st.petersburg AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AHAC) ;JLJ

Transcription

1 JJ ;JLJ (AHAC) AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE st.petersburg

2 to produce and preserve affordable housing. The program is administered by funding from the State of Florida for use in implementing partnership programs communities receiving SHP funds must have appointed an Affordable Housing increase the size of its AHAC to eleven (11) members (previously 9), appoint all required members byjune 30, 2008, and requires the AHAC to review June 5, 2008, the city council adopted an ordinance amending City Code previously recommended incentive strategies, recommend additional incentive each with a three year term. of the public hearing. housing incentives. possible amendment to the SHP Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP). The amending City Code Chapter making changes to the City s SHP AHAC. On public hearing date ofjune 5, 2008, for the adoption of a proposed ordinance On May 1 5, 2008, the City Council conducted the first reading and set the strategies, and submit an incentive summary report to City Council by December thereafter. AHAC will review incentive strategies and make recommendations triennially an amendment of Florida Statute (F.S.) , which required the City to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) statewide. All cities and The City of St. Petersburg receives State Housing nitiative Program (SHP) Advisory Committee (AHAC) byjune 30, During the 2007 Legislative session, House Bill was approved resulting in The AHAC has been meeting once a month for five (5) months reviewing and Chapter and the AHAC members appointed by the Mayor were confirmed, 31, City Council is required to consider the recommendations for The recommended incentive summary report will be presented to City Council The City will notify the FHFC of its adoption of an amendment of its LHAP to of recommendations submitted by the AHAC, including any additional, new incentive recommendations. This report is the subject of the public hearing Triennially thereafter, the AHAC will evaluate the implementation of affordable amendment to its LHAP to incorporate the local housing incentive strategies. on December 4, Upon City Council approval, the City shall adopt an and receive public input. The recommended incentives will be made by affirmative vote of a majority of the membership of the AHAC at the conclusion discussing affordable housing incentives. Attached is the resulting draft report scheduled for October 31, The AHAC will further discuss the incentives incorporate the incentives and submit the LHAP containing the incentive plan. AND NCENTVE STRATEGES LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE

3 NCENTVES SUMMARY (As of 10/31/08) Program ncentives Currently Committee s Recommendation (Pursuant to Chapter 420, F.S.) in Place? Yes No 1 The processing of approvals of development X We endorse the City of St. Petersburg to retain their current policy of ncentive #1 which deals with the orders or permits, as defined in F.S (7) expedited processing of approvals of development orders or permits for affordable housing. and (8), for affordable housing projects that are expedited to a greater degree than other projects. 2 The modification of impact-fee requirements, X We, as a committee, encourage the County to consider three potential modifications to the TF including reduction or waiver of fees and ordinance, which must be implemented on a countywide basis. First, we recommend consideration of alternative methods for affordable housing. variable rates for residential projects, based on unit size (square footage), which would recognize the lesser impact of smaller units on public facilities. Second, consideration of variable rates for residential projects, based on number of bedrooms, which would also recognize the lesser impact of smaller units on public facilities. Third, the County may make a policy decision to pay the impact fees for affordable housing projects from other revenue sources. 3 The allowance of flexibility in densities for X We have reviewed the new workforce housing density/intensity bonus program of the City. We do feel affordable housing. it meets the definition of ncentive (c) and we, as a committee, will continue to monitor the progress and results of this ncentive, and determine if there is a need to reconvene after receipt and review of a report that analyzes the success of the program that will be prepared by the City after two (2) years. 4 The reservation of infrastructure capacity for X We do not recommend that the City of St. Petersburg include as an incentive for affordable housing housing for extremely-low-income persons, very- ncentive #4 which deals with the reservation of infrastructure capacity for housing for very-low-income low-income persons, low-income persons, and persons, low-income persons, and moderate-income persons. moderate-income persons. 5 The allowance of affordable accessory residential X The City and Advisory Committee will look at ways to enhance the education of the available accessory units in residential zoning districts, unit standard as it relates to affordable housing. 6 The reduction of parking and setback X We do not recommend that the City of St. Petersburg include as an incentive for affordable housing requirements for affordable housing. ncentive #6 which deals with parking and setback requirements. 7 The allowance of flexible lot configurations, X We do not recommend that the City of St. Petersburg include as an incentive for affordable housing including zero-lot-line configurations for ncentive #7 which deals with flexible lot configurations. affordable housing. 8 The modification of street requirements for X We do not recommend that the City of St. Petersburg include as an incentive for affordable housing affordable housing. ncentive #8 which deals with modification of street requirements. 9 The establishment of a process by which a local X We, as a committee, encourage the City to continue to present the impact on affordable housing government considers, before adoption, policies, whenever a project comes before one of the boards or council, so that the issue continues to be in front procedures, ordinances, regulations, or plan so all can see. While the committee recognizes the disadvantage regarding the collection of forms, the provisions that increase the cost of housing. knowledge that is developed through the process is more important than the deletion of the forms. 10 The preparation of a printed inventory of locally- X We endorse the continued maintenance of an inventory of properties that are City-owned suitable for owned public lands suitable for affordable affordable housing and to add to that list whenever possible, and make the list readily available for those housing. individuals and organizations interested in developing affordable housing. 11 The support of development near transportation X We endorse the City of St. Petersburg to continue to support development near transportation hubs and hubs and major employment centers and mixed- major employment centers-mixed use developments. use developments.

4 Program Additional ncentive(s) Currently Committee s Recommendation in Place? Yes No 12 Landlords of qualif ing affordable rental housing X County staff is concerned that deferred taxes becoming a lien on the property with a 3% interest rate may defer City ad valorem taxes and non ad could lead to some negative unintended consequences. The County AHAC s initial meeting was on valorem assessments annually. (From the City of October 7th County staff has indicated that their AHAC will hold a public hearing on December 2 Sarasota.) and will present a 2009 work plan to the County Commission on December 16 th Thus, the County staff and AHAC position on this, and the balance of the incentives, will not be known until they complete their review, sometime in Proposed ncentive: LEED certified building and X Proposed Recommendation: We, as a committee, encourage Pinellas County to consider a fourth potential modification to the Transportation mpact Fee (TF) Ordinance, which must be implemented Green Building consiruction. on a countywide basis. Specifically, we recommend that Pinellas County consider a reduction in impact fees for LEED certified affordable housing construction and Green Building construction. (See ncentive #2 for the first three potential modifications to the TF ordinance.)

5 a st.petersburq CTY OF ST. PETERSBURG STATE HOUSNG NTATVES PARTNERSHP (SHP) AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE (AHAC) NCENTVE PLAN RECOMMENDATONS ncentive #1 The processing of approvals of development orders or permits, as defined in F.S (7) and (8), for affordable housing projects that is expedited to a greater degree than other projects. Current Status: St. Petersburg currently does X does not have a program for this incentive. : Explanation of existing regulation regarding this incentive: As a policy, the Development Services Department will expedite construction permit applications identified as affordable housing by reviewing them, at both the initial application and resubmit stages, in advance of other applications, instead of in the order they are received (which is how applications are handled). Mayor Baker has directed construction plan review to provide specific turnaround times for initial building plan review and review of resubmittals. For single family homes the turnaround time is 8 working days; for other new construction it is 12 working days and for resubmittal of corrected plans the turnaround time is five (5) working days.. Explanation of Advantages/Disadvantages of Changing or Adopting this ncentive: Advantages: Construction plan review for affordable housing is conducted more quickly than for other application types. Disadvantages: All other projects are delayed in order to handle affordable housing more quickly.

6 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #1 Page 2 V. Provide an explanation as to any negative effects or benefits to public health, safety, or welfare. Benefits: Providing a reduction in the amount of time that a developer has to pay interest on a construction loan may ultimately reduce the cost to produce affordable housing. Reducing the cost of affordable housing may encourage increased production of units. Production of affordable housing units to shelter very low, low, and moderate income households does benefit public health, safety and welfare. Negative Effects: There are no negative effects to public health, safety or welfare. V. Housing Cost Reduction Anticipated from mplementing this Recommendation: $ varies (Specify how the savings benefit the eligible household(s).) Benefit: Faster construction plan review allows construction to begin more quickly which reduces the amount of time that a developer may have to pay interest on a construction loan. The reduction of time in permitting could help to reduce the project cost, possibly allowing more units to eventually be constructed. V. Recommendation of Advisory Committee: We endorse the City of St. Petersburg to retain their current policy of ncentive #1 which deals with the expedited processing of approvals of development orders or permits for affordable housing. V. Recommended Schedule for mplementation: Signed: Chairperson, Advisory Committee Date:

7 st..petershurq ww.stpcte.orq CTY OF ST. PETERSBURG STATE HOUSNG NTATVES PARTNERSHP (SHP) AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE (AHAC) NCENTVE PLAN RECOMMENDATONS ncentive #2 The modification of impact-fee requirements, including reduction or waiver of fees and alternative methods offeepaymentfor affordable housing. Current Status: St. Petersburg currently does does not X have a program for this incentive. : Explanation of existing regulation regarding this incentive: The explanation of existing regulations regarding this incentive has been separated into two discussions: The Pinellas County Transportation mpact Fee (TP) and Other Fees. Pinellas County Transportation mpact Fee (TF) Transportation impact fees cannot be legally waived for affordable housing projects under the Florida mpact Fee Act, F.S Since affordable housing projects create a demand for public facilities just as do market-rate housing projects, they also have an impact fee obligation. However, transportation impact fees are reduced for affordable housing projects located in the central St. Petersburg area, designated as District ha in the Pinellas County Transportation mpact Fee (TF) Ordinance (attached). Before the City s No-Fee Transportation Zone expired in 2005, City staff worked with Pinellas County staff to ensure that all six of the City s Community Redevelopment Areas, Grand Central Community Redevelopment District, ntown and Central Plaza Activity Centers and much of the land located between these areas receive the lower fees listed in the Downtown Redevelopment Fee Schedule (Schedule B of the TF Ordinance). The City s request to expand the geographic boundary of District 1 1A to include all of the Midtown area was approved by the County in n District ha, the TP is $1,529 for a single family home and $972 for a multifamily unit, versus $2,066 and $1,420 in suburban areas. Also, if an affordable housing project is a redevelopment or a change of use, a credit is given for the highest previous use on the property since June 30, 1986.

8 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #2 Page 2 Other Fees The fees charged by the Development Services Department are set forth in City Code Chapter 12. There is no specific provision for affordable housing permit fees, however, the current residential plan review fee of $30 is far below the actual cost. The actual cost includes staff time and overhead costs. Non-residential projects pay a percentage of the construction value as a plan review fee. The plan review fee is one component of the total permit cost; other components are the permit fee, sewer connection fee, transportation impact fee, two state surcharges and the certificate of occupancy fee. A review of residential permit costs conducted for discussion by the City Council Housing Services Committee in October 2007 indicated the largest component of new single family home fees is the transportation impact fee, followed by the sewer connection fee. All applicants, including affordable housing projects, have the ability to employ an outside plan review entity and submit to the City plans which are already approved for compliance with the Florida Building Code. The plans are then reviewed by the City for compliance with FEMA and City Land Development Regulations. A discounted fee is charged applications using this outside plan review. Affordable Housing applicants could employ this process to achieve a reduced fee.. Explanation of Advantages/Disadvantages of Changing or Adopting this ncentive: Advantages: There would be an advantage to changing the TF Ordinance outside the currently designated areas but no provision in the law allows this exception strictly for affordable housing reasons. Because the Ordinance already has provisions for reducing the cost of affordable housing projects in many areas of the City where these projects are most likely to occur, additional options may not exist. Reduced permit fees for affordable housing. Disadvantages: The major disadvantage to changing the TF Ordinance is not allowing the current incentive for reduced affordable housing fees in the Central St. Petersburg area to work.

9 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #2 Page 3 Reducing the permit fees for affordable housing increases the subsidy required to be covered by other applicants and types of permit fees or by the City s general fund. Would not significantly address overall fee because review of all costs indicates the permit cost is not the largest component of the total fees paid. V. Provide an explanation as to any negative effects or benefits to public health, safety, or welfare. Benefits: The current reduced TF fee schedule provides benefits to public health, safety and welfare by making affordable housing projects more feasible from a financial perspective. Negative Effects: There are no negative effects to the public health, safety or welfare. V. Housing Cost Reduction Anticipated from mplementing this Recommendation: $ (Specify how the savings benefit the eligible household(s).) Benefit: The current housing reduction in the TF Ordinance in the Downtown St. Petersburg Area District is $537 for a single family home and $448 for a multi-family unit. V. Recommendation of Advisory Committee: We, as a committee, encourage the County to consider three potential modifications to the TF Ordinance, which must be implemented on a countywide basis. First, we recommend consideration of variable rates for residential projects, based on the unit size (square footage), which would recognize the lesser impact of smaller units on public facilities. Second, consideration of variable rates for residential projects, based on number of bedrooms, which would also recognize the lesser impact of smaller units on public facilities. Third the County may make a policy decision to pay the impact fees for affordable housing projects from other revenues sources.

10 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #2 Page 4 V. Recommended Schedule for mplementation: Signed: Chairperson, Advisory Committee Date:

11 Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code As Amended, July 10, 2007

12 Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code Sec Definitions The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: City manager means the chief administrative officer of the involved jurisdiction and/or his designee. County administrator means the county administrator and or his designee. Credits means the impact fee deductions allowed a feepayer for eligible off-site transportation improvements funded by the feepayer. Expansion of the capacity of a road applies to all road and intersection capacity enhancements and includes but is not limited to extensions, widening, intersection improvements, drainage improvements and upgrading signalization. External trip means any trip which has either its origin or destination at the development site and which impacts the major road network system. Fair sharefee means the fee required to be paid in accordance with this article. Feepayer means a person commencing a land development activity which generates traffic and which requires the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, land use permit or occupational license. ndependentfee calculation study means the traffic engineering and/or economic documentation prepared by a feepayer to allow the determination of the impact fee other than by the use of the table in section (c) of this article. Land development activity generating traffic means any construction or expansion of building(s) or structure(s), or any changes in the use of any structure(s) that attracts or produces additional vehicular trips. Level of service is a qualitative measure that represents the collective factors of speed, travel, time, traffic interruption, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs provided by a highway facility under a particular volume condition. Levels of service vary from A to F as described in the transportation elements of the local comprehensive plans, the Transportation Research Board s Highway Capacity Manual, and similar documents. Off-site improvements means road improvements, other than those referenced in the definition of site-related improvements, located outside of the boundaries of the parcel proposed for development, which are required to serve the development s external trips. Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 200 Page 1

13 Road means any public way for purposes of vehicular traffic, including the entire area within the right-of-way. Site-related improvements means capital improvements necessary for direct access egress to the development in question. Direct access egress site-related improvements include but are not limited to the following: (1) Site driveways and roads; (2) Right and left turn lanes leading to those driveways; (3) Traffic control measure for those driveways; (4) Accelerationldeceleration lanes; (5) Median openings closing; (6) Frontage roads; and (7) Roads necessary to provide direct access to the development. Transportation mpact Fee District means areas from which impact fee monies are collected and expended. These districts are defined in exhibit A. Transportation mprovement means and includes construction projects and transportation demand and system management initiatives including but not limited to: (1) Construction of new through lanes; (2) Construction of new turn lanes; (3) Construction of new bridges or grade separations; (4) Construction of new or upgrading of existing drainage facilities in conjunction with new roadway construction; (5) Purchase and installation of traffic signalization, including new and upgraded signalization; (6) Construction of curbs, medians and shoulders; (7) Relocating utilities to accommodate new roadway construction; (8) Construction of intersection improvements; Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 2007 Page 2

14 (9) Construction of sidewalks; (10) nstallation of on-street bicycle lanes and construction of bicycle/pedestrian trails; (11) Construction of transit facilities such as shelters and pullout bays; (12) Construction of park and ride lots; (13) ntelligent transportation system (TS) projects; and (14) Commuter assistance programs. Sec Rules of construction. (a) The provisions of this article shall be liberally construed so as to effectively carry out its purpose in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. (b) For the purpose of administration and enforcement of this article, unless otherwise stated in this article, the following rules of construction shall apply to the text of this article; (1) Any road right-of-way used to define transportation impact fee district boundaries,_as identified in exhibit A, shall be considered to be within each district it bounds for purposes of using these funds. (2) The land use types listed in section shall have the same meaning as under the land use element(s) of the local comprehensive plans. Sec ntent and purpose. (a) This article is intended to implement and be consistent with the county comprehensive plan and the plans of the municipalities in the county adopted pursuant to F.S. Ch (b) The purpose of this article is to assure that new development does not degrade existing levels of service and that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital expenditures necessary to meet transportation needs as established by the county comprehensive plan, the metropolitan planning organization s long range transportation plan, and the comprehensive plans of the municipalities in the county. Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 2007 Page 3

15 Sec Fee Required (a) Any person who, seeks a certificate of occupancy for land development activity or seeks to change a use by applying for issuance of an occupational license, land use permit, or municipal equivalent thereof which will generate additional traffic shall be required to pay a transportation impact fee in the manner and amount set forth in this article. (b) No certificate of occupancy, use permit or occupational license for any activity requiring payment of an impact fee pursuant to section shall be issued unless and until the transportation impact fee hereby required has been paid. (c) Any person who has submitted a site plan or building permit application in accordance with local land development codes prior to the effective date of this amendatory ordinance will be subject to the terms of the ordinance that was in effect at the time the site plan or building permit application was submitted. Sec Computation of amount. (a) The amount of the transportation impact fees imposed under this article will depend on a number of factors, including the type of land development activity, and several fixed elements, such as the average cost to construct one lane-mile of roadway ($2,216,466) and the average capacity of one lane-mile of roadway (6,900 vehicles per day). (b) The following formula shall be used by the county administrator, city manager or functional equivalent to determine the impact fee per unit of development: TGRx%NTxTLxCST(RF) CAPx2 WHERE: TGR Trip generation rate, as per fee schedule %NT Percent new trips TL Average trip length, varies by land use CST The cost to construct one-lane mile of roadway ($2,216,466) CAP The capacity of one-lane mile of roadway (6,900 vehicles per lane, per day) 2 Allocation of one-half the impact to the origin and one-half to the destination RF = Reduction factor (.268). (c) At the option of the feepayer, the amount of the transportation impact fee may be determined by the following fee schedules (schedule A contains the impact fee rates for uses outside of designated downtown/redevelopment areas; schedule B contains rates for downtown/redevelopment areas): Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 200 Page 4

16 Schedule A. General Fee Schedule Land use type Unit Trip rate Avg. Percent Fee per trip new unit length trips Residential: Single-family du $2,066 Multi-family du $1,420 Condominium du $1,270 Efficiency apt./hotel room $419 Mobile home du $1,076 Licensed ACLF bed $250 General Office: 0-49,999 sq. ft sf $3,292 50, ,999 sq. ft sf $2, , ,999 sq. ft sf $2, , ,999 sq. ft. 1000sf $2, , ,999 sq. ft sf $1,697 Over 800,000 sq. ft sf $1,656 Research center: Research center 1000 sf $1,232 ndustrial: General industrial 1000 sf $1,414 ndustrial park 1000 sf $1,414 Manufacturing 1000 sf $767 Warehousing 1000 sf $1,010 Mini-warehousing 1000 sf $307 Medical: Hospital bed $2,503 Nursing home bed $217 Clinic/Medical office 1000 sf $6,311 Veterinary clinic 1000sf $1,878 Lodging: Hotel room $1,760 Motel (budget style) room $910 Resort hotel room $3,208 Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 2007 Page 5

17 Land use type Unit Trip rate Avg. Percent Fee per trip new unit length trips Recreation: General recreation pkg sp $843 Marina boat $814 berth Dry dock marina boat slip $293 Racquet club 1000 sf $1,356 Golf course pkg sp $1,623 Fitness center 1000 sf $3,905 Retail: Quality restaurant 1000 sf $8,542 Sit-down restaurant 1000 sf $11,462 Drive-in restaurant 1000 sf $24,578 Quality drive-in restaurant 1000 sf $15,350 Discount store (md.) 1000 sf $2,325 Building materials store 1000 sf $2,018 Home mprovement 1000 sf $2,342 Superstore New and used car sales 1000 sf $2,726 Service station w conven. pump $2,517 market <800 sf Carwash 1000sf $6,977 Supermarket 1000sf $4,681 Convenience market store $28,456 (under 3,000 sf) Convenience market 1000 sf $14,319 (3,000 sf or over) Movietheaterw matinee screen $11,108 Auto repair detailing 1000 sf $2,232 Furniture store 1000 sf $351 Retail nursery (garden 1000 sf $1,701 ctr.) Discount club store 1000 sf $6,405 Discount superstore 1000 sf $5,133 Video rental store (free 1000 sf $1,144 standing) Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 200 Page 6

18 Land use type Unit Trip rate Avg. Percent Fee per trip new unit length trips General commercial: Under 100,000 sq. ft sf $3,396 gla 100, ,999 sq. ft sf $3,627 gla 200, ,999 sq. ft sf $3,803 gla 300, ,999 sq. ft sf $3,778 gla 400, ,999 sq. ft sf $3,702 gla 500, ,999 sq. ft sf $3,943 gla Over 1,000,000 sq. ft sf $4,192 gla Services: Bank 1000sf $2,975 nstitutional: Church 1000 sf Library 1000 sf Day care center 1000 sf Elementary school student High school student Junior/community college student University student Airport flights Park acres $1,375 $8,159 $5,033 $192 $283 $339 $679 $465 $9,050 Section 150, mpact Fees, Pine/las County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 200 Page 7

19 . Unit Schedule B. Downtown Redevelopment Fee Schedule Land use type Trip Avg. Percent Fee per rate trip new unit length trips Residential. Single-family du $1,529 Multi-family du $972 Condominium du $940 Efficiency apt. hotel room Mobile home du $796 Licensed ACLF bed $250 General Office: 0-49,999 sq. ft sf $2,648 50, ,999 sq. ft. 1000sf $2, , ,999 sq. ft. 1000sf $1, , ,999 sq. ft sf $1, , ,999 sq. ft sf $1,365 Over 800,000 sq. ft sf $1,332 Research center: Research center 1000 sf $991 ndustrial: General industrial 1000 sf $1,137 ndustrial park 1000 sf $1,137 Manufacturing 1000 sf $617 Warehousing 1000 sf $812 Mini-warehousing 1000 sf $247 Medical: Hospital bed $2,015 Nursing home bed $174 Clinic/Medical office 1000 sf $5,197 Veterinary clinic 1000 sf $1,878 Lodging: Hotel room $1,512 Motel (budget style) room $588 Resort hotel room $2,609 Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 200 Page 8

20 Land use type Unit Trip Avg. Percent Fee per rate trip new unit length trips Recreation: General recreation pkg sp $300 Marina boat berth $289 Dry dock marina boat slip $104 Racquetciub 1000sf $579 Fitness center 1000 sf $1,674 Retail: Quality restaurant 1000 sf $2,188 Sit-down restaurant 1000 sf $3,047 Drive-in restaurant 1000 sf $9,558 Quality drive-in 1000 sf $4,298 restaurant Discount store (md.) 1000 sf $1,296 Building materials store 1000sf $1,125 Home mprovement 1000 sf $959 Superstore New and used car sales 1000 sf $1,794 Service station w pump $2,517 conven. market <800 sf Carwash 1000sf $4,165 Supermarket 1000 sf $2,650 Convenience market store $28,456 (under 3,000 sf) Convenience market 1000 sf $14,319 (3,000 sf or over) Movie theater w matinee screen $7,580 Auto repair detailing 1000 sf $1,506 Furniture store 1000 sf $231 Retail nursery (garden 1000 sf $948 ctr.) Discount club store Discount superstore Video rental store (free standing) 1000 sf 1000 sf 1000 sf $2, $1, $431 Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 2007 Page 9

21 Land use type Unit Trip Avg. Percent Fee per rate trip new unit length trips General commercial: Under 100,000 sq. ft sf $2, , ,999 sq. ft. 1000sf $2, , ,999 sq. ft sf $2, , ,999 sq. ft sf $2, , ,999 sq. ft sf $2, , ,999 sq. ft sf $2,629 Over 1,000,000 sq. ft sf $2,795 Services: Bank 1000 sf $2,975 nstitutional: Church 1000sf $535 Library 1000 sf $5,711 Day care center 1000 sf $3,196 Elementary school student $128 High school student $198 Junior/community student $238 college University student $475 Park acres $6,335 The downtown area fee schedule applies to existing downtown areas geographically depicted in the attached maps including exhibit A, mpact Fee Districts; exhibit B, St. Petersburg Downtown Area District 1 1A, exhibit C, Safety Harbor Downtown Area District 5A, exhibit D, Pinellas Park Downtown Area District 1 OA, exhibit E, Clearwater Downtown Area District 6A; exhibit F, Dunedin Downtown Area District 4A; exhibit 0, Largo Downtown Area District 7A; exhibit H, Oldsmar Downtown Area District 2A; and exhibit, Old Palm Harbor District 3A. The 1990 MPO Pinellas County Transportation mpact Fee Study contains technical data indicating there are significantly fewer new vehicle trips generated for each unit of development in these areas as compared to similar land uses outside them. These areas are delineated in locally adopted redevelopment or comprehensive plans with supporting policies designed to encourage infill and redevelopment activity. New areas with similar trip generation characteristics, as described in the 1990 MPO Pinellas County Transportation mpact Fee Study, may be added to the attached exhibits through the amendment of the ordinance pursuant to the submittal of a detailed map and documentation that such areas meet the criteria in the 1990 Pinellas County MPO Transportation mpact Fee Study. n the case of a change of use, redevelopment, or modification of an existing use, the impact fee shall be based upon the net increase in the impact fee for the new use as compared to the impact fee for the highest previous use in existence on or after the effective date of the ordinance from Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 200 Page 10

22 which this section derives. The county administrator or city manger shall be guided in this determination by the county s transportation impact fee study (February 1990), independent study trip generation data or the nstitute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, sixth (or successor) edition. (d) f a feepayer shall opt not to have the impact fee determined according to subsections (b) and (c) of this section, then the feepayer shall prepare and submit to the county administrator, city manager or functional equivalent for approval of an independent fee calculation study for the land development activity for which a certificate of occupancy, land use permit or occupational license is sought. The traffic engineering and or economic documentation submitted, which will require a pre-application meeting with the county administrator, city manager or functional equivalent, shall show the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made, including but not limited to the following: (1) Trip generation studies: a. Documentation of trip generation rates appropriate for the proposed land development activity. b. Documentation of trip length appropriate for the proposed land development activity. c. Documentation of trip data appropriate for the proposed land development activity. (2) Economic documentation studies: a. Documentation of the cost per lane per mile for roadway construction for the proposed land development activity. b. Documentation of credits attributable to the proposed land development activity which the feepayer will make available to replace the portion of the service volume used by the traffic generated by the proposed land development activity. (e) Trip generation data. Trip generation documentation other than traffic engineering or economic documentation described in section (d)( 1) and (2) may be submitted by the applicant in consideration of an independent fee calculation. Sec Payment of fee and credits. (a) The person applying for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, land use permit or occupational license shall pay the transportation impact fee to the county administrator, the city manager, their functional equivalent or their respective designees prior to the issuance of such permit. Fees for mobile homes shall be payable prior to the issuance of the permits which allow the mobile home to move on to a lot. The county administrator, city manager, their functional equivalent or their respective designees will have full collection authority as well as full discretion for approval of alternative methods for calculation of impact fees on a case-by-case basis. Fees shall be collected as part of the normal permitting process of each local jurisdiction. Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 2007 Page 11

23 (b) All funds collected under this article shall be properly identified by the transportation impact fee district, as identified in exhibit A, and promptly transferred for deposit into the appropriate transportation impact fee trust account to be held in separate accounts as determined in section and used solely for the purposes specified in this article. (c) n lieu of all or part of the transportation impact fee imposed under this article, the county administrator, city manager or functional equivalent may accept the offer by a feepayer to implement all or part of a transportation improvement project consistent with the local government comprehensive plan or plans, or the metropolitan planning organization s long range transportation plan. The project(s) may be for any mode of transportation, including rail, transit, pedestrian or bicycle travel, providing that it serves to add to the capacity of the surrounding transportation circulation system or to increase mobility and reduce the dependence on automobile travel. This offer shall not include site-related improvements. These transportation improvements must be in accordance with city, county and state requirements, whichever are applicable. The feepayer shall submit an offer to make improvements in lieu of a fee payment. The offer shall include a letter detailing the improvements to be made, improvement plans and a construction cost estimate in sufficient detail to allow the county administrator, city manager or functional equivalent to determine consistency with local requirements. f the county administrator, city manager, functional equivalent or their respective designees accept such an offer, the cost of the improvement project, except for the improvements identified in sections (h), (i) and (j), shall be credited against the transportation impact fee assessed on the proposed development. Upon satisfactory completion and construction approval of the transportation improvement made in lieu of all or a portion of the impact fee due, the improvement shall be accepted by the appropriate jurisdiction for future maintenance. f the certificate of occupancy is requested prior to the completion of the approved project, then a performance bond shall be provided to the county administrator, city manager or functional equivalent to cover the balance of all work required following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. (d) Construction of on-site trail, pedestrian or bicycle facility if part of trail, bicycle or pedestrian network identified in MPO Long Range Transportation Plan or local comprehensive plan is eligible for credit against impact fee assessment. No credit shall be given for other siterelated improvements or land dedicated for related right-of-way. (e) All transportation improvements required under a county or city approved development order issued for a new development of regional impact approved prior to the effective date of this ordinance, except for those improvements deemed as site-related or on-site, shall be credited against transportation impact fees up to the total amount of the impact fee. (f) Mixed-use developments consisting of complementary land uses that are designed with connectivity to allow for a reduction in trip lengths and or percent new trips are eligible for an impact fee rate adjustment based on trip generation data for similar uses. (g) Commuter assistance programs with long-term contract facilitating ride sharing activity are eligible for an impact fee rate reduction based on the reduction in the number of single occupant vehicle trips that would otherwise be associated with the project. Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 200 Page 12

24 (h) Bus stop shelters, including pads, are eligible for a credit against the impact fee assessment in an amount equal to the cost of the improvement or 1 percent of the fee, whichever is greater. (i) Construction of shared driveway(s) between adjacent properties is eligible for a credit against the impact fee assessment in an amount that is 50 percent of the construction cost for the portion of the driveway that is located off-site. (j) Construction of shared inter-connecting parking lots is eligible for a credit against the impact fee assessment in an amount that is 50 percent of the construction cost for the portion of the parking area located off-site. (k) Sidewalks constructed for credit against impact fee assessment must provide connection between the site and surrounding sidewalk network and/or major destination point such as a park, shopping center, school, community center, etc. (1) Pedestrian and bicycle facilities connecting neighboring properties may be eligible for credit against impact fees for the portion of the construction that is off-site. (m) Construction of service roads for vehicular traffic connecting adjacent developments are eligible for credit against impact fee assessment. (n) Off-site crosswalk enhancements, including curb bulb-out at intersection, pavement marking, raised crossing are eligible for credit against impact fee assessment. Sec Trust accounts established. (a) Each municipality which collects and administers transportation impact fee funds shall establish a trust account which shall be used exclusively for funds collected under the terms of this article. Monies collected by or forwarded to the county shall be maintained in 12 separate impact fee trust accounts consistent with the districts shown in exhibit A. (b) Funds deposited to the trust accounts established under this section must be used in accordance with the provisions of section Sec Disposition of funds. (a) Funds collected from transportation impact fees shall be used exclusively for the purpose of projects that improve the capacity of the surrounding traffic circulation system. These projects may involve improvements to transportation modes such as transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel as well as roadway expansion. Such improvements shall be of the type as are made necessary by the new development. Specific projects to receive funds from impact fees collected shall be determined by the elected officials of the jurisdiction from where the funds Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 200 Page 13

25 were collected in accordance with Section (e). Priorities for impact fee funded transportation improvements shall be established by the administering jurisdictions elected officials in compliance with the adopted plans and transportation improvement program of the metropolitan planning organization or local jurisdictions. (b) No funds collected under this article shall be used for periodic maintenance, as defined in F.S. Ch. 334, as amended. (c) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, funds shall be used exclusively for transportation improvements or expansions within the transportation impact fee district from which funds were collected. Funds may also be used for projects located outside the district where they were collected provided the county has notified and received concurrence from all jurisdictions located within the transportation impact fee district where the funds were collected. Funds shall be deemed expended in the order in which they are collected. (d) Fees, both county and municipal share, collected within a community redevelopment or tax increment financing district shall be expended within such district. Parking garages for general public purposes shall be considered eligible transportation improvements within such districts. With the concurrence of the county administrator, appropriate city manager or functional equivalent, the funds collected within a community redevelopment or tax increment financing district may be spent within the primary district. (e) Transportation impact fees collected at the local level shall be held by the collecting jurisdiction until the end of the fiscal year in which collected. At the beginning of each new fiscal year (October 1), one-half of all fees collected, and the accrued interest thereon, less the four percent retained from the total fee collected for administrative costs, shall be forwarded to the board of county commissioners for placement in the appropriate trust account. The remaining one-half shall be deposited in the municipality s transportation impact fee trust account. All fees must be disbursed, encumbered or refunded by each jurisdiction receiving the fees in a manner consistent with this article. (f) Transportation impact fees collected within each district may be made available for construction of improvements on the state road network in the district. (g) Transportation impact fee funds shall be administered as an independent component of the capital improvement element of the comprehensive plan, as required by F.S. ch Each fiscal year, the county administrator, respective city managers or functional equivalents shall present to their governing boards the district improvement programs for transportation expenditures. These programs shall assign transportation improvements costs and related expenses to the trust account for specific transportation improvement projects. Monies, including any accrued interest not assigned in any fiscal year, shall be retained in the same transportation impact fee trust accounts until the next fiscal year, except as provided by the refund provisions of this article. The collecting jurisdiction (either a municipality or the county) shall retain four percent of the fees collected for administrative costs. Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 200 Page 14

26 Sec Refund of fee paid. Any funds not expended or encumbered by the end of the calendar quarter immediately following ten years from the date the transportation impact fee was paid shall, upon application of the feepayer, within 180 days of that date, be returned to the feepayer with interest at a yearly rate to be determined by the Consumer Price ndex effective January 1, which is to be applied to the preceding year for each year the deposit is held. Sec Exemptions. (a) The following shall be exempted from payment of the transportation impact fee: (1) Alteration or expansion of an existing building where no additional units or floor area are created, use is not changed, and where no additional vehicular trips will be produced over and above that produced by the existing use. (2) The construction of accessory buildings or structures which will not produce additional vehicular trips over and above that produced by the principal building or use of the land. (3) The replacement of a building or structure with a new building or structure of the same use provided that no additional trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original building or structure. (4) The construction of publicly-owned facilities used primarily for traditional government uses. Sec Review committee. t is the intention of the board of county commissioners to ensure consistency in administration of the transportation impact fee ordinance. Therefore, a review committee composed of locally designated administrative officials is created to review matters which may be subject to differing interpretations arising from the administration of the article, and which are not clearly addressed by the provisions of this article. The Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) shall serve as the review committee. The TCC shall make advisory recommendations to the administering jurisdiction on issues brought before the committee. The county metropolitan planning organization shall maintain the records of the committee and a listing of its membership. The metropolitan planning organization shall also provide staff services to the committee. Sec Review of fee structure. The transportation impact fee schedule shall be reviewed every two years by the board of county commissioners and the metropolitan planning organization. The review shall consider trip Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 200 Page 15

27 generation rates and the actual construction costs for work contracted by the county and the state department of transportation within the county. The purpose of this review is to analyze the effects of inflation on the actual costs of transportation improvement projects and to ensure the fee charged new land development activity generating traffic will not exceed its fair share. Sec Repeal of article. After final adoption of this article by the board of county commissioners, this article shall be transmitted to all municipalities within the county. n the event any one municipality or group of municipalities representing ten percent or more of the total countywide population, based upon the latest population figures published by the county planning department, shall elect to exempt itself or themselves from this article, this article shall be deemed automatically repealed. Section 150, mpact Fees, Pinellas County Land Development Code, as amended July 10, 2007 Page 16

28 Exhibit A PNELLAS COUNTY TRANSPORTATON MPACT FEE ORDNANCE 3A V \ 4A 4 6A 5A t 1 MPACT FEE DSTRCTS 1. Greater Tarpon Springs 2. East Lake Tarpon Area 2A. City of Oldsmar Downtown Area 3. Palm Harbor Area 3A. Old Palm Harbor Downtown Area 4. Greater Dunedin 4A. City of Dunedin Downtown Area 5. Greater Safety Harbor/Oldsmar Area 5A. City of Safety Harbor Downtown Area 6. Greater Cleatwater Area U. City of Cleaiwater Downtown Area 7. Greater Largo Area 7A. City of Largo Downtown Area 8. Highpoint Area 9. Greater Seminole Area 10. Greater Pinellas Park Area 104. City of Pinellas Park Downtown Area 11. Greater St Petersburg Area 1 1A. City of St. Petersburg Downtown Area 12. South County Beaches Area May 24, 2007

29 . V 6 h V.1 V iiiiiii iiii iii ii WL[i flh1 l lulilir iii ii i U uii Vii. nil V VV flh ii i i iii ii ii rn ii V iuii i D. V iii V V iii VV._Zc, V V - V,.: ii \\ Eflht JJ j V L. RV t...m V V ii VV VS i VV i V L t WlL n L V llilu VV! F!. V.r V iii i V V VV V ; L - -- VV_._ r. J l k - liii - V9 V V.JRR E V ii U A Jill J ti los 5. içv1 e1fl i_ii 1i ii baa Jililur i!11111 flush S. V:.i! V V V Su S-Si C, 4; 9 Vt S, r dl. V V f cn -U m-l m 0 C -l ;;jo -10 z m 34

30 w z 0 z m z w U. Cl, in 0 E Vi) 0 *. lilt 4,.._ t. llihi null 1 S q

31 0) 0) -i PNELLAS PARK DOWNTOWN AREA DSTRCT OA [HJ 86fH AVE Cl, -1 0) TAV / PA r Bci! 693 ii 694 PARK BD 70TH AVE 7. Fr NDAVEN D yen NDAVE 2 Cl) z 0, - HVEN EXHBTD 54HAVEN Th4VE,

32 CLEARWATER DO NTOWN AREA DSTRCT 6A / /9 L r-1l lipli ml in ii rniiiiiii 1 $J H1 i hh= 1=11: huh mm hh 11= liii iun,ii EE!Ei. E:j : iiiiiii :iiii liii E! Ei i liii liii i liii i!l u:s: -1 -! riii1:;. f Ullutfli iflh r r4l rnr tj tij; cn:- iii,. Rii :i._ jn:n! i 1 BT E

33 DOWNTOWN AREA a.. 1 K K _ EXHBT F

34 LARGO DOWNTOWN AREA DSTRCT TA C,) iimiiii L i iinii.i itiiiniia 2 liliflhl initiiiii P 111j$fl fihhi ii niiiiiiiuii : nd Avenue NE Hliiiiij hihhh iiih!lh =rqjj mi a iiiii mwji_ niii _ iill1uo::.e hjjr 4 j liii rnuhh1n44. P. ieiil EXHBTG

35 [ Hti HR ccd - x.0 A K S t

36 _ - 0 CD Co CD CD hl1l.i 11th Street - 12th r ir r treet College Hill Drive C) CO CD!ZZ -z The Pinellas rail Alternate US.H Z CD J 0 lcd 0 CD > 1< H Omaha Street C. R. 1 9th Street 8th Street m C G) CD 0- Ll 0 C, 0...Ḃ B

37 st.pelersburq ww.stpete.org CTY OF ST. PETERSBURG STATE HOUSNG NTATVES PARTNERSHP (SHP) AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE (AHAC) NCENTVE PLAN RECOMMENDATONS ncentive #3 The allowance offlexibility in densitiesfor affordable housing.. Current Status: St. Petersburg currently does X does not have a program for this incentive. : Explanation of existing regulation regarding this incentive: On November 29, 2007 the City Council adopted Ordinance 854-G (attached) which created a Workforce Housing Density/ntensity Bonus Program (Section 17.5, Article V, City Code). The ordinance became effective on January 1, A developer may receive a bonus of up to six additional residential units per acre or an increase in the floor-area-ratio (or intensity) up to 0.20 if a proposed residential or mixed use project is consistent with the ordinance. The bonus (workforce) units must be rented or purchased by income eligible persons or households.. Explanation of Advantages/Disadvantages of Changing or Adopting this ncentive: Advantages: The workforce housing density/intensity bonus program is voluntary, and available in 21 of the City s zoning districts, thus the bonus program can be used throughout the City. Disadvantages:

38 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #3 Page 2 V. Provide an explanation as to any negative effects or benefits to public health, safety, or welfare. Benefits: The City Council and City Administration firmly believe that this ordinance will result in the construction of affordable units throughout the City. The first bonus unit must be offered to income eligible persons or households at 80 percent AM or below, the second and third units at 120 percent AM or below, the fourth unit at 150 percent, the fifth unit at 80 percent and the sixth unit at 150 percent. This pattern is then repeated. Negative Effects: None. As stated above, the workforce housing density/intensity bonus program is voluntary. V. Housing Cost Reduction Anticipated from mplementing this Recommendation: $ (Specify how the savings benefit the eligible household(s).) V. Recommendation of Advisory Committee: We have reviewed the new workforce housing density/intensity bonus program of the City. We do feel it meets the definition of ncentive (c) and we, as a committee, will continue to monitor the progress and results of this ncentive, and determine if there is a need to reconvene after receipt and review of a report that analyzes the success of the program that will be prepared by the City after two (2) years. V. Recommended Schedule for mplementation: Already in place. Signed: Chairperson, Advisory Committee Date:

39 ORDNANCE NO. 854-G AN ORDNANCE CREATNG A WORKFORCE HOUSNG DENSTY BONUS PROGRAM TO MPLEMENT THE HOUSNG DENSTY BONUS ALLOWED N CERTAN ZONNG DSTRCTS; PROVDNG FOR PURPOSES; PROVDNG FOR DEFNTONS; PROVDNG THAT WORKFORCE HOUSNG DENSTY BONUS UNTS SHALL BE AFFORDABLE FOR AT LEAST THRTY YEARS; REQURNG PURCHASERS AND LESSEES OF UNTS TO MEET CERTAN MEDAN NCOME LEVELS; PROVDNG FOR APPLCATON REQUREMENTS; REQURNG AN AGREEMENT TO ASSST N ENFORCNG THE AFFORDABLTY REQUREMENTS; PROVDNG FOR VOLATONS; AND PROVDNG AN EFFECTVE DATE THE CTYOF ST. PETERSBURG DOES ORDAN: Section 1. The St. Petersburg City Code is hereby amended by adding a new Article V in Chapter 17.5, Sections through , to read as follows: PROGRAM CHAPTER 17.5 ARTCLE V. WORKFORCE HOUSNG DENSTY BONUS Purpose The purpose of this Article is to: Create incentives for developers and property owners to provide workforce housing as a part of new development within the City; 2. Assist in implementing the affordable housing goals, policies, and objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of St. Petersburg; 3. Assist in making affordable housing available for employees of businesses that are or will be located in the City; 4. Maintain balanced housing opportunities in the City to provide housing for people of all income levels; 5. Assist in implementing planning for affordable housing as required by Ch F.S.;

40 854-G Page 2 6. mplement the Workforce Housing Density Bonus opportunity established in the Land Development Regulations adopted by the City Defmitions Words and terms shall have the meanings set forth in Article or as otherwise specified herein. Affordable means that monthly rents or monthly mortgage payments including taxes and insurance and condominium and homeowner association fees do not exceed 30 percent of the median annual gross income for a low, moderate, or middle income household. However, if the first institutional mortgage lender is satisfied that the household can afford mortgage payments in excess of 30 percent, then such payments, including revolving and installment debt, shall not exceed 41 percent of the median annual gross income. Area Median ncome (AM) means the median income for the Tampa/St. Petersburg/Clearwater metropolitan statistical area (MSA) which is adjusted for the household size as calculated and published annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Development Review Commission (DRC) means the City s Development Review Commission. Workforce Housing means, for the purposes of this Article, housing with monthly rents or monthly mortgage payments including taxes, insurance, and condominium or association fees, if any, that are Affordable. Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement means a written agreement between an applicant for a development and the City containing specific requirements to ensure the continuing affordability of housing included in a development. Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Unit covenants or restrictions of this Article. means any housing subject to the Density Bonus means an increase in the number of units on a site to provide an incentive for the construction of workforce housing pursuant to this Article and which may be allowed by a zoning district either as additional units or additional FAR (Floor Area Ratio, see Ch ). Development means a project which includes one or more Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units on a property utilizing the Bonus Density allowed by the zoning district;

41 854-G Page 3 Median Gross Household ncome means the median income level for the Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater MSA, as established and defined in the annual schedule published by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, adjusted for household size Scope of Application; Density Bonus A. Any development proposing to utilize the density bonus allowed in a zoning district, as set forth in Chapter 16 (see informational table in D.), shall enter into a Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement which shall irrevocably commit the developer and/or property owner to provide a specific number of Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units for a minimum of thirty years on the property subject to the Development Agreement. The Agreement shall provide such protections as the City shall require insuring that such units meet the requirements of this Article. B. Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units shall be offered for sale or rent at a price which is affordable to income eligible households as set forth in this section. For each multiple of six Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units approved: 1. The first unit shall be offered at 80% AM or below. 2. The second and third units shall be offered at 120% AM or below. 3. The fourth unit shall be offered at 150% AM or below. 4. The fifth unit shall be offered at 80% AM or below. 5. The sixth unit shall be offered at 150% AM or below. C. Developments constructing multiples of six Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units shall comply with the foregoing requirements. For a development constructing a number of Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units less than a multiple of six [e.g. five units, twenty seven units (four multiples of six plus three units), thirty one units (five multiples of six plus one unit), etc.], a variance to the foregoing requirements may be requested for that portion of the units less than a multiple of six. Variances may be requested from the Development Review Commission at the time the development is approved; however, the first unit shall always be offered at 80% AM or below. For each set less than six, the Units shall be offered in the order set forth above unless a variance to that order is approved. D. This informational table does not supercede the zoning district requirements in Chapter 16.

42 854-G Page 4 /..4.?f.,.. 7. \.. -:t-.. A ø..,yi....4 k, T. J rr 1 ;r;r NSM-1 Residential Medium (RM) NSM-2 Residential High (RH) 24/.60 NPUD-1 Residential Urban (RU) NPUD-2 Residential Low Medium (RLM) 10/.30 CRT-1 Planned Redevelopment-Mixed Use (PR-MU) 24/1.0 6/.20 CRT-2 Community Redevelopment District (CR1)) 40/1.5 6/.20 CR5- Residential/Office General (RJOG) CRS-2 Planned Redevelopment-Mixed Use (PR-MU) 30/.65 6/.20 RS-2 (in activit center) Planned Redevelopment-Mixed Use (PR-MU) /.20 L CCT-1 Planned Redevelopment-Mixed Use (PR-MU) 24/1.0 6/.20 CCT-2 Community Redevelopment District (CR1)) 40/1.5 6/.20 CCS-1 Planned Redevelopment-Mixed Use (PR-MU) /.20 CCS-1 (in activity center) Planned Redevelopment-Mixed Use (PR-MU) 22/.82 6/.20 CCS-2 Planned Redevelopment-Commercial (PR-C) 40/.75 6/.20 CCS-2 (in activity center) Planned Redevelopment-Commercial (PR-C) 60/ /.50 DC-Core Central Business District (CBD) See Section DC-i Central Business District (CBD) of the Land DC-2 Central Business District (CBD) Development DC-3 Central Business District (CBD) Regulations C () nstitutional (1) C (RJOG) Residential/Office General (R/OG) C (CR1), activity center) Community Redevelopment District (CRD) 24/ RC-1 Planned Redevelopment - Commercial (PR-C) RC-1 (in activity center) Planned Redevelopment - Commercial (PR-C) 45/ RC-2 Planned Redevelopment - Commercial (PR-C) (in activity center) Planned Redevelopment - Commercial (PR-C) 82/

43 854-G Page Application for Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units A. Any development proposing to utilize the density bonus allowed in a zoning district shall include in the zoning application such information as is required by the POD to insure compliance with this Article, the Land Development Regulations, and the Application and Procedures Section for Workforce Housing and Site Plan Review. B. At a minimum, the application shall include: 1. A general description of the development, including whether the development will contain units for rent or for sale; 2. The total number of market-rate units and Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units; 3. The number of bedrooms in each unit; 4. The square footage of each unit measured from the interior walls of the unit and including heated and unheated areas; 5. The location in the development of each Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Unit; 6. f the construction of dwelling units is to be phased, a phasing plan identifying the number of Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units in each phase; 7. The estimated initial sale price or monthly rent of each unit; 8. Documentation and plans regarding the interior and exterior appearances, materials, and finishes of the Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units if not exactly the same as the other units; 9. The marketing plan the applicant proposes to implement to promote the sale or rental of the Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units within the development to eligible households; 10. An accurate legal description of the property, which may require a copy of the title insurance policy or deed for the property; 11. Such other information as may reasonably be required by the POD Criteria for Location, ntegration, Character of Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units A Development shall comply with the following:

44 854-G Page 6 1. Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units shall be mixed with, and not clustered together or segregated in any way, from the market-rate units; 2. The number of efficiency, one, two, and three or more bedroom Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units shall be proportional to the number of one, two, and three or more bedroom market rate units (e.g. if 50% of the market rate units are two bedroom, then at least 50% of the workforce units shall be two bedroom or larger); 3. f the development is phased, the phasing plan shall provide for the development of Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units proportionately and concurrently with the market-rate units; 4. The exterior appearance of Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units shall be similar to the market-rate units and shall provide exterior building materials and finishes of substantially the same type and quality; 5. The interior building materials and finishes of the Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units shall be of substantially the same type and quality as market-rate. 6. All Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units shall comply with the building and construction requirements of Article (the City s Visitability Ordinance). 7. The minimum size for Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units shall be 375 sf for efficiency units, 500 sf for one bedroom units, 750 sf for two bedroom units and 200 additional sf for each additional bedroom; 8. Variances to the foregoing requirements may be requested from the Development Review Commission at the time the development is approved. A request for a variance to a site plan with Workforce Housing Bonus Density Units may be made to the Development Review Commission Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement; A. Prior to the approval of any development order or permit (including the issuance of a building permit or the public hearing for any approval) for any development in which a Density Bonus is requested, the applicant shall enter into a Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement with the City. The Agreement shall set forth the commitments and obligations of the applicant to insure compliance with this Article. B. The applicant shall execute any and all documents deemed necessary by the City in a form to be established by the City, including, without limitation, restrictive covenants, protective covenants, deed restrictions, and related instruments (including requirements for income qualification for tenants of rental units) to ensure the continued compliance with this Article.

45 854-0 Page 7 C. Restrictive covenants or deed restrictions and other required documents shall specify that the title to any Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units shall only be transferred with prior written approval by the City. The sole purpose of this approval shall be to insure that any transfer complies with the requirements of this Article and other City Codes and development orders or permits and conditions thereof. Such written approval shall be executed by the City Administrator and approved as to form by the City Attorney or designee before it is effective Affordability Controls A. The POD shall promulgate such forms and rules as are necessary to implement this Article. On an annual basis, the POD shall make available copies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development household income limits and rental limits applicable to Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units. B. The owner of a Development consisting of rental Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units shall submit an annual report before June 1 of each year, for the preceding calendar year, to the City identifying which units are Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units, the monthly rent for each unit, vacancy information for each month for the prior year, monthly income for tenants of each units, and other information as required by the City. The annual report shall contain information sufficient to determine whether tenants met the requirements of this Article. C. For any sale of Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units, the purchaser shall execute and record such documentation as required by the Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement and this Article. Such documentation shall include, at a minimum, each of the following: 1. A Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement for renter occupied Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units. Such units shall be occupied by income eligible households for a period of 30 years from the date of the initial certificate of occupancy. 2. A Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement for owner occupied Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units. Such units shall be conveyed subject to restrictions that shall insure compliance with this Article and the Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement for income eligible households for a period of 30 years from the date of the first sale of each unit. D. The owner of Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units which are for lease shall execute and record such documents as are required by the Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement and this Article. No lease shall be executed until the household income has been verified in writing by the City. Such documentation shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

46 854-G Page 8 1. The Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units shall be leased to and occupied by income eligible households. 2. The Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units shall be leased at rent levels Affordable to income eligible households for a period of 30 years from the date of the initial certificate of occupancy. 3. Subleasing of Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Units is not allowed without the express written consent of the POD which shall not be unreasonably withheld if the sublessee and lease meet the requirements of this Article Enforcement; Violations A. t is a violation of this Article to fail to file an annual report on or before June 1 of each year. Any violaton shall be subject to daily fines by the Code Enforcement Board. B. t is a violation of this Article to rent, sell or initially occupy any Workforce Housing Bonus Density Dwelling Unit if the household is not income eligible as required by this Article. C. t is a violation of this Article to knowingly give false or misleading information relating to this program to any the City employee. D. t is a violation of this Article for any person to participate, in any way, in any sale of a unit(s) or lease of a unit(s) which violates any provision of this Article or the Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement. The term participation shall include any act, or failure to act, of the buyer, seller, lender, realtor, title insurer, surveyor, or any other person which allows a violation of this Article or the Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement to occur. The fine for each violation of this Article shall be five hundred dollars ($500.00). Each day shall be a separate violation. E. The City may enforce this Article and the terms of a Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement by request for injunction. f the City obtains an injunction, the defendant shall pay all costs incurred by the City in obtaining the injunction, including but not limited to attorney s fees. F. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may use any lawful method to enforce this Article and the terms of a Workforce Housing Bonus Density Agreement including those specifically identified in Section 1-7. Section 2. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be severable. f any provision of this ordinance is deemed unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such determination shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this ordinance.

47 854-G Page 9 Section 3. Effective Date. n the event this ordinance is not vetoed by the Mayor in accordance with the City Charter, it shall become effective on January 1, n the event this ordinance is vetoed by the Mayor in accordance with the City Charter, it shall not become effective unless and until the City Council overrides the veto in accordance with the City Charter, in which case it shall become effective inmiediately upon a successful vote to override the veto or January 1, 2008, whichever is later. First reading conducted on the 18th day of October, Adopted by St. Petersburg City Council on second and final reading on the 29th day of November, Jai4s S. Bennett Chair-Councilmem er Presi41ing Officer of the City Council ATTEST: Eva Andujar City C)r Title Published: Times 1-t 11/19/2007 Not vetoed. Effective date Thursday, December 7, 2007 at 5:00 p.m.

48 st.pelersburq org CTY OF ST. PETERSBURG STATE HOUSNG NTATVES PARTNERSHP (SHP) AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE (AHAC) NCENTVE PLAN RECOMMENDATONS ncentive #4 The reservation of infrastructure capacity for housing for very-low-income persons, low-income persons, and moderate-incomepersons. Current Status: St. Petersburg currently does does not X have a program for this incentive. : Explanation of existing regulation regarding this incentive: There are no existing land development regulations regarding the reservation of infrastructure capacity for housing for very low-, low- and moderate-income persons. The City is fortunate to have excess capacity for all of its public facilities, including potable water, wastewater, solid waste, recreation/open space, stormwater, mass transit, schools and roadways. With regard to the latter, while there are some deficient roadways in the City, e.g., segments of 22 Avenue North and Gandy Boulevard, the vast majority of the major streets operate at a level of service (LOS) D or better, with spare capacity. The City does allow developers to reserve development capacity, (e.g., hotel, office, industrial uses) in the Gateway Areawide Development of Regional mpact (GADR), but only with an approved site plan and the partial payment of transportation impact fees. Residential is an approved use in the GADR, and can be developed as permitted by the land development regulations (LDRs).. Explanation of Advantages/Disadvantages of Changing or Adopting this ncentive: Advantages: The City is fortunate to have excess capacity for all of its public facilities, thus there are no advantages to adopting this incentive. Disadvantages: There is no need to adopt this incentive.

49 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #4 Page 2 V. Provide an explanation as to any negative effects or benefits to public health, safety, or welfare. Benefits: There are no benefits to public health, safety, or welfare. Negative Effects: There are no negative effects to public health, safety, or welfare. V. Housing Cost Reduction Anticipated from mplementing this Recommendation: $ (Specify how the savings benefit the eligible household(s).) Benefit: The City is fortunate to have excess capacity for all of its public facilities, thus there is no need to reserve any infrastructure capacity. cost reductions. There are no housing V. Recommendation of Advisory Committee: We do not recommend that the City of St. Petersburg include as an incentive for affordable housing ncentive #4 which deals with the reservation of infrastructure capacity for housing for very-low-income persons, low-income persons, and moderate income persons. V. Recommended Schedule for mplementation: Signed: Chairperson, Advisory Committee Date:

50 a st..petersburq CTY OF ST. PETERSBURG STATE HOUSNG NTATVES PARTNERSfflP (SifiP) AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE (ABAC) NCENTVE PLAN RECOMMENDATONS ncentive #5 The allowance of affordable accessory residential units in residential zoning districts. Current Status: St. Petersburg currently does X does not have a program for this incentive. : Explanation of existing regulation regarding this incentive: St. Petersburg s new land development regulations (LDRs) were adopted by the City Council in August 2007 and became effective on September 10, The following two new single family zoning districts now permit accessory dwelling units: NT-i (Neighborhood Traditional-i) and NT-2. Accessory dwelling units, such as garage apartments, are permitted subject to compliance with standards regulating lot size, building setbacks, parking and design (Section , City Code).. Explanation of Advantages/Disadvantages of Changing or Adopting this ncentive: Advantages: The attached map depicts the areas of the City designated Planned Redevelopment-Residential, which is the compatible Comprehensive Plan or Future Land Use Map category for the NT-i and NT-2 zoning districts. Accessory units are now permitted in the areas depicted, which were previously zoned single family only. The City Council and City Administration firmly believe that this regulation will increase the pool of affordable units available to income eligible persons or households. Disadvantages: There is no requirement that a property owner or a homeowner construct an accessory unit. f an accessory unit is constructed, there is no requirement that it be rented to anyone, including income eligible persons or households, i.e., it may be constructed for a family member.

51 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #5 Page 2 V. Provide an explanation as to any negative effects or benefits to public health, safety, or welfare. Benefits: As stated above, the City Council and City Administration firmly believe that this regulation will increase the pool of affordable units available to income eligible persons or households. Negative Effects: None. V. Housing Cost Reduction Anticipated from mplementing this Recommendation: $ (Specify how the savings benefit the eligible household(s).) Benefit: V. Recommendation of Advisory Committee: The City and Advisory Committee will look at ways to enhance the education of the available accessory unit standard as it relates to affordable housing. V. Recommended Schedule for mplementation: Already in place. Signed: Chairperson, Advisory Committee Date:

52 --. C - - MAP PLANNED REDEVELOPMENT - RESDENTAL (FUTURE LAND USE MAP) Residental W4E 11 THAVEN Miles o en - en N g. $ 094TH A S3RDAV N T7TN 2NDA z _1 4OTHA 4 D D ENTRALAVE 30TH AVE N en en z -i en n 9ThAVEN 5THAV N H rz 22ND AVE H - TAM BAY j - DOCA CEGA BAY 54TH AVE S 62NDAV S 66TH AVE S

53 stpeershur ww.stpete..org CTY OF ST. PETERSBURG STATE HOUSNG NTATVES PARTNERSHP (SHP) AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE (AAC) NCENTVE PLAN RECOMMENDATONS ncentive #6 The reduction ofparking and setback requirements for affordable housing. Current Status: St. Petersburg currently does does not X have a program for this incentive. : Explanation of existing regulation regarding this incentive: Minimum Number of Parking Spaces The Land Development Regulations (LDRs) do not distinguish between market-rate and affordable dwelling units for the purpose of establishing the minimum number of parking spaces required. Minimum Building Setbacks The LDRs do not distinguish between market-rate and affordable dwelling units for the purpose of establishing minimum building setbacks. Consistent with the intent of this incentive, many zoning districts already have minor building setbacks typically associated with urban development. For example, in traditional zoning districts, the minimum building setbacks range from as little as zero (0) feet to 15 feet. n suburban zoning districts, the minimum building setbacks increase and range from as little as 7.5 feet to 30 feet. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with the physical context of surrounding properties. The LDRs do distinguish between residential and non-residential uses for the purpose of establishing minimum building setbacks. n many of the mixed-use zoning districts, the minimum building setback for residential uses along a property line is less than the minimum building setback for non-residential uses. For example, in the Retail Center (RC) zoning district, the minimum building setback for a residential use is 10 feet whereas the minimum building setback for a commercial use is 20 to 25 feet depending upon the existing land use of the neighboring property.

54 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #6 Page 2. Explanation of Advantages/Disadvantages of Changing or Adopting this ncentive: City staff does not support changing the existing regulations related to building setbacks and parking for affordable housing. t is the City s desire that there be no discernable difference in design, function or overall aesthetics when comparing affordable housing units to market-rate units. Advantages: Whether it be a single lot or a larger multifamily property, the reduction of on-site parking and setback requirements may leave more land area available for development. Reduced parking and setback may also result in more land available for recreation areas and activities, landscaped buffers or simply open space. Disadvantages: Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Reducing on-site parking requirements for any type of development, including affordable housing projects, generally results in increased on-street parking congestion. n traditional zoning districts, on-street parking is prevalent and as a result, the minimum number of parking spaces required for these properties is typically lower than that required for property located within suburban zoning districts. n suburban zoning districts, on-street parking is generally not available adjacent to mixed-use developments. Minimum Building Setbacks St. Petersburg s rich and unique architectural legacy has contributed significantly to the City s image, economic growth and quality of life. While the City s architectural legacy was previously enriched by the development of raw land, development in recent years has been replaced by redevelopment including but not limited to, additions to existing buildings, demolition and replacement of existing buildings, and new construction on vacant lots within developed neighborhoods. St. Petersburg s minimum building setbacks (and building and site design standards) compel new construction to respect and reinforce the neighborhood context created by existing development; therefore, contextual site layout is the number one priority of the building and site review process. Starting in 2001, St. Petersburg s Vision 2020 initiative solicited input from the general public about their vision for the future of the city. The public identified preservation of neighborhood context as a primary concern. n response and during preparation of the newly adopted LDRs, staff conducted an extensive inventory of properties city-wide to identify their established building setbacks. The results were used to codify minimum building setbacks that are compatible with the existing development. Any proposal to further reduce the minimum building setbacks, whether a market-rate or affordable housing project, could destabilize the existing neighborhood context.

55 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #6 Page 3 V. Provide an explanation as to any negative effects or benefits to public health, safety, or welfare. Benefits: There are no tangible benefits to public health, safety or welfare related to reducing parking and setback requirements. Moreover, there does not appear to be a strong argument that parking and setback requirements are preventing or reducing the number of affordable units being constructed. Negative Effects: As stated above, reducing on-site parking requirements usually results in increased on-street parking congestion, which is a safety issue. Additionally, it may also increase the incidence of illegal parking on-site which negatively affects vehicle and pedestrian visibility and safety. V. Housing Cost Reduction Anticipated from mplementing this Recommendation: $ (Specify how the savings benefit the eligible household(s).) Benefit: V. Recommendation of Advisory Committee: We do not recommend that the City of St. Petersburg include as an incentive for affordable housing ncentive #6 which deals with parking and setback requirements. V. Recommended Schedule for mplementation: Signed: Chairperson, Advisory Committee Date:

56 stpetersbur CTY OF ST. PETERSBURG STATE HOUSNG NTATVES PARTNERSfflP (SifiP) AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE (AHAC) NCENTVE PLAN RECOMMENDATONS ncentive #7 The allowance of flexible lot configurations, including zero-lot-line configurations for affordable housing. Current Status: St. Petersburg currently does does not X have a program for this incentive. : Explanation of existing regulation regarding this incentive: A legal lot of record, by definition, has fixed boundaries defined by a plat recorded in the Official Records of Pinellas County. t is assumed that this incentive is intended to address flexible site plan configurations rather than flexible lot configurations. The Land Development Regulations (LDR5) do not distinguish between market-rate and affordable dwelling units for the purpose of establishing minimum building setbacks. Consistent with the intent of this incentive, many zoning districts already have minor building setbacks typically associated with urban development. For example, in traditional zoning districts, the minimum building setbacks range from as little as zero (0) feet to 15 feet. n suburban zoning districts, the minimum building setbacks increase and range from as little as 7.5 feet to 30 feet. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with the physical context of surrounding properties. n either example, the allowable site plan configuration is more flexible than was previously allowed under the old City Code. The LDRs do distinguish between residential and non-residential uses for the purpose of establishing minimum building setbacks. n many of the mixed-use zoning districts, the minimum building setback for residential uses along a property line is less than the minimum building setback for non-residential uses. For example, in the Retail Center (RC) zoning district, the minimum building setback for a residential use is 10 feet whereas the minimum building setback for a commercial use is 20 to 25 feet depending upon the existing land use of the neighboring property.

57 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #7 Page 2 Finally, any proposed site plan configuration may also take advantage of City Code Section titled, Large Tract Planned Development. The purpose of this section is to allow larger tracts of land measuring a minimum of two (2) acres, to be developed in a way that is consistent with the maximum floor area ratio and density for the subject property but allows alternative dimensional and design requirements. Using transitional building types, landscaping and dimensional criteria within the perimeter buffer of a subject property will allow increased design flexibility and height towards the center of the site.. Explanation of Advantages/Disadvantages of Changing or Adopting this ncentive: City staff does not support changing the existing regulations related to lot configuration for affordable housing. t is the City s desire that there be no discernable difference in design, function or overall aesthetics when comparing affordable housing units to market-rate units. Advantages: Arguably, there are no advantages for affordable housing that the new City Code does not already provide for. Disadvantages: St. Petersburg s rich and unique architectural legacy has contributed significantly to the City s image, economic growth and quality of life. While the City s architectural legacy was previously enriched by the development of raw land, development in recent years has been replaced by redevelopment including but not limited to, additions to existing buildings, demolition and replacement of existing buildings, and new construction on vacant lots within developed neighborhoods. St. Petersburg s minimum building setbacks (and building and site design standards) compel new construction to respect and reinforce the neighborhood context created by existing development; therefore, contextual site layout is the number one priority of the building and site review process. Starting in 2001, St. Petersburg s Vision 2020 initiative solicited input from the general public about their vision for the future of the City. The public identified preservation of neighborhood context as a primary concern. n response and during preparation of the newly adopted LDRs, staff conducted an extensive inventory of properties city-wide to identify their established building setbacks. The results were used to codify minimum building setbacks that are compatible with the existing development. Any proposal to further reduce the minimum building setbacks, whether a market-rate or affordable housing project, could destabilize the existing neighborhood context.

58 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #7 Page 3 V. Provide an explanation as to any negative effects or benefits to public health, safety, or welfare. Benefits: or welfare. Negative Effects: There are no tangible negative effects or benefits to public health, safety V. Housing Cost Reduction Anticipated from mplementing this Recommendation: $ (Specify how the savings benefit the eligible household(s).) Benefit: V. Recommendation of Advisory Committee: We do not recommend that the City of St. Petersburg include as an incentive for affordable housing ncentive #7 which deals with flexible lot configurations. V. Recommended Schedule for mplementation: Signed: Chairperson, Advisory Committee Date:

59 st.pelershurq ww.slpete..org CTY OF ST. PETERSBURG STATE HOUSNG NTATVES PARTNERSfflP (SifiP) AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE (AHAC) NCENTVE PLAN RECOMMENDATONS ncentive #8 The modification ofstreet requirements for affordable housing.. Current Status: St. Petersburg currently does does not X have a program for this incentive. : Explanation of existing regulation regarding this incentive: Section of the City Code states that the arrangement, character, width, grade and location of all streets must conform substantially with a plan for the most advantageous development of the entire neighboring area and shall be considered in relation to existing and planned streets, to topographical conditions, to public convenience and safety and in appropriate relation to the proposed uses of the land to be served by the streets. All streets shall be improved by a developer with paving, curbs and gutters, and sidewalks when required. A minimum pavement width of 24 feet shall be required for all cul-de-sac and minor streets and 32 feet for all collector or commercial service streets. These regulations apply to all development, including affordable housing projects.. Explanation of Advantages/Disadvantages of Changing or Adopting this ncentive: City staff does not support changing the existing regulations related to streets for affordable housing. t is the City s desire that there be no discernable difference in design, function or overall aesthetics when comparing affordable housing units to market-rate units. Advantages: The City Code requires that all streets be improved by a developer with paving, curbs and gutters, and sidewalks when required. Modifying, reducing or eliminating such requirements will likely save time and development costs. Disadvantages: Modifying, reducing or eliminating regulations pertaining to public streets may jeopardize public health, safety and welfare. The City does not propose to modify street requirements for affordable housing projects.

60 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #8 Page 2 V. Provide an explanation as to any negative effects or benefits to public health, safety, or welfare. Benefits: Negative Effects: Streets As stated above, the City does not propose to modify Street requirements for affordable housing projects. The City Code requires a minimum width for public rights-of-way and roadways, alignment with existing roadways, specific intersection design and limited access from a residential development onto a major street. All of these Code requirements are in place to benefit public health, safety and welfare. Sidewalks Starting in 2001, St. Petersburg s Vision 2020 initiative solicited input from the general public about their vision for the future of the city. The public identified pedestrian connectivity and safety as a primary concern. As a result, the LDRs established a hierarchy of transportation for pedestrian and vehicle connections, which begins with the pedestrian. This is particularly important when considering affordable housing; the residents are more likely to rely on pedestrian linkages and public transportation. V. Housing Cost Reduction Anticipated from mplementing this Recommendation: $ (Specify how the savings benefit the eligible household(s).) Benefit: V. Recommendation of Advisory Committee: We do not recommend that the City of St. Petersburg include as an incentive for affordable housing ncentive #8 which deals with modification of street requirements.

61 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #8 Page 3 V. Recommended Schedule for mplementation: Signed: Chairperson, Advisory Committee Date:

62 st.petersburq ww.stpete..oru CTY OF ST. PETERSBURG STATE HOUSNG NTATVES PARTNERSHP (SHP) AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE (AHAC) NCENTVE PLAN RECOMMENDATONS ncentive #9 The establishment of a process by which a local government considers, before adoption, policies, procedures, ordinances, regulations, or plan provisions that increase the ost ofhousing. Current Status: St. Petersburg currently does X does not have a program for this incentive. : Explanation of existing regulation regarding this incentive: The attached mpact Statement was adopted as one of the original incentives recommended by the first AHAC and adopted by City Council in The mpact Statement was included as a requirement in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan and was adopted as an administrative policy in This form is currently in use by City departments.. Explanation of Advantages/Disadvantages of Changing or Adopting this ncentive: Advantages: By complying with the State requirement to have this incentive in place, the City will continue to be eligible to receive SHP funding for local housing programs to benefit persons with very low, low and moderate incomes. The use of the impact statement by a local community is also an item that helps developers receive a higher score in funding competitions held by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. n addition, completion of the mpact Statement should encourage the initiating City department to fully consider the effect of its proposal on the cost of housing construction or rehabilitation, helping to keep St. Petersburg competitive in the housing industry.

63 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #9 Page 2 Disadvantages: There is a slight increase in required staff/administrative expense to create the paperwork, however the form is short and the time needed to complete it is minimal. The process for collection of the forms needs to be improved. V. Provide an explanation as to any negative effects or benefits to public health, safety, or welfare. Benefits: Negative Effects: None V. Housing Cost Reduction Anticipated from mplementing this Recommendation: $ (Specify how the savings benefit the eligible household(s).) Benefit: No specific reduction related to the use of the form; however, the completion of the form should encourage the implementing departments and the City Council to carefully consider any proposal which would negatively impact the cost of housing. V. Recommendation of Advisory Committee: We, as a committee, encourage the City to continue to present the impact on affordable housing whenever a project comes before one of the boards or council, so that the issue continues to be in front to all can see. While the committee recognizes the disadvantage regarding the collection of forms, the knowledge that is developed through the process is more important than the deletion of the forms.

64 Signed: City of St. Petersburg ncentive #9 Page 3 V. Recommended Schedule for mplementation: Already in place. Chairperson, Advisory Committee Date: See attached form

65 City of St. Petersburg Housing Affordability mpact Statement Each year, the City of St. Petersburg receives approximately $2 million dollars in State Housing nitiative Partnership (SHP) funds for its affordable housing programs. To receive these funds, the City is required to maintain an ongoing process for review of local policies, ordinances, resolutions, and plan provisions that increase the cost of housing construction, or of housing redevelopment, and to establish a tracking system to estimate the cumulative cost per housing unit from these actions for the period July 1 June 30 annually. This form should be attached to all policies, ordinances, resolutions, and plan provisions which increase housing costs, and a copy of the completed form should be provided to the city s Housing and Community Development department.. nitiating Department:. POliCY, Procedure, Regulation, or Comprehensive Plan Amendment Under Consideration for adoption by Ordinance or Resolution:. mpact Analysis: A. Will the proposed policy, procedure, regulation, or plan amendment, (being adopted by ordinance or resolution) increase the cost of housing development? (i.e. more landscaping, larger lot sizes, increase fees, require more infrastructure costs up front, etc.) No (No further explanation required) Yes Explanation: f Yes, the per unit cost increase associated with this proposed policy change is estimated to be: $ B. Will the proposed policy, procedure, regulation, plan amendment, etc. increase the time needed for housing development approvals? No Yes (No further explanation required) Explanation:

66 Housing Affordable mpact Statement Page 2 V: Certification: t is important that new local laws which could counteract or negate local, state and federal reforms and incentives created for the housing construction industry receive due consideration. f the adoption of the proposed regulation is imperative to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and therefore its public purpose outweighs the need to continue the community s ability to provide affordable housing, please explain below: CHECK ONE: D The proposed regulation, policy, procedure, or comprehensive plan amendment will not result in an increase to the cost of housing development or redevelopment in the City of St. Petersburg and no further action is required. ( Please attach this mpact Statement to City Council Material, and provide a copy to Housing and Community Development department.) Department Director (signature) Date OR The proposed regulation, policy, procedure, or comprehensive plan amendment being proposed by resolution or ordinance will increase housing costs in the City of St. Petersburg. (Please attach this mpact Statement to City Council Material, and provide a copy to Housing and Community Development department.) Department Director (signature) Date Copies to: City Clerk (attached to City Council Material) Housing and Community Development Director

67 st.petersliurg ww.stpete.org CTY OF ST. PETERSBURG STATE HOUSNG NTATVES PARTNERSHP (SHP) AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE (AHAC) NCENTVE PLAN RECOMMENDATONS ncentive #10 The preparation of a printed inventory of locally-ownedpublic lands suitable for affordable housing. Current Status: St. Petersburg currently does X does not have a program for this incentive. : Explanation of existing regulation regarding this incentive: On October 4, 2007 the City Council adopted Resolution No , approving a list of (then) City-owned property suitable for affordable housing. The attached map depicts the location and contains information on 14 properties identified as being suitable for affordable housing.. Explanation of Advantages/Disadvantages of Changing or Adopting this ncentive: Advantages: The inventory, map and associated information are valuable to the City, prospective developers and non-profit agencies and organizations interested in affordable housing. Disadvantages:

68 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #10 Page 2 V. Provide an explanation as to any negative effects or benefits to public health, safety, or welfare. Benefits: The inventory, map and associated information benefit the public welfare in that specific sites are identified as well as the residential development potential for each site. Negative Effects: V. Housing Cost Reduction Anticipated from mplementing this Recommendation: $ (Specify how the savings benefit the eligible household(s).) Benefit: V. Recommendation of Advisory Committee: We endorse the continued maintenance of an inventory of properties that are City owned suitable for affordable housing and to add to that list whenever possible, and make the list readily available for those individuals and organizations interested in developing affordable housing. V. Recommended Schedule for mplementation: Signed: Chairperson, Advisory Committee Date:

69 i LiEf NVENTORY LST OF CTY - OWNED SURPLUS PARCELS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSNG (CTY COUNCL RESOLUTON NO ) C]J. EU. C]]. Hill Li n uirii uiiin Q]U CtD [EEl] i Lull] [intl ETT1 [flit] [11111] D 1t[[itE] flet] turi U]E[J ruiimi rrrirmi (TifflE full UL!1i LLJ LLU Liii [ii]]] WElD WJ lfl:rl]j ] afltmwlu [tlililt ] t]eej[, -- _ 1 \ t Li.z j1ffluih ruiteueli1zlçi W LZ flel [find [DW DEWE J LED Fmfl [ntll].\ i bj y_ 11!j. jthr1i1 lj!lll)iiiul..l]j ]]1fllii.iij [[Lji H &zir ur in r J 1..j uw i9 j Hi[[iFll j Li +L V LH z - i-h; [ [Li l.el. EUb 1r [fi [i Li E1 prj L -- 1DEE f_ 1. t]l == F! ffl[[ 1 LJ11 Hill iliili fflf [ 11 :.. F S CTY OF S. CTY OF S CTY OF vt-c. T s & 13TH AVE S rv4. 32 N/A / L N/A 4[4J] Jj 13 N/A 1fr11Hi1 t1iiiiiri.. llil JtJTE1][TflW <it -.. 1(< 15 TTT1TT1 li ti FT ;2-\ >.

70 st.petersburq ww.stpole.org CTY OF ST. PETERSBURG STATE HOUSNG NTATVES PARTNERSHP (SHP) AFFORDABLE HOUSNG ADVSORY COMMTTEE (AHAC) NCENTVE PLAN RECOMMENDATONS ncentive #11 The support of development near transportation hubs and major employment centers and mixed-use developments. Current Status: St. Petersburg currently does X does not have a program for this incentive. : Explanation of existing regulation regarding this incentive: n order to be successful, developments near transportation hubs and employment centers typically include a mixture of land uses, higher densities and floor area ratios, smaller lot sizes, reduced building setbacks along primary streetscapes, lower parking ratios through reduced minimum requirements and shared parking, structured parking and on-street parallel parking. The City s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) encourage mixed-use and mixed income, higher-density development that is concentrated along major corridors and within designated centers. This pattern of development is necessary to support transit stations along the corridors and transit hubs within designated centers. Transit hubs in St. Petersburg are associated with the terminals and transfer centers for Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA), the City s and Pinellas County s mass transit provider. PSTA s terminals and transfer centers are located within the former Gateway Mall property and three of the City s designated activity centers: Downtown (Williams Park), Central Plaza and the Tyrone Square Mall. (The fourth activity center is located in the gateway area and an unofficial fifth activity center is centered around the intersection of 34 th Street South and 30 th Avenue South.) While the downtown and Gateway areas are the City s top two employment centers, all five of these activity centers are designated with land use and zoning which permit significant development and redevelopment opportunities. (t should be noted that the new zoning for the majority of the Carillon/Gateway area is Employment Centet. ) Permitted densities range from 15 to 24 units per acre in the Gateway, Central Plaza, Tyrone and 34 th Street South areas, not including a workforce housing bonus. Floor-

71 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #11 Page 2 area-ratios (FARs) range from 0.70 to 1.5 in these areas, while the base FAR in the downtown area ranges from 2.0 to 4.0. The purpose and intent of the land use and zoning designations in these areas are to encourage and accommodate mixed-use development, including affordable/workforce housing, and to create jobs. High parking ratios combined with surface parking make high-density development difficult or impossible. Consequently, the new LDRs include several additions to the parking standards designed to increase the density and decrease the overall construction costs of development near transportation hubs and employment centers. These changes include the introduction of: Reduced parking ratios; A shared/joint parking formula; Credits for off-site parking locations; Substitution credits for motorcycle, scooter, carpool and vanpool parking; Bicycle parking requirements; and, An FAR exemption for structured parking. Limited building setbacks help create a safe, pedestrian-friendly environment and are therefore, a common feature of developments near transit stations, transit hubs and employment centers. The new LDRs have a similar and consistent theme focused on reduced building setbacks to enhance pedestrian safety and experience. The LDRs are divided into traditional and suburban zoning classifications. Within traditional zoning, the minimum building setbacks have been significantly reduced. Consequently, any transit station and transit hub proposed within traditional zoning would benefit from the existing setback regulations. Within suburban zoning, the minimum building setbacks have also been reduced but not to the same extent as in the traditional zoning. Finally, pedestrian connectivity and safety is another key element of successful development near transit stations, transit hubs and employment centers. Within the new LDRs, pedestrian connectivity and safety are required by a series of building design standards. The attached maps depict the areas described above, and illustrate the land use and zoning designations.

72 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #11 Page 3. Explanation of Advantages/Disadvantages of Changing or Adopting this ncentive: Advantages: There are no advantages to changing this incentive, as the new LDRs only became effective on September 10, Disadvantages: The major disadvantage to changing this incentive is not allowing the new LDRs to work. V. Provide an explanation as to any negative effects or benefits to public health, safety, or welfare. Benefits: There are numerous benefits to public welfare, including the creation of jobs at or near the PSTA transportation hubs, and increasing the City s tax base. Negative Effects: There are no negative effects to public health, safety, or welfare. V. Housing Cost Reduction Anticipated from mplementing this Recommendation: $ (Specify how the savings benefit the eligible household(s).) Benefit: t is not anticipated that there will be any direct housing cost reductions associated with this incentive, however it is anticipated that mixed-use development in or near the City s activity centers and transportation hubs will include affordable/workforce housing. V. Recommendation of Advisory Committee: We endorse the City of St. Petersburg to continue to support development near transportation hubs and major employment centers and mixed-use developments.

73 City of St. Petersburg ncentive #11 Page 4 V. Recommended Schedule for mplementation: Signed: Chairperson, Advisory Committee Date:

74 MAP1 AHAC: ncentive Official Zoning Map (Selected Zoning Districts) EC (Employment Center) DC (Downtown Center) CCT-2 (Corridor Commercial Tradltlonal-2) 118 AV N ECZ 7 3 VS - TAMPA BAY C- VES DC BOcA CEGA BAY ci WE

75 MAP2 AHAC: ncentive PLANNED REDEVELOPMENT. MXED USE (FUTURE LAND USE MAP) Mixed Use -p 8THAV ( V TH 83 N V N 2ND N Th EN z 8TH AVE 40TH A 30TH AVE N z 22ND AV STHAV N 5THAVEN TAMPA BAY C 5THAVES R 5TH AVE S 2ND AVE S 26TH AVE S BOCA CEGA BAY 54Th AVE S 0 2ND AV 66TH AVE S WE

76 MAP3 AHAC: ncentive PLANNED REDEVELOPMENT - COMMERCAL (FUTURE LAND USE MAP) Commercial 11 THAVEN z N Th A 83RD AVE N 77TH AVE N 2ND AVE N 54Th AV N THAVEN - 40ThA N 9THAVEN 5Th AVE N 3OTHAVEN N 2 22NDAVEN ENTRA. AVE 1ST AVE N 1ST AVE S 5TH AVE S U 3THAVEN B TAMPA BAY STHAVES 22NDAVES U 9TH AVE S k U 2 2BTHAVES ROSA CEGA BAY 54Th AVE S 62NDAV S 66TH AVE S WE