The Palm Beach County Planning Department, at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is currently in the process of amending the County’s Workforce Housing Program (WHP). The overall purpose of the Workforce Housing Program is to provide an increase in affordable housing options to those who desire to live in Palm Beach County. The program is intended to encourage the distribution of a variety of workforce housing units for Low, Moderate 1, Moderate 2 and Middle-Income house-holds. The amended language includes provisions for development options, design requirements, WHP incentives and construction requirements.

Given the changes in the residential construction market and overall downturn of the economy, the current Workforce Housing Program (WHP) was reviewed. In this issue of FOCUS we provide a recap of the resulting proposed amendments.

Developers of new developments and those of existing develop-

ments that wish to increase their density are required to take part in the Workforce Housing Program. The WHP applies to new developments that include a residential component of 10

or more dwelling units. Existing residen-tial developments wishing to increase

their development by 10 or more addi-tional dwelling units must take part in the

program. When dealing with existing devel-opments, the WHP will only apply to the units

being added. The proposed projects must be located within the Urban/Suburban Tier, as the amended language has now excluded all other Tiers within the County.

The WHP targets four (4) income ranges,

which are as follows:

Workforce Housing Income Ranges based on the Area Median Income (AMI) and household income limits for Palm Beach County (PBC). In PBC, the March 2009 median income for a family of four (4) was $67,600.

The new code revisions provide developers with three (3) development options in which they can meet the requirements of the mandatory WHP. The options include the 'No Incentive,' 'Limited Incentive' or 'Full Incentive Programs.' These three (3) programs are described on page 4.

PBC Workforce Housing Update . . . . . . 1

Amendment 4 Creates Chaos in St . Pete Beach .2

Revised DRO Procedures in PBC . . . . . . . 3

Agency Certification of Wetland Jurisdiction . . . . . 4

PBC BCC Adopts Code Changes . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Dates to Remember . . . . . 7

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Zoning in Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1100 St. Lucie West Blvd, Suite 202Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986

772-871-7778 Fx 772-871-9992

2101 Centrepark West Drive, Suite 100 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409561-478-8501 Fx 561-478-5012

Inside FOCUS:

Dec

embe

r 200

9

| “Workforce Housing” continued on page 4 |

FOCUSA NEWSLETTEr FOr THE SOUTH FLOrIdA & TrEASUrE COAST dEvELOPmENT COmmUNITy

ww

w .la

ndde

sign

sout

h .co

m

UPdATE PBC WOrkFOrCe HOUSIng PrOgram

Low 60% – 80% AmImoderate 1 >80% – 100% AmImoderate 2 >100% – 120% AmImiddle >120 or < 140% AmI

We Have a new Brochure We'd Like To Share With You!

Click to see our company brochure

FOCUS is published bimonthly by Land design South for our clients.

by Jennifer Morton, Principaland Lindsay Libes, Planner

MEMBER

THe ST. PeTe BeaCH TImeLIne:

november, 2006: St . Pete Beach narrowly adopts a local version of Amendment 4, requiring a referendum for all changes to the local comprehensive plan . Amendment 4 supporters promise that they just want to give "the people a right to vote ."

June, 2008: St . Pete Beach voters approve a new comprehensive plan at the ballot box .

June, 2008: After losing the election, Amendment 4 supporters in St . Pete Beach file a string of legal challenges to invalidate the will of the people .

September, 2008: Numerous adminis-trative challenges are subsequently filed by Amendment 4 coauthor and cofounder Ross Burnaman .

June, 2009: The St . Petersburg Times reports that St . Pete Beach has exhausted its legal budget months before the end of the fiscal year .

September, 2009: Amidst rising legal bills, St . Pete Beach raises taxes .

October, 2009: Court-ordered mediation collapses when Amendment 4 supporters refuse to join the City and the business community in supporting a compromise .

2

As part of the campaign to inform Florida voters on the serious consequenc-es of Amendment 4, Ryan Houck, Executive Director of Floridians for Smarter Growth invited us to reprint the following article. If you are inter-ested in reading additional articles from Floridians for Smarter Growth go to www.florida2010.org/smarterblog.php.

ST. PeTe BeaCH aBanDOnS LOCaL eXPerImenT In amenDmenT 4 By ryan Houck

Since beginning a 3-year experiment in Amendment 4-style rule, St. Pete Beach residents have seen endless lawsuits, higher taxes and widespread economic turmoil. In recent elections, the citizens of St. Pete Beach voted to scale back their local version of Amendment 4 so that only certain land use changes require a referendum. With Florida voters set to soon decide the fate of Amendment 4 – a statewide vote on Everything initiative – it is telling that St. Pete Beach voters chose to rein in their own local experiment by a decisive 60-40 margin.

more telling still are the words of Ward Friszolowski, former St. Pete Beach mayor who retired in 2008. "St. Pete Beach residents are tired of voting on everything, especially issues that don't even relate to development," said Friszolowski. "This amendment doesn't work. It has resulted in chaotic, confusing and expensive elections driven by sound bites rather than sound planning." No other state in the union has adopted an amendment as heavy-handed and extreme as the one now being sold to Florida voters as Amendment 4. Even the type of planning by sound bite that takes place in California would pale in comparison to what is being proposed in our state. However, we can draw lessons from the story of St. Pete Beach, the first community in Florida to adopt a local version of Amendment 4.

St. Pete Beach is proof positive that Amendment 4 is not designed to give the people a say on growth. It is designed to give anti-growth lawyers another legal avenue to stop commonsense progress, even when voters approve it. In St. Pete Beach, the taxpayers' legal bills continue to mount. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight.

Floridians for Smarter Growth leads opposition to Amendment 4. To date, more than 170 organizations throughout Florida have opposed Amendment 4. more join the fight every day. For more information, please visit www.florida2010.org.

(Reprinted with permission from Floridians for Smarter Growth)

Voters scale back their local version of Amendment 4

amendment 4 Creates Chaos, Voters ask to Scale Back

www .landdesignsouth .com

Through a joint group known as the Development review Officer Oversight Committee (drOOC), Palm Beach County staff and industry representatives, including those from Land design South,

continue to modify the existing regulatory review process for Zoning applications to make them more efficient and predictable for applicants.

most recently, changes have been made in regards to the Final Site Plan approval process that will greatly reduce the review time after a project has been approved at a Public Hearing. One of the major issues with the current process is that although many site plans go unchanged between the Public Hearing approval and Final Site Plan review, there is still a lengthy final review process, as well as the costs associated with the preparation of the submittals and representation before the drO. revisions to the process will hopefully reduce the time and cost associated with the Final Site Plan review. Highlights of these revised changes are as follows:

[1] Projects coming off of Public Hearing approval that are not being modified (except for revisions associated with suggestions from the public hearing) will not have to submit a full Final Site Plan Application and go through the current 7 week review period. These projects will be able to request to be placed on the next available DRO date after the Public Hearing approval. This will save approxi-mately 2 months of process time.

[2] In order to take advantage of this expedited approval, these applications will need to be requested to be placed on a DRO meeting within 2 months of the Public Hearing approval.

[3] If modifications to the Site Plan will occur after Public Hearing approval, then the application will obviously require a full Final Site Plan application and review, resulting in no time savings. Therefore, it will be imperative for clients to know exactly what they want represented on the Site Plan during the initial DRO review before Public Hearing in order to take advantage of this process.

Zoning staff is currently looking for applications to test this process. In combination with other new allowances, such as concurrent Final Site Plan, building permit and plat review, prospective developers and property owners have the opportunity to greatly reduce the review time of their Site Plan applica-tions. For more information on this and other initiated or proposed review changes, please contact Jeff Brophy, Chair of the drOOC, at the Land design South West Palm Beach office at 561-537-4507.

Policy changes to Approval Process

revised DrO Procedures in Palm Beach County

3www .landdesignsouth .com

by Jeff Brophy, RLA, Director

4 www .landdesignsouth .com

The economic environment has changed, and the amount of development applications submitted to

various government agencies has been greatly reduced. As a result, some policy changes have taken place that affect the processing of applications to certify wetland jurisdiction for a parcel of land.

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is now accepting applications to review wetland jurisdic-tion. during the economic boom, the Jacksonville district Office handed down a Standard Operat-ing Procedure proclaiming that the various ACOE offices and staff would not accept applications to review wetland jurisdiction unless they were part of an overall application for dredge and fill of federal wetlands. Since the overall workload has been significantly diminished, this policy has been reversed.

The South Florida Water management district (SFWmd) has also amended its policy towards this procedure. They have always accepted applications

for certification of wetland jurisdiction; however, the application fee has been increased. An appli-cation to review an informal wetland determination

was $100.00 and will increase to $500.00 starting November 1, 2009. All the permit fees for SFWmd have

increased as of this same date.

Another recent change in policy adopted by SFWmd regard-ing the certification of wetland jurisdiction is the expiration

date. Previously, certification of a wetland boundary was valid for 5 years, now they are only valid for up to 2 years of time.

If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Jerry renick at 561-537-4540.

Policy changes and application fee increases

by Jerry Renick, CEP, Principal

agency Certification of Wetland Jurisdiction

"SFWMD application fees to review an informal wetland determination were increased from $100 .00 to $500 .00

beginning November 1, 2009"

no Incentives: In this scenario, the proposed development must be a 100% workforce housing project, with no incentives available to the developer

This option applies to those who are not requesting additional WHP incentives and/or bonuses. Those developers who choose this option must meet the following designated requirements:

1. All units must target house-holds with incomes ranging from 60%-140% of the Average median Income (AmI).

2. A maximum of 90% of the proposed units can be built within any one of the four (4) targeted AmI income areas. The remaining units can be built in any one, or combination of the remaining target income areas.

3. All of the for sale units are required to remain income restricted for a period of seven (7) years; all rental units must remain income restricted for a period of thirty (30) years. Both the ‘for sale’ and rental time frames are non-recurring.

4. Projects under this option cannot utilize the payment In-Lieu of construction provisions.

Limited Incentive: In this scenario, 100% of the Workforce Housing Units must be divided amongst the Low Income and Moderate 1 Income Households.

This development option applies to

| “Workforce Housing” from page 1 |

| “Workforce Housing” continued on page 5 |

within the Lr-1 thru Lr-3 Future Land Use designations or up to 100% for projects located within the mr-5 thru Hr-18

Future Land Use designations. Those developers who choose this option must meet the following designated requirements:

1. The percentage breakdown of WHP units will be limited to 5% Standard density, 16% maximum density and 34% WHP density bonus.

2. All of the required WHP units must be evenly distributed between each target income category (25% in each target income category).

3. This incentive includes four (4) options:Construct Units Off Site•Purchase existing market rate units and deed restrict •to either the County, or sell to eligible households. Both scenarios must be deed restricted.donate buildable land acceptable to the County. •donated land must be in the amount equal to or greater than buyout cost.In-Lieu Payment.•

www .landdesignsouth .com

| “Workforce Housing" continued on page 7 |

5

| “Workforce Housing” continued from page 4 |

those who are requesting a density bonus of less than 15% for projects located within the Lr-1 thru Lr-3 Future Land Use designations or less than 50% for projects located within the mr-5 thru Hr-18 Future Land Use designations. Those developers who choose this option must meet the following designated requirements:

1. The percentage breakdown of WHP units will be limited to 2.5% Standard density, 8% Planned Unit development (PUd) density and 17% WHP density bonus.

2. Of the required WHP units, 50% must be set aside for Low Income households and 50% must be set aside for moderate 1 Income households. Therefore, 100% of the WHP units in this incentive program must be divided amongst the two lowest categories.

3. If requested, additional incentives/bonuses will be available. Such incentives include TPS special methodology mitigation, expedited review and site plan regulation options.

4. ‘For sale’ units under this option are required to remain income restricted for 15 years, recurring and beginning at the date of purchase. In the event that any unit is resold prior to the end of the required 15 year period, a new 15 year period will begin on the date of resale.

5. rental units under this option are required to remain income restricted for a period of 30 years, non-recurring.

Table A shows an example of a project utilizing the Limited Incentive Option . Of the required 21 WHP units, 50% must be located within the Low Income (10 du) and 50% must be located within the moderate 1 income households (11 du).

Full Incentive: In this scenario, the developer follows the existing Workforce Housing Program and utilizes the full incentives offered under the program.

This development option applies to those who are requesting a density bonus up to 30% for projects located

Density Bonus required WHP Unit Limitations

Standard Density – 200 dwelling units (based on 2 du/ac)

Standard Density – 200 dwelling units x 2.5% = 5 dwelling units

PUD Density – 100 dwelling units (based on 1 du/ac PUD density)

PUD Density – 100 dwelling units x 8% = 8 dwelling units

WFH Density Bonus Units – 45 units (based upon the 15% allowed under the LR-3 land use)

WFH Density Bonus Units – 45 units x 17% = 8 dwelling units

TOTAL NUMBeR OF UNITS – 345 dwelling units

TOTAL NUMBeR OF WORkFORCe HOUSINg UNITS = 21 dwelling units

[Table a]

Example of a project utilizing the Limited Incentive Option .

Jennifer Vail, Director

6 www .landdesignsouth .com

On October 22, 2009, the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners adopted Unified

Land development Code (ULdC) Amendment round 2009-01 which, in summary, amended the existing code regulations to account for minor revisions, scrivener’s errors and omitted text from the ULdC, as well as several specific amendments including:

article 1 – General Provisions article 2 – development review Processarticle 3 – Overlays & Zoning districts article 4 – Use regulationsarticle 5 – Supplementary Standardsarticle 7 – Landscapingarticle 8 – Signagearticle 14 – Environmental Standards article 17 – decision making BodiesSpecific amendments Included –

Adult EntertainmentArchitectural GuidelinesHomeless resource Centermanatee Protection Planrenewable EnergyTraffic Performance StandardsAffordable Housing Program

Although all code sections and amendments are notable, the following highlights just a few of the amendments and their impact upon the development process and regulations.

Parking requirements Within the existing Article 3 ULdC regulations, non-residential uses within a Planned development (Pd) which were not considered conditional/requested uses were required to provide a minimum of one parking space per 250 sf of gross floor area (4/1000) and a maximum of one parking space per 166.66 sf of gross floor area (6/1000). All conditional/requested uses were required to follow the specific parking regulations outlined in Article 6, Table 6.A.1.B. minimum Off-street Parking

and Loading requirements. In most cases, the parking requirements in Article 6 were more restrictive, requiring more parking spaces per use than the requirements in Article 3, thus keeping with the intent that a conditional/requested use requires additional mitigation for impacts of the specific type of use. However, a few uses permitted 'by right' in a Pd, required to follow the regulations of Article 3 (min 1sp/250 sf), were actually penalized when it came to parking requirements versus if they were to follow the regulations in Article 6.

For example, a 100 room, 60,000 sf hotel which is a permitted use in a Pd under the old code regulations was required to provide a minimum 1 parking space per 250 sf which for this example would equate to 240 spaces. The same use, under the Article 6 parking regulations was required to provide a minimum of 1.25 parking spaces per hotel room which for this example would equate to 125 spaces, almost half of the parking requirement under Article 3 (which was intended to be less restrictive).

The modified code language in Article 3 now permits an applicant to choose which regulations they will follow – Article 3 (min 1sp/25 0sf, max 1 sp/166.66 sf) or Article 6 (specific regulations for each proposed use). The entire site must follow the same regulations and the site plan must clearly indicate which parking standards are being utilized for the entire site.

Homeless resource Centers and renewable energy (Solar) Facilities included in the amended ULDC Both Homeless resource Centers and renewable Energy (Solar) Facilities, both recognizable terms in today's economic and energy “crisis”, have now been included in the amended ULdC. Both uses have been defined, have been outlined for location criteria and have been outlined for specific development regulations for each use.

| “Code Changes” concludes on page 8 |

Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners adopts Code Changes

Amendments and their impact on the development process and regulations

Date action

February 2, 2010 Traffic Study Submittal Deadline

April 2, 2010Large Scale Amendment Application Submittal Deadline

June 2010 Land Planning Agency Public Hearing

July 2010Board of County Commission (BCC) Transmittal Hearing

October 2010 ORC Report received from DCA

Late November 2010 BCC Adoption Hearing

February 2011 Notice of Intent to Find in Compliance

Date action

September 2009 Martin County CPA Submittal Deadline

January 29, 2010 City of Port St . Lucie CPA Submittal Deadline

March 1, 2010September 1, 2010

St . Lucie County CPA Sub-mittal Deadlines

Date action10-c Round

December 12, 2009 Traffic Submittal Deadline

February 12, 2010 Application Submittal Deadline

May 2010 Land Planning Agency Hearing

10-d Round

March 7, 2010 Traffic Submittal Deadline:

May 7, 2010 Application Submittal Deadline

September 2010 Land Planning Agency Hearing

PBC Large Scale amendment Schedule (10-2 round)

PBC Small Scale amendment

Treasure Coast CPa Submittal Timelines

| “Workforce Housing” continued from page 5 |

www .landdesignsouth .com

4. For sale units under this option are required to remain income restricted for a period of fifteen (15) years, recurring .

5. rental units under this option are required to remain income restricted for a period of thirty (30) years, non-recurring.

Table B shows an example of a project utilizing the Full Incentive Option

In this scenario, all of the required WHP units must be evenly distributed between each target income category (with 25% of the units being allocated to each target income category).

release of Obligation to Construct For Sale WHP Units This program is applicable to Limited Incentive and Full Incentive projects.

If an eligible WHP unit has been available for at least 180 days, and a contract has not been executed, or, if the unit is located within a development pod/phase in which at least

| “Workforce Housing” concludes on page 8 |

7

Dates to remember

Density Bonus required WHP Unit Limitations

Standard Density – 200 dwelling units (based on 2 du/ac)

Standard Density – 200 dwelling units x 5% = 15 dwelling units

PUD Density – 100 dwelling units (based on 1 du/ac PUD density)

PUD Density – 100 dwelling units x 16% = 16 dwelling units

WFH Density Bonus Units – 90 units (based upon the 30% allowed under the LR-3 land use)

WFH Density Bonus Units – 90 units x 34% = 31 dwelling units

Total number of Units – 390 dwelling units

Total number of Work-force Housing Units = 21 dwelling units

[Table B]

Example of a project utilizing the Full Incentive Option .

80% of the market-rate units have binding contracts, then the WHP unit is eligible to be released. In order to be eligible for a release of obligation, both requirements must be met. For example, if a WHP unit has been on the market for over 180 days and is not under contract, it must also be located within a development pod/phase in which at least 80% of the market rate units are under contract in order to be eligible for a release of obligation.

If a WHP unit meets the above mentioned requirements, then an In-Lieu of cash payment can be utilized to release the unit. The guidelines for release are as follows:

1. If the price differential between the required WHP unit and the contract price for the market rate unit is less than or equal to $20,000, the In-Lieu cash payment is $10,000 .

2. If the price differential between the required WHP unit and the contract price for the market rate unit is greater than $20,000 and less than $81,250, the In-Lieu cash payment is 50% of the difference.

3. If the price differential between the required WHP unit and the contract price for the market rate unit is greater than or equal to $81,250, the In-Lieu cash payment is $40,750 .

Other requirements The amended WHP language also includes changes to multi-family development projects. Under this new provision for WHP units, all multi-family developments must comply with the Non-residential design Elements and multi-Family design Elements. In addition, the Applicant is also now required to submit building footprints and elevations with the Application at the time of initial submittal.

The revised Workforce Housing Program is scheduled to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for a First reading on January 7, 2010 and for a Second reading and Adoption on January 28, 2010. If adopted, the effective date is set for February 1, 2010. Land design South has and continues to closely monitor the changes in the Workforce Housing Program. If you would like to discuss how this could potentially impact your projects, or would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Jennifer Morton at 561-537-4503 .

PBC Workforce Housing Program added to ULDC Following closely to the existing regulations in place for the PBC’s Workforce Housing Program (WHP) as a guideline, in order to target housing falling at or below the 60% Average median Income (AmI) levels set in the WHP program, the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) regulations were added to the ULdC and adopted by the BCC. The major difference in the newly adopted language for the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) is the fact that it is a voluntary program wherein the existing Workforce Housing Program is a mandatory program. The AHP regulations were written in conjunction with staff and industry professionals experienced with the AHP regulations and financing programs regulated by the State of Florida. The proposed AHP regulations were sensitive to location criteria, and the regulations were patterned after the State’s required elements for AHP qualifying projects.

revised ULDC Sections Still Being Finalized All new ULdC amendments were implemented immediately upon adoption by the BCC; however, the actual revised ULdC sections are still being finalized before release to the general public. For a complete list of the outlined code amendments and (eventually) all the proposed new ULdC regulations, please visit the Palm Beach County Zoning division’s web site at www.co.palm-beach.fl.us/pzb/Zoning/

| “Code Changes” continued from page 6 |

| “Workforce Housing” from on page 7 |

Transfer of Development rights (TDr) Zoning in Progress by Jennifer Vail, Director

The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) declared Zoning in Progress at a public hearing on September 29, 2009.

Zoning in Progress is being implemented in order to support a moratorium that the BCC intends to adopt. Transfer of development rights and the prices charged for them are discretionary. In order for the BCC to evaluate the program and costs of Tdr’s and implement amended regulations and costs, notice was given that no applications for Tdr’s will be accepted until the evaluation and implementation of amended regulations and/or costs occurs. If you have questions regarding how this will impact your project e-mail Jennifer vail or reach her at 561-478-8501.