Item J3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: Wed., Julv 18,2001
Division:
BOCC
Bulk Item: Yes
No XX
.:.....
.'
Department: Comm. Nora Williams
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: 1. Discussion of any items of concern for the BOCC among the staff
assessment and proposed calendar for the items approved for consideration at our March BOCC
meeting, 2. Approval of resolution for funding for county-wide affordable housing planner
ITEM BACKGROUND:
PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION:
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOTAL COST:
BUDGETED: Yes
No XX
COST TO COUNTY:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Arty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management _
f{~ IA;AI~~...,.~)
(Nora Williams, Commissioner)
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENT A TION:
Included
To Follow XX
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDAITEM#~
Revised 2/27/01
COMMISSIONER NORA WILLIAMS
District 4
.'
Ladies and gentlemen of the municipal governments of the Florida Keys:
I promised, after our last DCA Affordable Housing Summit, to get back to you with
information for a resolution for funding $50,000 from us for a "kick-butt" planner for
affordabJe housing to concentrate on a county-wide effective approach. You will find herein
the information you would need to craft just such a resolution, with a couple of caveats.
Caveats:
A) There needs to be more discussion about the length of the contract and the exact
responsibilities of the "k-b planner." While some left the room, according to
conversations they later had with DCA, feeling that it was a short six-month stint for a
specialist that we were after, others felt that it should be a longer commitment, such as
1.5 to 2 years. Clearly, we need to present our options at the next summit to see which
option we wish to pursue. But that doesn't mean that we can't take action now regarding
a funding commitment to leave us able to take action at the next summit. Possible job
descriptions for each of those positions:
Short Term (six months)
1. Assist local governments in the development or modification of comprehensive
plan policies and land development regulations which are necessary to implement
their adopted affordable housing strategy by:
*
gathering and analyzing supporting information
*
providing model language from other communities
*
encouraging mutually supportive policies and minimizing conflicts
2. Assist local governments in identifying and assigning to specific projects the
-affordable housing allocations recently made available by DCA ~_
3. Work with affordable housing developers, local governments, the Land and
Housing Authorities, local banks, and state and federal agencies to obtain funding.
and approval for the projects identified in #2.
MONROE COUNTY FLORIDA
Marathon Government Annex, 490 63rd St. Ocean # 110, Marathon, FL 33050
Phone (305)-289-6000; Fax (305)289-6306; E-mail: noraW@mail.state.fl.us
4. Work with the private and non-profit sectors to facilitate their effective
participation in the adopted local government affordable housing strategy.
5. Coordinate the implementation of specific commitments of the interlocal
agreement
....:.
..'
6. Work with the law enforcement agencies, the School Board, and medical workers
to form a consortium for Public Service Housing
7. Work with staff of the House Committee on Local Government and Veterans
Affairs on the preparation and adoption of appropriate legislation pertaining to
affordable housing in the Keys.
Long Term 0.5 or more years)
I. Develop and coordinate an ongoing partnership among affordable housing
agencies, developers, local banks, and local governments
2. Act as a clearinghouse for affordable housing projects so that ROGO units and
Nutrient Reduction Credits pooled and transferred as needed.
3. Work with local governments, developers and affordable housing agencies to
identify and acquire sites suitable for affordable housing
4. Assist in obtaining local governments approvals and putting together financial
packages for specific affordable housing projects
5. Work with the Chambers of Commerce throughout Monroe County to develop
coordinated information centers to provide affordable housing information to
residents and people interested in moving to the Keys (to include coordination
between Key West-Monroe County Housing Authority and the Chambers on
publication of this information in the Chamber newsletters)
6. Develop a financial literacy program for residents interested in affordable. housing
7. Develop a collaborative partnership with financial institutions in Monroe County
to ensure a high level of participation in affordable housing projects
8. Other duties as specified in the lnterlocal Agreement
B) Not everyone was present at the meeting and not everyone shares the same concerns.
Nonetheless, this is a crucial issue for all of us, and it is greatly hoped that we can all
work together and support one another in an effort that will prove fruitful for all,
respecting our differences as well as our shared needs.
Page #2
C) Obviously, how much money is actually needed will depend upon which of the job
descriptions, or some other job description we end up supporting, and who participates.
Because of that, I'm providing below the information not just for the $50,000 that we
acknowledged at the last summit, but a range of figures from $50,000 - $100,000.
Because of decisions not yet made (but detailed above), we may well need a window of
commitment ranges from~ur respective municipal governing bodies to be able to move
forward at our next Affordable Housing Summit. Since the only amount we discussed as
a commitment was $50,000, if it is the decision of your Board that they are not willing to
go beyond that figure, then that should be expressed in your resolution.
Resolution:
We, the governing body of municipality X, resolve to commit adequate resources to fund a
specialist in affordable housing to work on a county-wide plan for affordable housing. We
are willing to support this endeavor by Monroe County with a financial commitment of no
less than Y and no more than Z. We recognize that further details of this position will be
discussed at the next DCA affordable housing summit and that the actual creation of the
position will require an Interlocal Agreement.
Commitment of Monetary Range by Community (determined by 2000 Census population
percentage ):
Municipal Area:
Unincorporated Monroe
Key West
Marathon
Islamorada
Key Colony Beach
Layton
Approximate Totalsl
Range/Financial Commitment
$22,310 - $44,620
$16,205 - $32,410
$6520 - $13,040
$4355 - $8,710
$495 - $990
$115 - $230
$50,000 - $100,000
Percentage of Total Population
44.62
32.41
13.04
8.71
.99
.23
100%
Additional Information:
Other organizations which have expressed a commitment to help fund this position:
Monroe County Sheriff's Office: $5000
M&~ ~~
Department of Community Affairs $10,000
END
I Given that decimals were rounded off at two decimal places.
Page #3
Status and timetable for Actions the BOeC approved for consideration in March:
COMP PLAN AND LOR CHANGES:
· Lower ROGO boundaries for affordable housing and sharing of nutrient credits
Scheduled for approvallj:ith the current Rule Change (public hearing on the 191")
· Increase percentage of affordable housing set aside to allow for at least eighty
units to be set aside per year for affordable housing projects.
If we add our current allocation of 20% of our current affordable housing "set-
aside" to the 39 returned allocations per year we "earned" as of our Year Three
review, we're at about 70 units per year starting in Year Five. Given the 201 that
are about to come upon us, staff will recommend againstfurther action at this time.
· Make affordable housing ;11l allowable use on properties zoned suburban
commercial.
The staff anticipates that a draft of this LDR revision will be submitted to the
Development Review Committee to initiate the amendment process before the end
of summer.
· Add ROGO points for no- or low-cost options with real environmental impacts
We are definitely running into staff resistance here, although making ROGO less
of a game for the rich wasn't just something that came up under Affordable
Housing discussions - it was one of our goals for 2001. That having been said, staff
has some fair concerns about the efficacy of doing this, particularly if we are able
to bring forward a long-term strategy that achieves the same result. The concern, of
course, will be how long it takes to put that long-term strategy in place.
· Expand donated lots that qualify for ROGO points to include lots in acquisition
areas throughout the County.
Although we are making good progress on the consideration of this item, it will be
fall before we see much in the way of results. Staff agrees that this is worth doing,
but is most comfortable expanding those eligible lots AFTER determination is
made as to what areas are land acquisition areas (vs. what areas are most suited for
further development). It is hoped that DCA's Ad Hoc Land Acquisition Committee
will present in the early fall a preliminary description of land acquisition areas that
will allow us to move forward.
-
· Allow mobile or manufactured homes designed for 150 mph winds on affordable
housing properties
Staff has requested that we drop this proposal for several reasons: (1) mobile
homes are still more susceptible to damage than modular or conventional housing,
(2) the County has worked to make mobile homes less of a presence, hence in
increase in allowing additional mobile homes on sites not previously zonedfor ~uch
use would require a Comp Plan change, and (3) "the not-in-my-backyard" issue'.
will get even more intense if the affordable housing under discussion is l1uule up of
mobile homes.
· Create an affordable housing overlay zone
Essentially the abili(v for affordable It 0 using to receive a Itiglter density bonus
including proposed clwl#Jes to allow employee housing with a density bonus in se
districts achieves the intent of an overlay zone. Iftlte ROCe is looking for a
different approaclt, such as allowing attaclted housing for affordable housing
projects in IS zoned areas, the staff needs some direction. However, the staff
believes that an affordable housing overlay zone may be an option to address part
of the problem oftlte conversion of affordable housing to market rate housing (see
next item).
· Don't allow modest/affordable housing to be replaced by significantly larger.
non-affordable housing, hy making "replacement unit" for existing housing
comparable in square footage, if original house was below the square footage
allowances for affordable housing.
Tltis is a touglt cltallenge tltat staff is still working on. Wltile tltere are SOME
tltings, witlt a limited impact, tltat can be brouglttforward, Itow to do tltis on a
compreltensive scale in a manner titan can be legally defended in still under
discussion witlt DCA. Expect a more detailed discussion oftlte cltallenges in
upcoming montlts.
· Link any new commercial development to the production of affordable housing,
either physical production of that housing or a monetary cost set-aside.
Wltile a modestfee scltedule per square foot will be presented to us as part oftlte
upcoming NROGO consideration, staff It as asked for a year to propose a more
fundamental linkage.
· Any new multiple-unit market rate residential developments should include a mix
of market-rate and affordable housing and should have caps on square footage to
encourage modest housing.
Tlte staff anticipates tit at proposed amendments to the LDRs to allow a mix of
It 0 using will be before tlte BOCC in September.
· Create incentives to encourage the redevelopment of existing commercial space to
affordable housing.
Tlte staff anticipates tltat some proposed LDR amendments on NROGO will be
-
befoletlte BOCe in July and proposed amendments on cltanges in se zoning
district by September of th is year.
Additional Actions:
· Select a series of appropriate properties for affordable housing projects via
Growth Management. and group together where possible for cost-efficacy
2
A preliminary list was presented to the former ROCC. Additional properties will
likel.J! be singled out as staff examinations the impacts of our Comp PlanlLDR
changes on lots zoned Suburban Commercial. That said, a comprehensive
presentation that can be taken to the Land Authority for action will probably need
to wait for the designation of the county-wide "k-b plan/ler. "
);;-
· When those properd~s are selected for our long-term planning horizon, bond the
half cent of the TDC 4th cent in the amount required for the amount of time
required to purchase those lands now for the purpose of the provision of
affordable housing.
See above.
:r
· Expand the Big Pine Key program county-wide that splits cost of subdivision lots
with adjacent or contiguous property-owners (it needs to include "across-the-
street" property-owners too if it still doesn't), leaving ownership of the property
with the property-owner in exchange for a conservation easement (which may
allow limited accessory use) for the County. Win-win-win: retirement of
development right, willing seller, happy adjacent property owner, no future
management costs for the County, retirement of development right.
Mark Rosch will begin working on tlte parameters for tltis program at tlte
beginning of our next ROGO year (neXt montlt) and will, before the end of the
summer, present those parameters to Itis Advisory Board. Presentation to tlte
BOCC will follow, presumably by early fall.
· Provide preliminary acquisition area list from Growth Management for the larger
acquisition effort to avoid build-out - and makes such a list a standard part of
every CommuniKeys program.
We will have tlte preliminary assessment of tit is by tlte end oftlte summer tltrouglt
tlte DCA Ad Hoc Land Acquisition Committee. Tltis plan will be furtlter refined
over the course oftlte nextfew years as tlte Livable CommuniKeys program
evolves.
· Place on the Land Authority priority list any lots that come up for sale at
appropriate prices that are within those acquisition areas.
See above. It is expected tltat a preliminary list will emerge over tlte course of tlte
next few montlts, but longer term designation of acquisition areas will emerge from
tlte Livable CommuniKeys program.
"
· Defermine an amount to be set aside each year from the infrastructure sales tax for
land acquisition for the purposes of avoiding build-out.
The DCA Ad Hoc Committee 011 Land Acquisition is pre posing to emerge with a
plan, and a request for local funding, over the course of the next six months.
--
".
3
County of Monroe
Growth Manag:ement Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 410
Marathon, norida 33050
Voice: (305) 289 2500
FAX: (305) 2892536
~-
"
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor George Neugent, District 2
Mayor Pro Tern Nora Williams, District 4
Comm. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Disl. 3
Comm. Murray E. Nelson, District 5
Comm. Dixie M. Spehar, District 1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Timothy J. McGarry, AICP
Director of Growth Management
DATE:
June 19, 2001
SUBJECT:
Growth Management Division Staff Update and Suggestions
on Proposed Comp Plan and LOR Changes [Revised]
Overview
To prepare for her update to the Commission at its June 20, 2001, meeting, Commissioner Nora
Williams, Land Use Liaison requested the Growth Management Division staff to prepare an
update and responses to the initial list of proposed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development
Regulations (LDRs) changes approved conceptually by the BOCC in March 2001. The
information provided to Commissioner Williams for her status report is contained in this
memorandum.
Purpose
Each proposed change in the Comprehensive Plan or Land Development Regulations identified
in the list approved in concept by the BOCC for submittal to DCA is addressed as well as the
need for a comprehensive plan amendment for the long-range plan approach for eventual build-
out.
For each proposal, an update on the progress of any amendments being prepared in response to
the proposed change is provided; any staff concerns or issues with the proposal are identified;
any needed action or direction by the BOCC is recommended; and a time frame by which the
amendments will be in effect or before the BOCC is identified.
20 Year Land Acquisition and Affordable Housing Plan
The Growth Management Division staff believes that the significance and importance of
developing and implementing a long-range "end-game" approach for land acquisition, build-out,
and affordable housing, as espoused in Commissioner William's document Securing Our Future:
A 20 Year Plan, requires that the preparation of such a plan be initiated and directed by first
amending the existing Comprehensive Plan. The proposed approach to addressing eyentual
Page 1 of 7
build-out of the Keys is a significant and fundamental shift in the policy direction of the existing
Comprehensive Plan.
The focus of the present comprehensive plan is primarily one of reaction to pressing short-term
issues and deficiencies, both .,manmade and natural, while delaying to the future, the more
politically difficult and critical de'cisions, which will face the County as it must come to grips with
the need to balance environmental quality with quality of life issues. The proposed approach
recognizes that the County must now move forward to squarely and aggressively focus on the
long-term build-out issues of property rights, provision of affordable housing and preserving and
conserving environmental and natural resources commensurate with sustainable development
principles and practices.
This amendment would provide a solid and sound policy basis for coordinating and directing the
completion of various elements of this ambitious effort, some of which were outlined in the
"additional actions" part of the "Statement from the Board of County Commissioners Concerning
Affordable Housing," approved on April 18, 2001, by the BOCC. The amendment should provide
a commitment and policy direction on such policy issues as changes to RaGa (see elsewhere in
this report), incorporation of the of the Carrying Capacity Study, Hurricane Evacuation Update,
community master plans resulting from Livable CommuniKeys Program, land acquisition, and
affordable housing.
It would serve as a tangible demonstration of the County's resolve and commitment to addressing
its future and be a valuable lobbying tool for seeking extensive legislative and financial support
from the state and federal governments. Most importantly, the plan amendment process itself will
provide opportunities for the community's involvement in the key decisions affecting its future and
vision for that future. It will provide an opportunity for the BOCC to forge a consensus among its
members and the community in addressing the critical issues facing the County in implementing
the "end game."
Recommendation: The BOCC should request that staff prepare an amendment(s) to the
Comprehensive Plan that provides a sound policy basis and direction for development of a 20-
year land acquisition and affordable housing plan for the ultimate build-out of the Keys.
Time Frame: If the BOCC supports this recommendation, the staff anticipates that the draft
amendments could be ready for submittal to the Development Review Committee by August and
reach the BOCC by later this fall..
Comp Plan and LOR Changes
· Lower ROGO Boundaries for affordable housing and sharing of nutrient reduction
credits: This proposal is contained in the proposed Rule change (new sections 28-
20.101 and 28-20.200) and would allow affordable housing RaGa allocations and nutrient
reduction credits to be transferred across RaGa planning boundaites and, even
municipal boundaries, if the County and municipality enter into a memorandum of
agreement. The proposed Rule would amend both the County's Comprehensive Plan and
Land Development Regulations; however, it is unnecessary to include reference to
nutrient reduction credits in the LDRs.
Recommendation: None
Time Frame: The Rule should become effective sometime in October of this year.
Page 2 of 7
· Increase percentage of affordable housing set aside to allow for at least eighty
units to be set aside per year for affordable housing projects: The current LDRs
allow the number of RaGa allocations reserved for affordable housing to be increased at
a maximum of 30 perfent per year. This limitation was deliberately placed in the
ordinance to minimize the disruption to the RaGa process, which abrupt changes would
create. At the present time, the County will have available within the next six months to a
year: 201 lost allocations dedicated specifically for affordable housing; the restoration of
the County's annual allocation under the proposed Rule with all 39 RaGa allocations
being dedicated solely for affordable housing; and approximately 40 affordable RaGa
allocations which have continued to be rolled over in the system. Add these numbers to
the 31 ROGO allocations (20 percent of allocation) to be made available in RaGa Year
10, the total number of affordable RaGa housing available in Year 10 may reach over
300 units, which is more affordable housing allocations than the total awarded in the
previous nine years.
RaGa and to a major extent development regulations are not the significant constraint to
affordable housing, the lack of money is. Artificially constraining the supply for market
housing may only increase the cost of the existing housing stock and pressures for the
conversion of affordable to market rate housing.
The current regulations already allow for a gradual increase in the annual RaGa
allocation for affordable housing. The staff believes that RaGa does not need to be
further modified at this time, especially since the proposed change in approach to long-
term development of the County increases the desirability for fundamental changes in the
RaGa system.
Recommendation: At this time, the BOCC should not pursue a LDR amendment to
allocate at least 80 units per year for affordable housing; but should continue to monitor
the situation and increase affordable housing allocations in response to the needs of
public and private affordable housing providers.
Time Frame: N/A
· Make affordable housing an allowable use on properties zoned suburban
commercial (Se): The staff has prepared amendments to the LDRs to allow for
affordable housing designated for working households to be constructed as a principal
use in the SC zoning district. The staff anticipates that this draft will be submitted to the
Development Review Committee to initiate the amendment process shortly.
Recommendation: None
Time Frame: The staff anticipates that the proposed LDR amendment atiowing affordable
employee housing as a principal use within the SC district will be brought to the BOCC by
September of this year.
· Add ROGO points for no- or low-cost option with real environmental impacts:
Although providing more opportunities for low cost incentives to improve the score of
RaGa applicants may appear on the surface to enable households with less economic
means to compete in RaGa, it will have little or no effect unless higher income
Page 3 of 7
households are excluded from being eligible for the same points. The changes in ROGO
are already in place, which award households ROGO points for dwellings ("modest
housing") of 1,300 square feet or less in habitable space (+2 points), modular housing (+2
points) and residential structures built on non-waterfront property (+1 point).
Another consideration i~; the monitoring the use and maintenance of these environmental
improvements which can be an administrative nightmare. For instance, residences that
have been awarded ROGO points for a cistern as a secondary water source have been
known to sell these same cisterns to other property owners after the certificate of
occupancy has been issued.
Since the County Growth Management Division is seriously considering proposing to
make ROGO a true lottery system to replace the current system when it ends in July
2002, the staff believes further tinkering is not worthwhile or productive.
Recommendation: The BOCC should drop this proposal from further consideration and
development.
Time Frame: N/A
· Expand donated lots that qualify for ROGO points to include lots in acquisition
areas throughout the County: The staff believes that this approach has merit if applied
to "new" acquisition areas that the County intends to identify and approve for resource
conservation and protection purposes. Currently an effort is underway in working with
local, state, and federal agencies as part of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force to
identify these acquisition areas. Such a change would not require any amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan or LDRs.
However, the staff is concerned about initiating changes to award ROGO points to areas
which are to be acquired primarily to "extinguish" development rights without having the
results of the Carrying Capacity Study and other supporting information to determine
ultimate build-out scenarios or options. Furthermore, as discussed previously, the staff
firmly believes that with the end of the present ROGO system, the County should move
forward to a true "lottery" system, which the staff believes is much more equitable and fair.
Such a new ROGO system can only be appropriately put in place after the County has
reached some consensus on build-out issues (where and how many residential and
transient residential units and non-residential should be accommodated over 20 years and
still achieve the sustainable development goals of the County) and designated specific
geographic areas of the Keys for in-fill development and acquisition. The location, types,
and of intensity of this development will be more appropriately addressed in the Livable
CommuniKeys master planning program. Progress continues to be made refining the
parcel layer of the County's Geographic Information System (GIS), which-will enable the
County staff with assistance of other state and federal agencies to begin work on the
identification of these acquisition and development in-fill areas.
Recommendation: The BOCC should direct staff to continue its efforts on identification of
land acquisition areas and areas suitable for further development to bring forward to the
Board for approval in accordance with the comprehensive plan amendment ,. to be
Page 4 of 7
prepared for the 20 year land acquisition and affordable housing plan discussed
previously.
Time Frame: The staff anticipates that working with the Comprehensive Plan Task Force,
that additional land acquisition areas for natural resources conservation and preservation
can be identified for a~proval by the BDCC by September 2001.. areas needed to be
acquired primarily for extinguishing of development rights will be recommended to the
BDCC as will be outlined in the proposed comprehensive plan amendment.
· Allow mobile or manufactured homes designed for 150 mph winds on affordable
housing properties: This proposal causes some concern for the Growth Management
Division for several reasons. It would encourage mobile homes in areas and zoning
districts where they are now prohibited, which will require amending the Comprehensive
Plan. The staff is concerned that manufactured housing is not a better alternative than
modular housing, which is only slightly more expensive and is not incompatible with
conventionally built housing. Affordable housing is already a Not-In-My-Backyard issue,
by allowing mobile homes in areas that now exclude them will only increase the resistance
to affordable housing.
Lastly, although manufactured housing can be modified to handle a 150 mph peak wind
load, it is still more susceptible to damage from debris and flying objects than conventional
and modular housing. Such damage can easily destroy the integrity of the mobile home
to withstand wind and rain in a storm.
Recommendation: The BDCC should drop this proposal from further consideration.
Time Frame: N/A
· Create an affordable housing overlay zone: Essentially the ability for affordable
housing to receive higher density bonus including proposed changes to allow employee
housing with a density bonus in SC districts achieves the intent of an overlay zone. If the
BDee is looking for a different approach, such as allowing attached housing for
affordable housing projects in IS zoned areas, the staff needs some direction. However,
the staff believes the an affordable housing overlay zone may be an option to address part
of the problem of the conversion of affordable housing to market rate housing (see next
item).
Recommendation: The BDCe should provide further direction to staff on the concept of
an affordable housing overlay zone, if it believes that the proposed LOR changes to the
SC district are insufficient.
Time Frame: The staff anticipates that draft LOR changes allowing for density bonus for
employee housing will be before the BDeC in September of this year.
· Don't allow modest/affordable housing to be replaced by significantly larger, non-
affordable housing, by making "replacement unit" for existing housing comparable
in square footage, if original house was below the square footage allowances for
affordable housing: An aggressive land acquisition program and further restrictions on
Page 5 of 7
the availability of property for development in the Keys will not only increase the value of
existing residences, but place greater pressure on conversion of these structures with
larger ones. At this time, the staff is unsure how or should these conversions can be
legally restricted while at the same time not incurring the wrath of property owners;
however, further researsh needs to be done on this issue.
.,'
One major loophole in the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs (Section 9.5-268) is the
provision that entitles any lawfully established principal dwelling unit to be replaced no
matter what the density provisions of the zoning district in which it located. Although this
policy is intended to protect homeowners and permanent residents from losing their
residences in cases of an "act of God," it also allows developers to buyout over density
affordable housing developments, such as mobile home parks, and rebuild with market
rate housing at higher densities than allowed under the LDRs.
After hashing over several alternatives, the staff believes that one option has some merit
which would go a long way to protecting some of the affordable housing stock. The staff is
considering through amendments to the comprehensive plan and LDRs to create an
"affordable housing overlay zone" for all existing mobile home and trailer parks. These
parks are typically owned by a property owner, who leases out spaces for placement of
trailers. The trailers are generally owned by their occupants.
The overlay zone would protect the density of these parks, which are typically over density
as long as they are retained for mobile homes or restricted to affordable housing. If the
parks are to be redeveloped for conventional or modular housing, then an affordable
housing deed restriction would have to be placed on the property to retain the density.
Section 9.5-268 will also need to be revised to limit the on-site density replacement
entitlement of these mobile home parks.
Recommendation: The BOCC should request the staff to continue its efforts to develop
this approach to protecting and conserving existing affordable housing stock, as well as
other possible policies and regulations.
Time Frame: The staff anticipates that proposed comprehensive plan and LOR
amendments would come before the BOCC this fall.
· Link any new commercial development to the production of affordable housing,
either physical production of that housing or a monetary cost set-aside: In the
proposed Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) provisions have been
included to require a nominal impact fee of $1 to $2 per square feet of new or transferred
commercial floor area for the Employee Fair Share Impact Fee. These fees are intended
to write down the costs of permitting and connection fees. For now, the proposed fees are
minimal due to the limited nature of the new development to be allowed under the
proposed system and the need for further study to identify an apprQiMiate employee
housing linkage that is both fair, reasonable, and legally defensible.
Although it may seem to be just a simple matter of establishing some high fee schedule
per square foot, further study is needed to establish in quantifiable terms the linkage
between nonresidential development and need for employee housing. The law is very
clear that in the establishment of any impact fees. that the development (e.g.,
businesses) must have caused a need for a facility (e.g., additional service -\/yorkers
Page 6 of 7
increases the need for additional employee housing) and that the development must
benefit (e.g. additional service workers can be accommodated to serve the businesses by
the provision of additional affordable housing) from the provision of this facility (e.g.,
additional employee housing).
,'.
This linkage will be further examined as part of a land use market study for commercial
and transient residential development, which is to be completed over the next 12 months.
Recommendation: None
Time Frame: The proposed NROGO ordinance will be before the BOCC by July or
August; it is anticipated that with the completion of the nonresidential land use market
study sometime this year, proposed amendments to the Employee Fair Share Impact Fee
ordinance could be prepared later this year.
· Any new multiple-unit market rate residential development should include a mix of
market-rate and affordable housing and should have caps on square footage to
encourage modest housing: The staff has already prepared proposed amendments to
the LDRs to provide for a mix of market rate and affordable housing. The proposed
amendments will be shortly submitted to the Development Review Committee to initiate
the approval process.
Recommendation: None.
Time Frame: The staff anticipates that proposed amendments to the LORs to allow a mix
of housing will be before the BOCC in September.
· Create incentives to encourage redevelopment of existing commercial space to
affordable housing. The existing LDRs already allow for the redevelopment of existing
commercial space to affordable housing, except that commercial floor space can be
traded for dwelling units; however, a property owner is required to go through ROGO for
the dwelling units. Although, commercial space can not be traded for dwelling units, the
proposed NROGO will allow demolition and off-site transfer of this floor space which will
help encourage the redevelopment of obsolete commercial space to affordable housing.
In addition, the staff has prepared proposed amendments to the LDRs that provide
incentives for the development of employee housing by reducing the development penalty
for developers of commercial development in Suburban Commercial Districts. The
proposed incentive will allow up between 2,000 and 4,000 square feet of floor area to be
exempted in determining the development density for employee housing constructed on
the same parcel.
ReGOmmendation: None
--
Time Frame: The staff anticipates that the proposed LOR amendments on NROGO will
be before the BOCC in July and the proposed amendments on changes in SC zoning
district by September of this year.
cc: James L. Roberts, County Administrator
Mark Rosch, Executive Director, Land Authority
Page 7 of 7
Commissioner Nora Williams
RESOLUTION NO.
-2001
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY FLORIDA IN ~-SUPPORT OF THE FUNDING FOR A PLANNING
I .,."
SPECIALIST IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ESTABLISHING A PROPOSED
COUNTY/ MUNICIPALITIES FUNDING SCHEDULE FOR THE PLANNING
SPECIALIST POSITION
WHEREAS, providing affordable housing for the workforce of both incorporated and
unincorporated Monroe County will require coordinated community-wide efforts and professional
expertise; and
WHEREAS, the BOCC has determined that an affordable housing planner is needed to assist local
governments in the development and modification of comprehensive plan policies and land development
regulations in order to implement affordable housing strategy; now, ther:efore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,
FLORIDA that:
Section 1.
The Board hereby commits in principle to contribute no less than $22,310 and no
more than $44,620 toward funding a planning specialist to work on a County-wide plan for affordable
housing, subject to the negotiation and execution of Interlocal Agreements with the municipalities listed
below for creation and funding of the specialist position and related expenses. The County's and
municipalities' funding commitments are proposed as follows:
MUNICIPALITY FINANCIAL COMMITMENT '/0 OF TOTAL POPULA TION >
Unincorporated Monroe County $22,310 - 44,620 44.62
Key West $16,205 - 32,410 32.41
Marathon $ 6,520 - 13,040 13.04
Islamorada $ 4,355 - 8,710 8.71
Key Colony Beach $ 495 - 990 .99
Layton $ 115- 230 .23 -
Approximate Totals $50,000 - 100,000 100'/0 ~
Section 2.
The Board enthusiastically encourages the financial support of the County's major
'1!
employers for this proposal, and gratefully acknowledges the following organizations and individual which
expressed a commitment to help fund this position: Monroe County Sheriff's Office - $5,000; Ed Swift -
$5,000; and DCA - $10,000.
;.::
_,J
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a
regular meeting of said Board held on the
day of July, 2001.
Mayor George Neugent
Mayor Pro Tem Nora Williams
Commissioner Murray Nelson
Commissioner Dixie Spehar
Commissioner Charles McCoy
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
By
Deputy Clerk
Mayor / Chai rperson
Jdreshousing701