40 years,
6 which is considered the useful life of buildings and structures from a building use and architectural
U)
7 perspective. By 2030, 84 percent of the hotel/motel structures will have surpassed their useful life and
8 will require either replacement or extensive renovation.
9
10 The EAR includes the following recommended strategy for addressing the issue of aging hotel/motel
11 infrastructure:
12
13 Provide incentives for redevelopment of existing outdated hotelltourist
14 facilities should be instituted. Such incentives may include the ability to
15 expand the building footprint. Recommend some relaxation, where
16 appropriate, of current zoning regulations to reduce the cost of upgrade
17 compliance is also important and should be considered for green building 0
18 and/or green lodging certification.
19
20 During the October 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting, the agent for the Application requested
21 the scope of the proposed text amendment be limited to Stock Island after discussion with person's
22 present at the Planning Commission meeting. In a letter dated December 28, 2018, the agent indicated
23 that he had been contacted by Hawk's Cay who have expressed an interest in developing additional r_
24 employee housing on their property and requested to be included in the proposed text amendment. The
25 Agent did not specify any further changes. 0
26
27 Following the recommendations of the Planning Commission through Resolution P42-18, staff offers
28 additional thoughts for consideration by the BOCC: E
29 • There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed text
30 amendment to Stock Island and/or Duck Key. Allowing this amendment to remain with a
31 county-wide may provide encouragement and incentives for all existing hotels to redevelop
32 consistent with recommended strategies developed through the EAR.
33
34 • The Planning Commission recommended that 50% of affordable units be allotted to "on-site
35 personnel". There is no definition for "on-site personnel". The County Code has an existing >�w
36 definition for"employer owned rental housing":
37 co
Ynpagyer°-o)i,v.e,d rental housing paeans an attached or detached dwelling unit owned b
a firnn, business, educational institution, non-governmental or governu nentall agency,
ca
corporation or other entity that is intended to serve as affordable, permanent housing; Ln�
for its employees. This category of employee housing shall be located on the sane
38 parcel of land as the nonresidential use.
cm
39
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 8 of 17
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3116
P.2.a
I • There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed text
2 amendment to parcels that contain hotel/motel units for which the transient ROGO allocations
3 were awarded or transferred, prior to the effective date of the proposed ordinance. This 0
4 language would prohibit a new hotel/motel from utilizing this opportunity to provide 0
5 affordable housing on the same parcel as the hotel/motel development;which may limit options
6 for implement inclusionary requirements for transient units.
7 0
8 V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE
U)
9 PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND THE LAND
10 DEVELOPMENT CODE.
E
11 U,
12 A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe 0
13 County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it furthers:
14
15 GOAL 101
16 Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
17 County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
18 0
19 Objective 101.2
20 As mandated by the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 380.0552, F.S. and Rule 28-20.140, 0
x
21 F.A.C., and to maintain the public health, safety, and welfare, Monroe County shall maintain a
22 maximum hurricane evacuation clearance time of 24 hours and will coordinate with the State Land 2
23 Planning Agency relative to the 2012 Memorandum of Understanding that has been adopted
24 between the County and all the municipalities and the State agencies.
25
26 Objective 101.3
27 Monroe County shall regulate new residential development based upon the finite carrying capacity
28 of the natural and man-made systems and the growth capacity while maintaining a maximum 0
29 hurricane evacuation clearance time of 24 hours. 0
30
31 Policy 101.3.3: Monroe County shall allocate at least 20% of the annual allocation, or as may be
32 established by the State of Florida, pursuant to Administration Commission Rules, to affordable
33 housing units as part of ROGO. Any portion of the allocations not used for affordable housing
34 shall be retained and be made available for affordable housing from ROGO year to ROGO year. >I
35 Affordable housing eligible for this separate allocation shall meet the criteria specified in Policy
36 601.1.4 and the Land Development Code, but shall not be subject to the competitive Residential
37 Permit Allocation and Point System in Policy 101.6.4. Any parcel proposed for affordable housing co
38 shall not be located within an area designated as Tier I as set forth under Goal 105 or within a Tier 0
39 I11-A Special Protection Area as set forth in Policy 205.1.1. ca
40 Ln
41 Policy 101.3.10: Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, ROGO allocations utilized for
42 affordable housing projects may be pooled and transferred between ROGO subareas, excluding
County Staff is working on a proposed text amendment related to inclusionary requirements for nonresidential and transient E
units.
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 9 of 17
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3117
P.2.a
I the Big Pine/No Name Keys ROGO subarea, and between local government jurisdictions within
2 the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern (ACSQ. Any such transfer between local
3 government jurisdictions must be accomplished through an interlocal agreement between the U
4 sending and receiving local governments.
5
]Polio
Mcmmm�oe County hereby mmr;.11c is the fbd<owing,density and intensity stmicki dos fol,
the future huid use ca to ofie s,,which m-e shown on the F]L1.TM and&A flbed in
)Policies 101 5.1 - 101.5.20 [§163 31T'?(6)(a)1..)r'.'S.l
Fuft,rre]LanA Uw D;pennaatoes and In itennsutue
Resndeaiial uu:o Na urerndeamaal I,Iluunamamnn,
pea Space;
Eaat➢rreImand19we Category 17mtimomY S
And orreup omdlm Mansnmm n Net Dem^sity U)
g AllocatedDemrit 'AAmimuurumInter5try
zcai lg (per uapla ad,acre) o 1Door Brea Mlio:D
(pe,r btaldable acre),
:.ymzrncurDtuare;A uumcuDtn7e d dhu ],;,,A 4).:2 per
0 roa^mms,waic,er 1;'A, uaaxde ly mg
(Do dueLfly corrernpawmlm.e zoning,
zr arima;
Airport ADS d dhu 1;'A ;;N.ld 0.24)
(AD1 zormna g,p 0 roz?mns,waic,em 1;,A
Connnn,ernal(N IINENE) d dhu ],;,,A d l51-4).`4) 0.24)
(Cl and C 2 zzra mg) 0 roDims"Waicem
coa ervenioa(C) ddhu ],;,,A 4).91N51 0.910 �S
(CD zom mg) D`;',A
Eduncamn oE�"o d dhu ],;,,A 4)..30 per
(ano dueLfiy corrernpawndim.e uaaxderly mg
zoanamp) 0 roa^mms,waic,er D %. , zoning,
Ind u rri,aD+I� V dhu 2 du d 2 5-4). N 0.24)
(I and M1 murng) 0 roa^mms,waic,er
Imstitrrbo na l;IhA ') `u" d dhu D,Liu, per
(Do dueu-tll2i corrernpawmlm.e 4)..30 uaaxde ly mg
6 zcranmg) l.`room;wpac,e- 24,ru^*=,'rpaacas zoning �s
M
x
C3
I
I
CO
I
CO
C3
C3
I
Ln
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 10 of 17 <
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3118
U-
Nlimlamd,Naft've,(Nlal) 0.01 du 1;',A OA95-0.99
..V
(Nn�rooming) 2 spaces"' ]";",A C'h.0 3 0
0
N1031ary(TvfS 6 da 12 do 0.30-0.'50 0.20
U)
WF'zoaiay� 14)roonu/spaces 20 rooms,'paces
IlLmed ula"Conmercial ➢du(DR,MU,MI� "du e10) 4D.10-0.4, 0
('mcy�'Ixl -3 du(SC) 6-1 Bdxi(SQ"� (SC,UC7 DIRL7 1117�
(SC,UC,DR,RV,NEU 6 dm(UC) 12 dm(UC) 0.24)
s,m d Commercial AparrmenN 12-18 dm(NfU) �27'500 SF(R'v') U)
MI zoning) IS dm(D�PL�
0.30-0,60(NM
0
5-15 rooms,'spaces R 0-25 rooms,'spaces
Mi:med ulle"Commercial V dm 12 du(C"FA,CFS D)
FLsbmg(MCF)"' (CTSD-24)�'' U)
(CFA,CFV,CFSD, 3 du(CFk,all other 0 25-04) 0.24)
zoning) MD)
R daloi(CF'yr) 1;;A(CFV�
0 rooms,'waices ]";",A
0
Presenanom(P) 0 dm 1;,A
rp zoning) 0 rooms,'waices ],;,,A 0 1.041)
Public Bujldmgsllands 0 dm 1;,A 0.30 Per
(PB) underlymg
(no dueah';cormipomdiig 0 rooms,'waices ]";",A zoning, 0
Zoning)
RuMic 0 dm, ],;,,A 4).3 0 Per
Facilities(PF)" 0 rooms,'waices 17,A underlymg
(no dueahl;cormipomdiig zoning, 0
Zoumg)
Recreation(R) 0 dm ],;,,A C.h.2 0 0.910
(PR roman) 2 rooms,'waices ],;,,A 0
Residendal Conservinou 4)-0.14)du(0 5) ],;,,A 0-0 20 0.91,
(RC) 0 2 5 dm t3,;A)
(OS sad NA zoning) 0 rooms,'waices 0
Residendal Low(RL) 4).54)du 3 du(SR-L) C'2 5 0(sR 7 0
(55,SRI,smd SR-L zoning) 5 du(SR) SR-L)
'IT I du]ot(SR)'"' 0 so(S&�
0 rooms,'waices N;A(S,S)
];A E
Residendal Meduum(F.M) R dwloi(IS,IS-7`7 IS.- ],;,,A
x
(IS7 IS-NI and IS-1)", M) dS
zoning) 2 da1w,(IS.-Di) 0 0.24)
0 rooms,'waices ]";",A
Residendal High( H) 6 dm(UPL� 12-25 Ri(T--Rp"�
(I&-D'�"UP2,11,URMS -L R du]ot(URM:7 TJR24-L) 1,.;,,A(IS-Di,URM7
,and TJR zommg,) 2 da1w,(IS.-Di) =M:-L) 0 0.24)
0-10 rQ4DM'�"�P!E!L---L 0-210 yvomvspacel;s
Note':
2 (a) The allocated densities for sub merged. l2ad�s, salt ponds, fresbiwmer pou&7 and m2mg;roves shall be, 0 and the,
CO
0
CO I
Ln
I--
CD
CD
Cm
E
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 11 of 17 <
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3119
Maximum net density bonuses shall not lie available.
(b The Nfaximmu Net Density n the maximum density 3 llow3bLe ivi in the use of TDRs".or for qunlifyingaffoiditble
homing development. TD�R:;c�3n b�e ualmed.toarlain the density beirween the allocated density
yAaudard up to the, 0
�m mmaxiu net densitysmadard. Deed restricted affordable dwelling itnits may b�e built up to the maximum net deasiM U)
without the use off TDRs. meaw that maxinaitin met density boicusei shall not be vadable. BuHdabLeacrei
meaw the portion of a parcel of land that is deveLDpable and is nor required open space. 0
(c) Additional open space,requirements may apply based ou enmTonmentAl Prorecton cmeni: in these,cmies,the,most
restricft-we,requirement iliall apply
(dp Future land.we caiegoties of Education,InstirufiDual,PreserviricaL,Pub�hc BuiLdings,'L'ands7 U)
and.Public Facilities,which have no directly corresponding zomag.,m2y be used with new or exie>tiug zouiag clistncts
mappropnate. 0
(e) Within the 113inhand Native funue land inie chstrbcr,cimpg;oiatd spaces and nowEiidential!millings shall only be, >1
permitted,for edimaticynal,research or mititary pitrposei. &
U)
(f For properties consoling of lsammocl.s, pnyelands or d3stuTbed wedanck within the Mixed Uiie,' Co,rnmetrial and
NImed.Use,' Commetrial Fkliding furtire, laLul use, categonei, the, m2aimuzu floor area ratio iliall be, 0.14) and, the,
aaaximum net density bouuses shall not lie available. 0)
(Z) A mixturs,of ales shFdl be,maiwained for parcels deii gnated is NII coning districi that are wi thin the,M C future land S
U)
use c�aiegory WorLing waterfrow ind warer depenclew usei7 Eim�h as manai, 8sh boni repair„'boat :3
0
building,bom storage„or other similar usei7 shall compnse i riummuzo of 35%of the iTLaudarea of the properry,
adjacent to the ilioreline,puisu=to PoIicy R01.5.d. 4)
(hI In the FV zoning district,commetrialapartmenn sh,aIl be allowed,nor to exceed ROAD of total spaices allorved or in 72
eiiqe3Y.,e on the,site,whichever is less M
(i) 'The allocsied,denii ty for the, CFSZ-2 0 zoning district (Little Torch K Zey) shall Ise I dwelling unit Per acre, Or I
0
dwelling Luin per parcel for those percels,existing is of September 15, R93,67 wh3chever n Leii7 and the maximimanet
densm bouuses shall not be aviilabLe.Residential deasiM shall be allowed in addition to the plermitted.nouresidenta I
uses and inteasiT-y(i,e.,den;aysad miensiry sball act be caimted curnidanvely).
(j) Within IS mbdivisions with primarily iLugle,family residew3al units,IS-D coning may be,usLd wnha RM future,lead
0
use designation for plaited lots which haves duplex that way lawfully esuabhshed.prior to September R 5 7 R.93,16.
(k)The maximum net density ty ilia 11 be 25 du' iuldable alcre,for the UP.zAtyning,disrmct and,shall be R 3 dubuddabLe acre for
the NfU and,SC zoning;district for development whete,all unm are,deed restricted,affordable dwelling unjts.For the,
UR zoning,district rna:r&et rare,housing,m2y be,developed is part of anaffordabLe,or employee hom ing proj ecl with a 0
mxximuin net dens Lry not exceeding IS du,buildabIeacre.
d Vesseh Luc ludiag,hve-ab ran ivessels,or za wciated.ivex,slLpsare,not considered dwelling un3tsand do not count when
calculating density. .2
(m) Within the Rasidenria I Low funtre land uile category,the mayinaitin net density for platted.Lws of Less than 4).40 gross
acrei ividtibi the SR zoniag,districtsh''Il Isele V dwelling,unu per platted lot pmJded all of the foRomiag,coaditionsare 0
met;
2
3
E
4 Policy 101.13.2: The Maximum Net Density is the maximum density allowable with the use of
X
5 TDRs, and shall not exceed the maximum densities established in this Plan. TDRs may be utilized 0
6 to attain the density between the allocated density standard up to the maximum net density 0
7 standard. Deed restricted affordable dwelling units may be developed up to the maximum net -j
8 density without the use of TDRs. The assignment of TDRs to Big Pine Key, No Name Key, and
9 North Key Largo from other areas of the County shall be prohibited.
10
11 GOAL 102
12 Monroe County shall direct future growth to lands which are most suitable for development and
13 shall encourage conservation and protection of environmentally sensitive lands (wetlands, beach
14 berm and tropical hardwood hammock). [§163.3177(6)(a), F.S.] co
15
16 GOAL 601 0
17 Monroe County shall adopt programs and policies to facilitate access by residents to adequate and Ln
18 affordable housing that is safe, decent, and structurally sound, and that meets the needs of the Q
19 population based on type, tenure characteristics, unit size and individual preferences.
20 [§163.3177(6)(f)l. and 3., F.S.] C14
21
22 E
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 12 of 17 <
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3120
P.2.a
I Policy 601.1.4
2 All affordable housing projects which receive development benefits from Monroe County
3 including but not limited to ROGO allocation award(s)reserved for affordable housing, maximum U
4 net density, or donations of land, shall be required to maintain the project as affordable for a period r_
5 of 99 years pursuant to deed restrictions or other mechanisms specified in the Land Development
6 Code, and administered by Monroe County or the Monroe County Housing Authority.
U)
7
8 Policy 601.1.9 M
9 Monroe County shall maintain land development regulations which may include density bonuses,
10 impact fee waiver programs, and other possible regulations to encourage affordable housing.
11
12 Objective 601.2
13 Monroe County shall adopt programs and policies to encourage housing of various types, sizes
14 and price ranges to meet the demands of current and future residents [§163.3177(6)(f)l. and 3, x
15 F.S.].
16
17 B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys 0
18 Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes.
19
20 For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan
21 with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles
22 shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation
23 from the other provisions.
24
25 (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local 0
26 government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
27 designation.
28 (b) Protecting shoreline and benthic resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, E
29 wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
30 (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
31 vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and to
32 their habitat.
33 (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
34 development.
35 (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
36 (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
i
37 ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
38 (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. i
39 (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
40 public investments, including: UI
41 e,
42 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; ca
43 2. Sewage collection,treatment, and disposal facilities; Lni
44 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
45 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
46 5. Transportation facilities; cm
47 6. Federal parks,wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
48 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
49 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 13 of 17
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3121
P.2.a
1 9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
2
3 i Protecting and improving water quality b providing for the construction operation,maintenance and
O g p g q Y Yp g p U)
4 replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal r_
5 facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
6 disposal systems.
7 (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of U)
8 wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1)and 403.086(10), as r_
9 applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through M
10 permit allocation systems.
11 (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
12 (1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
13 (in)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural r_
14 or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan.
15 (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
16 Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
17
18 Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7)Florida Statutes,the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with 0
19 the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
20 Z
21 C. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). 0
22 Specifically, the amendment furthers:
23
24 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve
25 and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and
26 resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively a
27 with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their
28 jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local
29 government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort,
30 good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general M
31 welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, X
32 schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and
33 conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions.
34
35 163.3161(6),F.S. —It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have the legal
36 status set out in this act and that no public or private development shall be permitted except in
37 conformity with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof, prepared and adopted
38 in conformity with this act. W
39
40 163.3177(1), F.S. — The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, co
41 and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental,
c�
42 and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan
43 and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent ca
Ln
44 manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are
45 implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies,
46 generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's cm
47 programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated,modified, or continued r_
48 to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to E
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 14 of 17
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3122
P.2.a
I require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to
2 require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will
3 be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that U
4 describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. r_
5 The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of
6 land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and
U)
7 use regulations.
8 0
9 163.3201, F.S. —Relationship of comprehensive plan to exercise of land development regulatory
10 authority. It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans or elements thereof
11 shall be implemented,in part,by the adoption and enforcement of appropriate local regulations
12 on the development of lands and waters within an area. It is the intent of this act that the
13 adoption and enforcement by a governing body of regulations for the development of land or
14 the adoption and enforcement by a governing body of a land development code for an area
15 shall be based on, be related to, and be a means of implementation for an adopted
16 comprehensive plan as required by this act.
17
18 D. The proposed amendment is consistent with one or more of the required provisions of LDC
19 Section 102-158(d)(7)(b):
20
21 1. Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from those on which the text or
22 boundary was based;
23 Per the Applicant: 2
The Board of County Commissioners may consider- an amendment if the change is based on one
or more factors, including charrged projections and assumptions regarding public service needs
and demographic trends along with new issues, The data cited in the "Reason for Proposed 1`es:t
Amendment" Section of(his memorandum,above, support that there is a significant and growing E
shortage 0f affirdable workforce housing, henna rental and ownership, which needs to be
addressed.
c�
Per the Stakeholder Deport attached hereto as Exhibit, "A", Monroe County faces the quadruple
impact of high land values, land limited by geographic and environmental features, perusing
supply limited by controlled gr0w111 (the Rate of Growth Ordinancel, and a tourism economy
with a prevalence of Lower paying service-sector eniployment. The data clearly shows that the
growing lack of affordable housing needs to be addressed.. Tire Proposed amendment will assist i
this goal by providing incentive for developers of hotel/motel ruses and owner/operators of
current hotels/motels to develop affordable housing in suitable, currently underutilized 01' i
24 unutili ed areas. CO
t�
25
26 2. Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends); CO i
Ln
27 Per the Applicant:
cm
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 15 of 17
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3123
The Board of County Conirnissioners may consider an amendment if the change is based on one
or more factors, including changed projections and assurnptions, regarding public service needs
0
and demographic trends, along with new issues. The data cited in the "Reason for proposed Text U)
0)
Arnendment" Section of this nieniorandum, above, support that there is a significant and growing 0r_
shortage of affordable work-fbi-ce housing, both rental and ownership, which needs to be
addressed.
U)
Per the, Stakeholder Report attached hereto as Exhibit "A", Monroe County faces the quadruple 0
impact of high land values, land finnited by geographic and environmental features, housing
supply limited by controlled growth (the Rate of Growth Ordinance), and a tourism economy U)
r_
with a prevalence of lower paying service-sector employment. The data clearly shows that the
growing lack of affordable housing needs to be addressed. tunicilroposed Amendment will assist
S
this goal by providing incentive for developers of hotel/inotel uses and owner/operators of U)
cun,-ent hotels/motels to develop affordable housing in suitable, currently underutilized or 0
unutilized areas.
2
0
3 3. Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features described in
4 volume I of the plan;
0
5 N/A
6 0
7 4. New issues;
.2
8 Per the Applicant:
0
The Board Of County Commissioners may consider an amendment if the change is based on one
or more factors, including changed projections and asSUMP tions regarding public service needs
and dernograpf.iic trends along with new issues. Ilie data cited in the "Reason for Proposed 1"'ext
Amendment" Section of this mernorandU111, above, support that there is a sigriificant and growing E
M
shortage of affordable workforce 110LIsing, both rental and ownership, which needs to be
x
addressed.
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
SLIPI)ly limited by controlled growth (the Rate of Growth Ordinance), and a tourism economy
with a prevalence of lower paying service-sector employment. "I"he data clearly shows that the
growing lack of affordable housing,needs to be addressed. Tile Proposed Amendment will assist >
W
this goal by providing incentive for developers of hotel/motel uses and owner/operators of 0�
current hotels/motels to develop affordable housing in suitable, currently underutilized or
9 unutilized areas. co
cap
10 0
11 5. Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or ca I
Ln
12 N/A
13 Q
cm
14 6. Data updates;
15 N/A E
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 16 of 17 <
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3124
1 7. In no event shall an amendment be approved which will result in an adverse community change
2 to the planning area in which the proposed development is located or to any area in accordance
3 with a livable communikeys master plan pursuant to findings of the board of county U)
4 commissioners.
0
5 Per the Applicant:
U)
:3
There will be no adverse change to unincoilmrated Monroe County at large if the text r_
0
amendment is approved. As a general principle, areas suitable for hotel/motel development are
suitable for al'Tordable residential use. Propealjes nearby proposed aff"ordable housing
U)
development under the Proposed Amend lent will not be adversely impacted, as any
developnient of of housing under the:Proposed Amendment will still be required to be an
authorized use in the applicable land use (zoning) district. Furthertnore, all such development S
U)
will be required to comply with level of service, coricurrency, and perfornituice standaMs as set :3
0
6 forth in the Land Development Code.
7
8 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 0
9
10 Staff recommends the BOCC consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission through 0
0
11 Resolution P42-18.
12
0
13 Following the recommendations of the Planning Commission through Resolution P42-18, staff offers
14 additional thoughts for consideration by the BOCC:
15 • There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed text .2
0
16 amendment to Stock Island and/or Duck Key. Allowing this amendment to remain with a
17 county-wide may provide encouragement and incentives for existing hotels to redevelop
18 consistent with recommended strategies developed through the EAR.
E
M
19 • There is no supporting documentation indicating specific reasons to limit the proposed text
20 amendment to parcels that contain hotel/motel units for which the transient ROGO allocations
21 were awarded or transferred, prior to the effective date of the proposed ordinance. This
22 language would prohibit a new hotel/motel from utilizing this opportunity to provide
23 affordable housing on the same parcel as the hotel/motel development;which may limit options
24 for implement inclusionary requirements for transient units.
25
26 Staff recommends approval, with changes as noted in this staff report and shown in the attached draft
27 ordinance, of the proposed amendments to Land Development Code Section 139-1(a)(5).
28 co
29 VII. EXHIBITS
0
30 ca
31 1. Ordinance Ln
I--
CD
32 2. Tier III hotel properties (per Property Appraiser).
33 3. 2018 Affordable Housing Income Limits
cm
E
SR BOCC 03.21.19 Page 17 of 17 <
File#2017-075
Packet Pg. 3125
P.2.b
rrk �
0
pg
q ✓
5
6 MCIESROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
7 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY T' COMMISSIONERS
ORDINANCE NO. -2019
9
10
11 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
1.2 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY
13 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 139-1, AFFORDABLE
1.4 AND EMPLOYEE OUSING, ADMINISTRATION: TO SPECIFY
15 THAT WHEN CALCULATING OVERALL DENSITY O
1.6 PARCEL,CEL, FFORD ICE HOUSING DENSITY AND
17HOTEL/MOTEL DENSITY SHALL NOT BE COUNTED
18 CUMULATIVELY AGAINST EACH H OTHER' (OPERATING AS
19 DENSITY BONUS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
20 AFFORDABLE/EMPLOYEE HOUSING ON PROPERTIES WITH
21 HOTEL/MOTEL); PROVIDING FOR S VEIIA ALIT ; �
22 PROVIDING OVIDING FOR EPE.Av1L OFF CONFLICTING I'RC1rVISIONS;
23 PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND X
24 PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SEC IETA:RY OF STATE;
2.5 PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION N IN THE MONROE COUNTY
6 CODE; PROVIDING OVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File: 2 1.7. 7S)
27
2$
29
30 WHEREAS, on May 23, 2017,. the Planning; and Environmental Resources Department �
31 received an application from Barton W. Smith of Smith Hawks on behalf of F,on stock 11, [-,LC,
32 "the applicant," to amend the Monroe County Land Development Code Section 139'-1(a)(5) to oo
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 0i
38 WHEREAS, Florida Statute Sections 163.3194 and 163.3201 require land development Ln
39 regulations to be consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan; and
40
41 WHEREAS,the Monroe County Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the cm
42 proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 24"' day of April, 2018. and
CL
43 recommended approval; and
44 era
Ord -2019 Page 1 of 5
File 2017-075
Packet Pg. 3126
U)
0
1 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 29, M
2 2018, for review and recommendation on the proposed amendment. and tabled tile proposed
U)
3 amendment; and
4
5 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on October E
U)
6 24, 2018, for review and recommendation on the proposed amendment; and :3
0
7
8 WHEREAS, based on discussion and public input at tile hearing, the PC recommended
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 mininlurn of 50% or one 0
I 1 (1) dwelling unit, whichever is greater, are low or very low income;
12 2. Require that of the affordable units,developed oil a parcel, 50�%of new affordable units
0
13 are allotted to on-site personnel;
14 3. Cap the combined for hotel/motel, rooms or spaces and affordable or employee housing 0
15 density at 25 dwelling units per buildable acre; and
16 4. Limit the text amendment to Stock Island. .2
17 0
'a
18 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 2 1" day of March, 2019, 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
E
21 state law and the procedures adopted for public participation in the planning process, and
22 X
23 WHEREAS, based UP011 tile documentation submitted and information provided in tile
24 accompanying staff report, the BOCC makes the following Conclusions of Law:
25
26 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
27 Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan- and .2
2
28 2. File proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development
29 for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, See, 380.0552(7), F,S,; and
30 3. The proposed amendment is,consistent with Part 11 of`Chapter 163, Florida Statute; and
31 4. 'File proposed amendment is necessary due to changed projections, changed eo
32 assumptions and new 'issues, as required by Section 10�2-158 of the Monroe County
33 Code.
34
35 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 0
36 COMMISSIONERS OF MO OE COUNTY, FLORIDA:� Ln
I--
37
38 Section 1. The Monroe County Land Development Code is hereby amended as follows
C14
39 (Deletions are shown str4eken thi-eugh; additions are shown underlined): 0
w
40
41
42 co
43 Sec. 139-1. Affordable and Employee Housing; Administration.
44 (a) Generally. E
Ord -2019 Page 2 of 5
File 2017-075 <
Packet Pg. 3127
U)
0
1 (1) Notwithstanding the density limitations in Section 130-157, the owner of a parcel of
2 land shall be entitled to:
U)
3 a. Develop affordable and employee housing as defined in Section 101-1, on parcels of
4 land classified as Urban Residential (UR) at an intensity up to a maximum net
E
5 residential density of 25 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified as U)
6 Mixed Use (MU) at an intensity up to a rnaximurn net residential, density of 18 0
7 dwelling units per acre.
8 E Develop affordable and employee housing, as defined in Section I Ci I-1, oil parcels
9 of land classified as Suburban Commercial (SC) at an intensity up to a maximum 0
10 net residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified
11 as Urban Residential (UR) at an intensity up to a maxillIL11-n net residential density
0
12 of 25 dwelling units per acre.
13 c. Develop market rate housing, as defined in Section 10 1-I, as part of an affordable or 0
14 employee housing pro.ject in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section,
15 provided that on parcels of land classified as Urban Residential (UR), the maxii-nurn .2
16 net residential density shall not be greater than 18 dwelling units per acre. 0
17 (2) The maximum net residential density allowed per district and by this section shall not
18 require Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for affordable and employee housing
19 and inarket rate housing developed in accordance with subsection(a)(8) of this section. E
20 (3) Mar-ket rate housing developed in accordance with Subsection (a)(8) below shall be X
21 eligible to receive points pursuant to Section 138-28(a)�(6).
22 (4)The requirements ofthis Land Development Code for the provision of impact fees shall
23 be waived for affordable and employee housing and, any market rate housing developed
24 in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section.
.2
25 (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, when calculating density, any existing 2
26 lawfully established or proposed affordable or employee housing on a parcel and the
27 floor area thereof shall be excluded frorn the calculation of the total gross nonresidential
28 floor area and hotel/motel.density development that may be lawfully established on the
eo
29 parcel, provided, however,, that the total residential density allowed on the site shall not
30 exceed the n-iaxiIII1.111-1 net density for affordable and employee housing.
31
32 In order for affordable density robe excluded from hotel/motel density on a parcel as 0
33 set forth in Subsection 5) above, Such development must meet the following criteria: Lni
34 a. All affordable units developed must be deed restricted as employee housing, C?
35 as defined in Section 10 1-1,
Cm
36 b. The ratio of affordable units develoned on a varcel must adhere to the 0
W
3,7 following schedule: CL
38 i. A maximum of 25% moderate incorne and a_mj,nimum of
39 25% low income or very low income, or one (L)_Awelling Co
a.
40 unit, whichever is greater', and
E
Ord -2019 Page 3 of 5
File 2017-075 <
Packet Pg. 3128
U)
0
1 ii. 50%of affordable units developed shall be allotted to on-site
2 personnel.-
U)
3 c. The total maximum net density of any such parcel shall not exceed twenty-
4 five (25) dwelhn-) units, per buildable acre for hotel/motel rooms or spaces
E
5 and affordable or employee housing combined. In no case shall hotel/motels U)
6 rooms or spaces exceed the maximum allocated density (without the use of 0
7 TDRs) or the maximurn net density (with the use of TDR.$) set forth in
8 Section 13,0-162. In no case shall affordable or employee housing exceed
9 the maximum net density as set forth in Section 130-157, 0
10 d. The owner of the hotel/motel must rovide the employees of tile hotel/motel
11 a right of first refusal for lease of any affordable 110LISing to be developed
0
12 under this subsection; and
13 e� The subject property must be designated Tier 111. 0
14
15
.2
16
0
17 Section 2. Sleverability. 11' any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or
18 provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged by any Court OfCOrnpetent.jurisdiction to be invalid,
19 Such judgment shall not affect, impair, invalidate, or nullify the remainder of this ordinance, but
E
20 the effect thereof shall be confined to the section, paragraph, Subdivision, clause, sentence, or
21 provision immediately involved in the controversy in which such judgment or decree shall be x
22 rendered.
23
24 Section 3. C2pflic tin g Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances, in conflict with
25 this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict,
26 .2
2
27 Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted to the Florida State Land >
28 Planning Agency as required by F.S. 380,05 (11) and F.S. 380.0552(9).
29
30 Section 5. Filing,.This ordinance shall be filed in the Office ofthe Secretary ofthe State eo
31 of Florida but shall not become effective pursuant to Section 9 until a Final order is issued according t,
32 to F.S. 380.05(6) by the Florida State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission
33 approving the ordinance, and if the final order is challenged, until the challenge to the order is
E
34 resolved pursuant to F.S. Chapter 120. 'a
35 0
36 Section 6. Inclusion in the Monroe Counly Code. The provisions of this Ordinance shall Ln
C?
37 be included and incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of the County of Monroe, Florida, as an
38 addition to amendment thereto, and shall be appropriately renumbered to conform to, the uniform
cm
39 marking system of the Code. 0
W
40 CL
41 Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective as provided by law and
42 stated above.
U)
43
E
Ord -2019 Page 4 of 5
File 2017-075 <
Packet Pg. 3129
U)
0
1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
2 Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of
U)
3
4 Mayor Sylvia Murphy, District 5
5 Mayor Pro Tema Danny L. Kolhage, District I
E
6 Commissioner Michelle Coldiron, District 2 U)
0
7 Commissioner Heather Carruthers, District 3
8 Cornimissioner David Rice, District 4
9
10 0
1
12 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
13 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 0
14
15 BY 0
16 Mayor Sylvia Murphy
17 (SEAL)
.2
18
0
19 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK
20
21
E
22 DEPUTY CLERK
x
to
C"TV A
T. VVILLIVAS,
0
A3,V,;ZTAWT X Ty0%TT0#tNET
Dole &
eo
0
Ln
I--
C?
C14
0
w
CL
co
E
Ord -20 19 Page 5 of 5
File 201 7-075 <
Packet Pg. 3130
P.2.d
MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA
PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
' Mw 2798 Overseas Hwy,Suite 400,Marathon,FL 33050; (305)289-2500
Ln
Rental Affordable Housing Units
cm
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 Jill $102,400 $122,880
7 Persons $54,700 $87,500 $109,400 $131,280
8 Persons $58,250 $93,150 111 $116,500 $139,800
Per MCC§101-1.Affordable Housing Definitions
Income Limits for Married or Domestic Partners
Very Low Low Median Moderate
Household Size 50% 80% 100% 120%
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)
Maximum Monthly Rental Rates
Unit Size Very Low Low Median Moderate 0
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 $1,103 $1,764 $2,205 $2,646
4+bedrooms $1,191 $1,905 1 $ ,383 $ ,859
Per MCC§139-1(a)(6)(i)and MCC§101-1.Affordable Housing Definitions
Updated 04/03/2018
Packet Pg. 3131
P.2.d
MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA
` PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
" 2798 Overseas Hwy,Suite 400,Marathon,FL 33050; (305)289-2500
Ln
Owner Occupied Affordable Housing Units
cm
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
6 Persons $51,200 $81,850 $102,400 $122,880 $163,840
7 Persons $54,700 $87,500 $109,400 $131,280 $175,040
8 Persons $58,250 $93,150 $116,500 $139,800 $186,400
Per MCC§101-1.Affordable Housing Definitions
Income Limits for Married or Domestic Partners
0
Very Low Low Median Moderate Moderate
Household Size 50% 80% 100% 120% 160%
2 Persons $47,067 $75,267 $94,133 $112,960 $150,613
3 Persons $52,933 $84,667 $105,867 $127,040 $169,387
4 Persons $58,800 $94,067 $117,600 $141,120 $188,160
5 Persons $63,533 $101,600 $127,067 $152,480 $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)
Maximum Sales Price
County
Unit Size Median Ratio ( Maximum
Income Sales Price
Efficiency $84,400 3.75 1 $316,500
1 Bedroom $84,400 3.75 $316,500 i
Bedroom $84,400 4. 5 $358,700
3 Bedroom $84,400 4.75 $400,900
Per MCC§101-1. Definition of Maximum sales price, owner
occupied affordable housing unit
Updated 04/03/2018
Packet Pg. 3132
3 _ •
4
5
6 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
7 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
8 ORDINANCE NO. -2019
9
10
11 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY
13 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 139-1, AFFORDABLE
14 AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING, ADMINISTRATION: TO SPECIFY
15 THAT WHEN CALCULATING OVERALL DENSITY ON A
16 PARCEL, AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY AND
17 HOTEL/MOTEL DENSITY SHALL NOT BE COUNTED
18 CUMULATIVELY AGAINST EACH OTHER (OPERATING AS A
19 DENSITY BONUS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
20 AFFORDABLE/EMPLOYEE HOUSING ON PROPERTIES WITH A
21 HOTEL/MOTEL); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
22 PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
23 PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND
24 PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
25 PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
26 CODE; PROVIDING 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 from Barton W. Smith of Smith Hawks on behalf of Longstock II, LLC,
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 WHEREAS, Florida Statute Sections 163.3194 and 163.3201 require land development
39 regulations to be consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan; and
40
41 WHEREAS,the Monroe County Development Review Committee (DRC)considered the
42 proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 24th day of April, 2018 and
43 recommended approval; and
44
Ord -2019 Page 1 of 5
File 2017-075
Pam.
1 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
3 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
8 WHEREAS, based on discussion and public input at the hearing, the PC recommended
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;
12 2. Require that of the affordable units developed on a parcel,50% of new affordable units
13 are allotted to on-site personnel;
14 3. 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.
17
18 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 21st day of March, 2019, 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
21 state law and the procedures adopted for public participation in the planning process; and
22
23 WHEREAS, based upon the documentation submitted and information provided in the
24 accompanying staff report, the BOCC makes the following Conclusions of Law:
25
26 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
27 Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and
28 2. The 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 II of Chapter 163,Florida Statute; and
31 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
33 Code.
34
35 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
36 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA:
37
38 Section 1. The Monroe County Land Development Code is hereby amended as follows
39 (Deletions are shown strickenough; additions are shown underlined):
40
41 *****
42
43 Sec. 139-1. Affordable and Employee Housing; Administration.
44 (a) Generally.
Ord -2019 Page 2 of 5
File 2017-075
1 (1) Notwithstanding the density limitations in Section 130-157, the owner of a parcel of
2 land shall be entitled to:
3 a. Develop affordable and employee housing as defined in Section 101-1,on parcels of
4 land classified as Urban Residential (UR) 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
7 dwelling units per acre.
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
10 net residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre and on parcels of land classified
11 as Urban Residential (UR) at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density
12 of 25 dwelling units per acre.
13 c. Develop market rate housing,as defined in Section 101-1, as part of an affordable or
14 employee housing project in accordance with subsection (a)(8) of this section,
15 provided that on parcels of land classified as Urban Residential (UR),the maximum
16 net residential density shall not be greater than 18 dwelling units per acre.
17 (2) The maximum net residential density allowed per district and by this section shall not
18 require Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for affordable and employee housing
19 and market rate housing developed in accordance with subsection(a)(8)of this section.
20 (3) Market rate housing developed in accordance with subsection (a)(8) below shall be
21 eligible to receive points pursuant to Section 138-28(a)(6).
22 (4)The requirements of this Land Development Code for the provision of impact fees shall
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
26 lawfully established or proposed affordable or employee housing 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
29 parcel,provided,however,that the total residential density allowed on the site shall not
30 exceed the maximum net density for affordable and employee housing.
31
32 In order for affordable density to be excluded from hotel/motel density on a parcel as
33 set forth in Subsection (5) above, the following criteria
34
35 a. All affordable units must be deed restricted as employee housing,
36 as defined in Section 10 I
37 b. The ratio of affordable units must adhere to the
38 following schedule:
Ord -2019 Page 3 of 5
File 2017-075
1 i. A maximum of 25% moderate income, and a minimum of
2 25% low income or very low income, or one (1) dwelling
3 unit, whichever is greater; and
4 ii. 50%of affordable units-shall be allotted to on-site
5 personnel.,
6 c. The total maximum net density of any such parcel shall not exceed twenty-
7 five (25) dwelling units per buildable acre for hotel/motel rooms or spaces
8 and affordable or employee housing combined. In no case shall hotel/motels
9 rooms or spaces exceed the maximum allocated density(without the use of
10 TDRs) or the maximum net density (with the use of TDRs) set forth in
11 Section 130-162. In no case shall affordable or employee housing exceed
12 the maximum net density as set forth in Section 130-157;
13 d. 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
15 ; and
16 e. The subject property must be designated Tier III.
17
18 *****
19
20 Section 2. Severability. If any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or
21 provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
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
24 provision immediately involved in the controversy in which such judgment or decree shall be
25 rendered.
26
27 Section 3. Conflicting Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with
28 this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
29
30 Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted to the Florida State Land
31 Planning Agency as required by F.S. 380.05 (11) and F.S. 380.0552(9).
32
33 Section 5. Filing. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State
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
36 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.
38
39 Section 6. Inclusion in the Monroe County 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
Ord -2019 Page 4 of 5
File 2017-075
1 Section 7. Effective Date.This ordinance shall become effective as provided by law and
2 stated above.
3
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
7 Mayor Sylvia Murphy, District 5
8 Mayor Pro Tern Danny L. Kolhage, District 1
9 Commissioner Michelle Coldiron, District 2
10 Commissioner Heather Carruthers, District 3
11 Commissioner David Rice, District 4
12
13
14
15 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
16 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
17
18 BY
19 Mayor Sylvia Murphy
20 (SEAL)
21
22 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK
23
24
25 DEPUTY CLERK
Ord -2019 Page 5 of 5
File 2017-075