Findings Of Fact Respondent has three signs on SR 60 located (1) 20.2 miles west of Osceola County line, (2) 5.27 miles east of US 27 and (3) 6.18 miles east of US 27, respectively. SR 60 is a federal-aid primary highway and the signs were inspected by Petitioner's agent on April 6, 1978. The inspection revealed that permits had been issued for none of these signs. Additionally, the sign first noted above is in an area not zoned commercial or industrial. With respect to the second sign above noted the exact location of the sign by legal description is needed to ascertain if the sign is located in an area zoned commercial. The third sign above noted, in addition to never having been permitted, is located in the right-of-way of SR 8() and is not in an area zoned commercial.
The Issue The issue to be considered in this matter is whether Petitioner meets the requisite qualifications for certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE).
Findings Of Fact Otto A. Lawrenz, a Native American, is the sole owner of Petitioner, Mechanical Air Products (MAP), located in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner was certified from December 12, 1992, through December 12, 1993, as a minority business enterprise (MBE). Recertification for Petitioner as an MBE for the period December 12, 1993 through December 12, 1994, occurred without incident following application by Petitioner. Petitioner is a business which specializes in provision of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment to its customers. Following application in December, 1994, Respondent denied Petitioner's request for recertification as an MBE by letter dated January 6, 1995. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's recertification resulted from amendments to Respondent's definition of "[r]egular dealer" as set forth in Rule 60A-2.001(10), Florida Administrative Code, and Respondent's determination that Petitioner did not meet that definition. Petitioner does not own, operate or maintain a store, warehouse or other establishment. As stated by Otto A. Lawrenz in correspondence to Respondent and reaffirmed by him at the final hearing, Petitioner is: manufacturer representative type of business that buys directly from various suppliers and factories I [Lawrenz] repre- sent. The products are purchased from this company and shipped direct to customers ship to address. I [Lawrenz] do not stock these products for inventory. Petitioner is presently provided some storage space free of charge by another, unaffiliated business, for storage of some products.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying the application for certification as an MBE. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 14th day of August, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Petitioner's post-hearing submittal consisted of documentation, not provided at the final hearing, dealing with Petitioner's heritage, and his arguments of the law relative to this case. Consequently, those matters are addressed as not relevant and argumentative for purposes of this proceeding. Petitioner may attack the rules applied to his case in a separate rule challenge proceeding. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-4. Accepted, but not verbatim. COPIES FURNISHED: Otto A. Lawrenz Mechanical Air Products P O Box 17746 Jacksonville, FL 32245 Joseph L. Shields, Esq. Commission On Minority Economic And Business Development 107 W Gaines St., 201 Collins Bldg. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2005 Crandall Jones Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development 107 W. Gaines St., 201 Collins Bldg. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2005
Findings Of Fact On or about August 5, 1980, the Department issued permits numbered AB991-10, AB992-10 and AB993-10 to the Respondent, Food `N' Fun, Inc., authorizing the erection of a stacked back-to-back sign on the south side of I- 10, .8 mile east of U.S. 231 in Jackson County, Florida. Permit number AE481-10 was issued on or about May 21, 1981, for the fourth face of this sign. Prior to the issuance of these permits the site was field inspected and approved by Department personnel. Subsequently, the site was inspected by the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator who determined that the permits had been issued in error because there was no visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the sign. In October of 1984, the Department issued Notices of Violation advising the Respondent that the subject permits were being revoked because the sign was not erected in a zoned or unzoned commercial area. The Respondent's representative who submitted the permit applications designated on these applications that the sign location was in an unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. This representative also certified on the applications that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Prior to conducting his field inspection, the Department's inspector had been informed that a commercial activity (Southern Dairy Supply Company) was being conducted in a building within 800 feet of the sign location. When he made his inspection he found that the building where Southern Dairy Supply Company was located was a metal building situated behind a house in an agricultural area. However, there was nothing visible from I-10 to tell him that a business was located there. The inspector's supervisor also visited the site of the proposed sign. He saw a building that was similar to other farm buildings at this location, but there was nothing that could be seen from the interstate to indicate to traffic that there was any commercial activity being conducted in the area. Since 1981, Southern Dairy Supply Company has relocated, and is no longer in business there. The area where the subject sign is located is agricultural and rural in nature. No other commercial activity was located in the area. Although the metal building in which the dairy supply business was being conducted could be seen from the interstate, as viewed from the main-traveled way of I-10, there was nothing to indicate that any commercial activity was being conducted at this location.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit numbers AB991-10, AB992-10, AB993- 10, and AE481-10 held by the Respondent, Food `N' Fun, Inc., authorizing a stacked, back-to-back, sign located on the south side of I-10, .8 mile east of U.S. 231 in Jackson County, Florida, be revoked, and the subject sign removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 9th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Two signs are located 0.8 mile west of State Road, 79 on Interstate 10, and 0.8 mile east of State Road 79 on Interstate 10. Both signs do not have permits attached to them. Both signs bear messages which are visible from the traveled way of Interstate 10. Neither sign is located within an incorporated municipality or town. Both signs advertise in part Simbo's Restaurant. Mr. Jim Williams, Outdoor Advertising Inspector for the Department of Transportation, testified that he had spoken with Mr. Simms on June 28, 1978. Williams stated that he asked Simms if Simms would remove the signs; however, Williams did not identify the signs to which he was referring. According to Williams, when Simms was asked if he would take the signs down, Simms stated he would leave them up and go to court. There was no substantial and competent evidence introduced that Simms was referring to the signs in question in this case. Both signs were measured by Charles Averitt, a surveyor with the Department of Transportation, and the sign 0.8 mile west of State Road 79 on Interstate 10 was determined to be 16 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of Interstate 10. The sign 0.8 mile east of State Road 79 on Interstate 10 was determined to be 16.5 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of Interstate 10. Gene Simms testified that he was the owner and operator of Simbo's Truck Stop and Restaurant. Simms testified the signs in question were the property of Simms' Enterprises, Inc., and had been at all times pertaining to this complaint. Simms stated that he owned 50 percent of the stock in Simms Enterprises, Inc., and the remainder was owned by his brother, Jimmy Simms. The notice of violation in this cause names Gene Simms as the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation take no action regarding the subject DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip S. Bennet, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Richard C. Hurst, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Gene Simms Simbo's Auto-Truck Stop and Restaurant Route 1, Box 186 Bonifay, Florida 32425
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jack M. Wainwright was issued permit numbers AF091-10 and AF092-10 on August 20, 1981. Permit numbers AF241-10 and AF242-10 were issued on September 15, 1981. These permits authorized the erection of two stacked back-to-back signs at a location approximately 1.6 miles west of SR 267 in Gadsden County, Florida. This location is in an unzoned area and the permits were granted because of their proximity to a nearby commercial activity known as Imperial Nurseries. The area in question is rural in nature and generally suitable for agricultural activities. Therefore, prior to the Department's issuance of the subject permits, one of its inspectors whose duty is to observe a proposed sign site and determine if it is as represented in the application and if it meets the requirements of the statutes and rules, field inspected the proposed site of these signs. Based on this inspection he recommended the issuance of the permits upon his determination that this area was unzoned commercial, that the sign site was within 800 feet of a commercial activity known as Imperial Nurseries, and that this commercial activity was within 660 feet of the right of way of I-10, and visible from the main-traveled way of I-10. There is sufficient credible evidence in the record of this proceeding to support a finding of fact that the subject area was as the field inspector found it to be, and from this evidence it is so found. The field inspector's recommendation to approve the site as a permittable location was joined in by his supervisor after the supervisor had conferred with the Department's central office relative to whether Imperial Nurseries qualified as a commercial activity. The site where the Respondent proposed to erect his signs was within 800 feet of the various locations on the Imperial Nurseries property where its loading, unloading, or other activities of its employees took place. This is the testimony of the field inspector, his supervisor and the operator of Imperial Nurseries. The business being conducted by Imperial Nurseries in 1981 was the growing of nursery stock for wholesale distribution in Northern markets. This nursery stock was grown in pots on top of the ground, and shipped by truck. There were 130 employees engaged in the various activities conducted over the entire nursery property. The business was very labor intensive, and trucks bringing in supplies and taking out loads numbered approximately 400 per year. There was much moving around. Each container had to be handled, cuttings taken and placed in the pots, and these cuttings might be repotted into larger containers, and each had to be placed at the growing locations. When mature, these plants were all loaded onto trucks and shipped out. The Department's approval of this location as an unzoned commercial area was based upon the labor intensity of the activities being conducted at Imperial Nurseries. The assertion of the Respondent on his sign permit applications that the proposed location was within 800 feet of a business was not false or misleading. The Department's inspectors and his superiors concurred with this characterization of the area. Neither has the Respondent violated any of the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. All of the facts were set forth on his permit applications, and these facts were verified by the Department after the area was inspected to determine their accuracy. The policy of the Department leaves the determination of what is and what is not an unzoned commercial area to the field inspector, with the approval of his supervisors. In this case, the determination was made that the activities of Imperial Nurseries were commercial in nature, and the permits were granted on the basis of this determination, not on the representation of the Respondent. In 1984, after a change had occurred in the Department's interpretation of the statutes and rules relative to what is and what is not a commercial activity, and after the Department had adopted a more strict interpretation of the applicable statutes and rules, it initiated these proceedings to revoke the Respondent's permits as having been issued in error. The activities of Imperial Nurseries have not changed substantially since 1981. However, the Department's interpretation of the applicable statutes and rules has changed. The Department has adopted a stricter, more conservative interpretation of these statutes since 1981, and it seeks to re- evaluate the Respondent's permits based on its newly-adopted interpretation, and to apply this strict construction to the Respondent's permits ex post facto. In August of 1984, the Respondents entered into a new three-year lease for the site where his signs stand under which he is obligated to pay the lessor $1,000 each year. At this time the Respondent also renovated the subject signs at the cost of $12,000.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department's violation notices seeking removal of the Respondent's signs on the north side of I-10, approximately 1.6 miles west of S.R. 267 in Gadsden County, Florida be dismissed; and that permit numbers AF091- 10, AF241-10, AF092-10, and AF242-10 remain in effect as permits for nonconforming signs. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 4th day of June, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 W. Kirk Brown, Esquire P.O. Box 4075 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4075 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Plan Amendments 07-L08 and 07-L39, adopted by Marion County Ordinance 07-31, are "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Intervenors are the owners and developers of 359.30 acres of land south of Ocala in Marion County north of County Road (CR) 484, between Interstate Highway 75 (I-75) and the City of Belleview (the Golden Oaks site). They also own land in Marion County in the Ocala Ranchettes subdivision, which is in the extreme northeast corner of Marion County. On November 20, 2007, the Marion County Board of County Commissioners adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendments 07-L08 and 07-L39. Plan Amendment 07-L08 changes the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for the Golden Oaks site from Rural Land to Medium Density Residential, which has an open space requirement of at least 350 square feet per residential unit. Plan Amendment 07-L39 is a text amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) limiting development on the Golden Oaks site to a maximum of 523 single-family residential units. Mr. and Mrs. Babcock own land and reside in Marion County near the 359.30 acres subject to the FLUM change. No evidence was presented during the hearing as to whether the other Petitioners own land or reside in Marion County. However, Respondents and Intervenors stipulated in their Joint PRO that all Petitioners are "affected," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioners and Intervenors submitted oral or written comments on the Plan Amendments between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the Plan Amendments. Petitioners contend that, as a result of the Plan Amendments, the Marion County Comprehensive Plan fails to discourage urban sprawl, as required by Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)8. 6. Rule 9J-5.003(134) states: "Urban sprawl" means urban development or uses which are located in predominantly rural areas, or rural areas interspersed with generally low-intensity or low-density urban uses, and which are characterized by one or more of the following conditions: (a) The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; (b) The creation of areas of urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses which predominate the adjacent area; or (c) The creation of areas of urban development or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities or the use of areas within which public services are currently provided. Urban sprawl is typically manifested in one or more of the following land use or development patterns: Leapfrog or scattered development; ribbon or strip commercial or other development; or large expanses of predominantly low- intensity, low-density, or single-use development. Whether a comprehensive plan or plan amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl is determined by Rule 9J-5.006(5), which includes a complicated method for evaluating 13 primary indicators of urban sprawl. The first primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low- intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need." The Plan Amendments are not "in excess of demonstrated need" when considered on a county-wide basis because Intervenors and the County entered into a binding Developer's Agreement not to develop 475 lots in the Ocala Ranchettes subdivision (leaving just five vested lots in the subdivision).3 However, the 523 maximum allowable residential units under the Plan Amendments exceed demonstrated need in the County's Planning District 14, where Golden Oaks is located.4 The second primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." Golden Oaks is in an area that is in transition. It is approximately three miles east of I-75 and approximately three miles southwest of Belleview (approximately four road miles along CR 484). It is approximately a half-mile west of the western edge of the Urban Reserve area that extends southwest from Belleview. Much of the land surrounding Golden Oaks is rural in character. The Golden Oaks site has a flag-like shape. It is narrow where it fronts on the north side of CR 484 (the "flagpole") and widens at a distance to the north of CR 484 (the "flag"). Much frontage along CR 484 is now in commercial/business use (including frontage immediately east of the "flagpole" of the Golden Oaks site and south of the "flag" part of Golden Oaks) or designated for future commercial or mixed use (including the Goolsby mixed-use development and a rural activity center, which are on CR 484 approximately two miles east and west of Golden Oaks, respectively). Several tracts in the CR 484 corridor between I-75 and Belleview are developed with residential densities as high as or higher than the densities designated for Golden Oaks by the Plan Amendments. One of these is a sprawling, non-conforming, but vested subdivision approximately a half-mile east of Golden Oaks called Belleview Heights. CR 484 is being four-laned between I-75 and the City of Belleview. Additional sewer and water capacity is being placed in the CR 484 corridor, which is transitioning into a more urban area. A new county library is being built along CR 484 approximately two miles east of Golden Oaks in the Goolsby mixed- use development. The evidence was that there is some land closer to existing urban areas than Golden Oaks that is available and suitable for development, but it was not clear from the evidence how much. There also are areas of urban infill that could be developed or redeveloped, but it was not clear from the evidence how much is available or if any would be suitable for large-scale development. The third primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments." The Plan Amendments are part of an emerging pattern of development in the CR 484 corridor. The fourth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems." Much of Golden Oaks was part of the larger Belleview Forest that has been clear-cut. There are at least two hydrated air-filled caves on the Golden Oaks site--the Belleview Formation Cave and the Loquat Cave. It has not been conclusively determined that there are no other similar caves on the site. The two known caves are worthy of preservation for scientific and other reasons. If preserved, they would have to be buffered from development by setbacks, and surface water would have to be managed to prevent contaminants from entering the caves, which likely are connected to the underlying aquifer. Care would have to be taken to strike a balance so that surface water management activities both protect water quality and do not lower the water table enough to de- hydrate the caves. The evidence was that these objectives can be accomplished under the Marion County Comprehensive Plan, which requires springs protection. The Ocala Ranchettes subdivision is in an environmentally sensitive area of wet prairie. The environmental benefits of the Developer's Agreement offset any environmental detriment from the Plan Amendments. The fifth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Fails adequately to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils." With the 523-unit maximum, it should be possible to develop Golden Oaks and adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas (mainly, horse farms and pastures) through buffers and limited road access to CR 484 (versus access through the rural areas to the immediate west, north, and east). One concern of Petitioners is the eventual conversion of more rural land to urban uses, which would be the subject of future land use decisions. The sixth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services." The seventh is the same but for future public facilities and services. The eighth primary indicator is similar--a plan or plan amendment that: "Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government." Golden Oaks is several miles from most public facilities and services. However, closer public facilities and services are planned or being built (for example, the four-laning of CR 484, sewer force mains and lines, water lines, and schools). Because the Plan Amendments limit density at Golden Oaks, they do not maximize the use of public facilities and services. Excess capacity is planned and being added for future development in the CR 484 corridor in addition to Golden Oaks. The ninth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses." Since the CR 484 corridor is in transition, urban uses are being introduced into what was a rural area. During the transition, there is not going to be a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The tenth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities." Because they allow development that is not infill or redevelopment, the Plan Amendments discourage or inhibit infill or redevelopment to a limited extent. The eleventh primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses." The Plan Amendments themselves provide for residential use only. It was not proven that they will fail to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Limiting access to Golden Oaks to CR 484 (versus access through the rural areas to the immediate west, north, and east) or through the existing commercial areas fronting CR 484 to the immediate south of Golden Oaks (east of the "flagpole" and south of the "flag" part of the site) could help encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. The twelfth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses." Golden Oaks is several miles from most existing linked or related land uses. As development proceeds in the emerging pattern along the CR 484 corridor, more linked or related land uses will be closer. The thirteenth primary indicator is a plan or plan amendment that: "Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space." To the extent that the Plan Amendments result in a loss of functional open space, the loss is countered by the Developer's Agreement on the Ocala Ranchettes subdivision. Considering the extent, amount and frequency of the indicators of urban sprawl, and the presence and potential effects of multiple indicators, it is fairly debatable whether the indicators of urban sprawl collectively reflect a failure of the Plan Amendments, and the Marion County Comprehensive Plan as a whole, to discourage urban sprawl. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d) and (h).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 10, 1977, the Department issued permit number 2740-12 to the Respondent, Lamar Advertising Company, authorizing the erection of a sign on the east side of I-110, .4 mile north of SR 296 in Escambia County, Florida. On or about August 7, 1978, this permit was reported lost and the Department issued a replacement tag numbered AN498-35. The latter permit is the subject of this proceeding. Prior to the issuance of the original permit in 1977, the site was field inspected and approved by Department personnel. The Respondent's representative who submitted the permit application designated on this application that the sign location was in an unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. This representative also certified on the application that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The only commercial or industrial activity that was located within 600 feet of the right-of-way of I-110, and within 800 feet of the site where the Respondent's sign was to be erected, was a brick building which had been constructed in 1977 by Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising. This building contains 800 to 1,000 square feet, and it was used as a sketch office by Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising. One employee works inside doing art work, and three salesmen use the office to make telephone calls and pick up messages. The Salter building has been constructed without windows on the back side, which is the side facing the interstate. This building is not directly on the interstate, but is located on a street back off I-110 in an unzoned area containing houses and trailer homes. This area is residential in nature, and the Salter building is the only business in the immediate vicinity. The landscape along I-110 where the subject sign is located slopes upward from the interstate to where the Salter building stands, and the area between the interstate and the Salter building is covered with foliage. In the summer months the area between I-110 and the site of the Salter building is almost completely obscured by this foliage, but during the winter when the foliage has thinned a portion of the rear of the Salter building can be seen from the interstate. There is an area in front of and on the sides of the Salter building, away from the interstate, where cars can be parked. Salesmen, workmen and customers come and go daily, using these areas for parking. However, due to the slope of the ground between the Salter building and I-110, the interstate is at such a downward angle from the building that none of these activities can be seen from I-110. There is no sign on or around the Salter building to indicate that it contains a business, and there is nothing else about either the building or the area to identify the one as a business structure or the other as a commercial area. In summary, the Bill Salter building houses a business which is located with 660 feet of the interstate, and the subject sign is within 800 feet of this business, but there are no business activities that can be seen from the main- traveled way of I-110. This location is essentially the same now as it was in 1977 when the permit was issued. In October of 1984, the site was inspected by the Department's Right- of-Way Administrator who determined that the permit had been issued in error because there was no visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the sign. In November of 1984, the Department issued a Notice of Violation advising the Respondent that the subject permit was being revoked because the sign had not been erected in a zoned or unzoned commercial area.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit number AN 498-35 held by the Respondent, Lamar Advertising Company, authorizing a sign located on the east side of I-110, .4 mile north of SR 296 in Escambia County, Florida, be revoked, and the subject sign removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 14th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Robert P. Gaines, Esquire P. O. Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The Administrative Complaint in this cause charges that the subject sign violates Sections 479.071 and 479.021(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.09, Section 3, Florida Administrative Code, which is the same as Rule 14- 10.06(b)(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code supra. The Respondent admits ownership of the-outdoor advertising structure and that it does not bear a tag as required by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes; however, the Respondent asserts that the sign in question qualifies as an exception and is entitled to a tag pursuant to the provisions of Section 479.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner asserts that the sign does not qualify for a tag and stipulates that had the Respondent applied for a tag that said application would have been denied. The Respondent also contends that the sign is exempt from operation of the outdoor advertising law in all respects pursuant to the provisions of Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes. Based upon the foregoing, the following issues of fact are raised: Is the subject sign an on premises sign for purposes of the exemption stated in Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes, and Is the sign located in an unzoned commercial or industrial area as defined by Section 479.111(2) and Rule 14- 10.06(b)(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, and Does the subject sign meet the spacing requirements set forth in Rule 14-10.06(b)(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the facts as found in paragraphs 1 through 9 below. The subject advertising structure is an advertising sign as defined by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code. The subject sign is located in Jackson County, Florida. The subject sign is not within the corporate city limits of any city or town. The subject sign is within 660 feet of Interstate 10. The subject sign is owned by the Respondent, Fuqua & Davis, Inc., a Florida corporation. The subject sign does not have a permit as required by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, Department of Transportation, would not issue a permit as required by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, for the subject sign. There is no zoning in Jackson County, Florida. Interstate 10 is an interstate highway as defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code, and said interstate highway was open for vehicular traffic at the time sign was erected. The subject sign can be seen from the main traveled way of I-10. The subject sign is located at the interchange of State Road 69 and Interstate 10. In this location, there are several commercial enterprises. These businesses include Fuqua Shell Station, Golden Lariat Western Wear Shop and Branch's Phillips 66 Station. The sign is located on a farm within the interchange. The area surrounding the interchange of State Road 69 and Interstate 10 in which the sign is located is an unzoned commercial area. This finding is based upon the testimony of a real estate appraiser together with the businesses mentioned in paragraph 11 above, which are located in this area. The highest and best use for property adjoining an interstate interchange is commercial and its evaluation to fully commercial usage begins from the time an interstate is built. The location of the subject sign is identified on Petitioner's Exhibit 1 to Cases #81-181T and 80-796T an aerial photograph. The subject sign is located adjacent to an interchange on an interstate highway. It is not located on the premises of the business advertised. A diesel pump is located within 30 feet of the sign; however, the pump and sign are over 500 feet away from and on the opposite side of SR 69 for the advertised business on non-contiguous property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Final Order of the Department be issued requiring removal of the sign within thirty (30) days by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of December, 1984 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg., MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James J. Richardson, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Paul Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1984. =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner proposes to erect outdoor advertising signs along the south side of I-10, 0.2 miles and 0.4 miles, respectively, east of U.S. 41. The Petitioner has acquired a lease on the sites proposed for these signs. The sites in issue are in Columbia County and Columbia County is unzoned. These sites are outside any incorporated town or city and the area is rural in nature. A radio transmitting or relay tower is located between the proposed sites and a small concrete block building is located near the base of the tower. These are the only structures in the area. Each of the two sites for which a permit is sought is within 800 feet of this small building. The building is unoccupied and is reported to contain materials used in the maintenance of the tower. The tower is owned by B & B Communications located in Lake City, Florida. Opinion testimony was offered by Petitioner that the highest and best use of small tracts of this land would be for outdoor advertising signs. Exhibit 10, Building and Zoning Code for the City of Jacksonville, Florida, which is coterminous with Duval County, establishes a category of Open Rural Districts (OR) in which permissible uses by exception include radio or television transmitters, antenna and line-of-site relay devices. The zoning code for Tallahassee shows one of the principal uses for land zoned A-1 Agricultural District is for "(8) Broadcasting towers, radio and television transmission stations and studios." There are six or seven signs located in the general area along the I-10 between U.S. 41 and U.S. 441, most on the north side of I-10. Those permitted signs were "grandfathered in" and no permit has been issued for any sign erected in this area since 1979.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plans and plan amendments pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, also known as The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Act). Petitioner Loren E. Hamm and Petitioners Dorothy K. Bicket as Trustee for the Dorothy K. Bicket Trust, M.M. Bicket as Trustee for the M.M. Bicket Trust, and John Hiram Bicket as Trustee for the M.M. and Dorothy K. Bicket Trust, all own properties within the boundaries of the County that were affected by the remedial plan amendments. Petitioner Hamm submitted oral objections concerning the plan amendment during the review and adoption proceedings. Petitioners Bicket did not submit oral or written objections concerning the plan amendment during that process. All Petitioners have alleged inadequate notice of the remedial amendments and the consequential proposed land use changes. The County is a local government required to adopt a revised comprehensive plan pursuant to Sections 163.3164(12) and 163.3167, Florida Statutes. On June 7, 1989, the County adopted a local comprehensive plan with a year 2010 planning horizon. For purposes of this recommended order, the findings and conclusions discussed herein address specifically the property owned by Petitioner Loren E. Hamm. Background The County is located in rural central Florida. The County encompasses approximately 312,000 acres. The County is bounded on the north by Citrus County, on the east by Sumter County, on the south by Pasco County, and on the west by the Gulf of Mexico. The county seat is the City of Brooksville. There are two arterial roadways at the heart of the issue in this proceeding. They are U.S. 19, a 4-lane divided highway running north and south in western Hernando County and S.R. 50 a state highway running east and west in central southern Hernando County. S.R. 50 features existing strip commercial development. Petitioner Hamm owns approximately 431 acres of undeveloped land along S.R. 50 due west of the Oak Hill Hospital and due east of the intersection of S.R. 50 and U.S. 19 at the City of Weeki Wachee. Petitioner Hamm's property is a vacant parcel of sandy soil, partially vegetated by pine trees and scrub oaks and dotted by small lakes or "sink holes". Mr. Hamm has a forest green belt tax exemption on his property. According to the 1989 Hernando County Comprehensive Plan, the land use classification for Mr. Hamm's parcel was a combination of residential, commercial and light industrial. Pursuant to the remedial amendments, Mr. Hamm's property was designated on the FLUM as a combination of residential and commercial use with a designated commercial node overlapping Mr. Hamm's property. At the hearing, Mr. Hamm was not aware of the acreage of his parcel which had been designated as a partial commercial node on the FLUM adopted on November 14, 1990, nor was he aware of the amount of commercial designation available for his property pursuant to the prior FLUM adopted June 7, 1989. Under the 1989 plan Mr. Hamm may have been eligible for a category of development called urban buildup which was a mix of urban land uses. At that time, he could have potentially developed 80 to 90 acres of the subject land as commercial development. Mr. Hamm could have developed his property under a commercial land use designation pursuant to the June, 1989, comprehensive plan; similarly, he can also develop a portion of his property for commercial use under the November, 1990 plan amendments, depending on the extent to which the commercial node designated on the FLUM falls on Mr. Hamm's property. Approximately 47 acres of the commercial node falls on Mr. Hamm's property and may be developed specifically as commercial land use. He may also develop office/professional uses in addition to the 47 acres of the general commercial, roughly an additional 50 acres. Utilization of the commercial node on Mr. Hamm's property may afford up to 90 acres available for commercial development under the November, 1990 comprehensive plan amendments, if development pursuant to the office/professional designation is included. Previously, Mr. Hamm was able to develop an area 1000 feet deep across the front of his property amounting to approximately 100 acres under the June, 1989 comprehensive plan. The Issue of Adequate Notice Hernando County undertook a fairly extensive citizen's participation program for development of its comprehensive plan and appointed five task forces to give citizen input on various aspects of the plan over a period of several years. Hundreds of meetings involving the task force were held, which meetings were open to the public and in which the public participated. The County duly noticed its public hearings to consider and adopt the remedial amendments by an advertisement published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the County and of general interest and readership in the community, not one of limited subject matter. The advertisement was a one quarter page ad in a standard size. The advertisement did not appear in the portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. The County advertised its notices of public hearings in the Brooksville Sun Journal, a local newspaper of general circulation in the County that it had used for such advertisements for a period of fifteen to seventeen years. The newspaper has since gone out of business. No affected person was provided individual notice of Plan workshops and hearings. The County advertised notice of the local planning agency meeting held May 10, 1990, the transmittal hearing by the Board of County Commissioners and the public adoption hearing of the Board of County Commissioners in the Brooksville Sun Journal. Notably, approximately 1200 notices of zoning hearings have been published in the Sun Journal. None of these notices have been previously determined to be inadequate. Mr. Hamm appeared at, participated in and addressed the Board of County Commissioners at the duly noticed public hearing held November 14, 1990. Representatives of Mr. Hamm were also present at the public hearing and were afforded the opportunity to address the Board of County Commissioners regarding the remedial amendments and Mr. Hamm's property in relation thereto. Representatives of Mr. Hamm present at the hearing included an attorney, a real estate appraiser and a land use consultant. At the public hearing of the Board of County Commissioners at which the remedial amendments were considered, no new, independent, or additional data and analysis regarding the land use classification from Mr. Hamm's property was presented for consideration. Land Use Compliance Issues The following four issues form the basis of Petitioners' claims that the Hernando County Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance: Failure to coordinate future land uses with available facilities and services thereby encouraging urban sprawl; Promotion of strip commercial development along State Highway System; The quantity and quality of data and analysis relative to roadway impacts expected from the strip commercial land along S.R. 50 near Oak Hill Hospital and methodology utilized by the County; and Quantity and quality of data analysis relative to the number and location of the commercial nodes near U.S. 19 and S.R. 50 as reflected in the commercial nodes maps and the methodology utilized by the County. The manner and extent to which Mr. Hamm can develop his property. In the FLUE, the Hernando County Comprehensive Plan contains the following goals, objectives and policies relative to the designation of commercial land use on the FLUM: 1/ POLICIES OBJECTIVE E: TO PROVIDE FOR MODERATE TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN SUITABLE AREAS. POLICY: 1 Establish a Residential Land Use Category where the land uses allowed are: Single family residential densities up to 5.4 units/acre, resort residential, and ancillary land uses such as recreation, churches, and community centers. Land uses which can be located in this category with performance standards being met include multi-family housing up to 12.5 units/acre, rural residential, neighborhood commercial, commercial extending from commercial nodes with a function frontage road, unless it is determined that wetlands or existing development make frontage road extension unfeasible, offices and professional, schools, hospital and minor public facilities. OBJECTIVE K: PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH QUALITY COMMERCIAL AREAS TO MEET THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED NEEDS OF HERNANDO COUNTY RESIDENTS WHILE ENSURING AN ORDERLY AND EFFICIENT PATTERN OF LAND USES AND PROTECTING THE COUNTY'S TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. POLICY 1: Establish a Commercial Land Use Category, in which land uses such as commercial, recreation, office and professional, minor public facilities, and minor institutional are allowed. Residential units may be allowed. POLICY 2: Prior to 1991, the County shall amend its Land Development Regulations to include specific criteria for neighborhood commercial, general commercial, community commercial, regional commercial, and any subcategories thereof, addressing permitted uses, bulk regulations, buffer requirements, performance standards, signage, aesthetics, parking requirements and special exceptions or other mechanisms to allow flexibility. POLICY 3: New commercial development shall be initiated within commercial nodes, as indicated on the adopted Future Land Use Map Series, except for Specialty Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and appropriate infill areas. POLICY 4: The Landscape Ordinance shall require the buffering of the negative visual impacts of commercial development through the use of landscaping, screening, regulation of signs, planting of trees and where feasible, the preservation of natural vegetation. POLICY 5: Where commercial development is proximate to residential uses, ordinances and land use approval conditions shall require that anticipated negative impacts shall be mitigated to the extent practicable by the commercial development, including noise, glare, dust, noxious fumes, odors, light, increased traffic, and visual discontinuity. POLICY 6: The Land Development Regulations shall be written to encourage planned development zoning along arterial roads or in multiple land use developments to ensure compatible land uses and maximize coordination of facilities and access. POLICY 7: The County shall establish standards to promote the integration of pedestrian traffic within and between commercial developments and adjacent residential areas. POLICY 8: To the extent feasible, higher intensity commercial uses will be buffered from residential areas by lower intensity commercial, office and professional, multi-family or other appropriate land uses. These "steps or intensity" will be criteria within land use approval process. POLICY 9: In areas where existing residential usage is expected to transition into commercial, the initial commercial land uses approved shall generally be of lower intensity. COMMERCIAL NODES OBJECTIVE L: HERNANDO COUNTY WILL MANAGE AND DIRECT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE DESIGNATION OF COMMERCIAL NODES. POLICY 1: Commercial development shall be managed through a classification into categories of commercial node, established primarily by locational factors POLICY 2: Land Use Regulations shall be adopted which further describe land uses allowed in each commercial node classification, and shall include any sub-sets of zoning districts, performance standards, exceptions or other regulations reasonably required to manage commercial development activity. POLICY 3: Commercial nodes shall be classified as neighborhood commercial, community commercial, general commercial, and regional commercial, with the following minimum locational criteria: Neighborhood Commercial Nodes May be located in the Residential or Rural Future Land Use categories, but because of size will not require mapping on the Future Land Use Map Series; Will have a maximum node size of 5 acres; Will not be located in Conservation areas or environmentally sensitive areas; Will be located on collector or arterial roads except where proposed as part of an integrated, mixed-use planned unit development; Will not degrade the proper functioning of the adjacent roads below the established levels of service; Will be proximate to population areas to support the proposed use; Will not compromise the integrity of residential areas. Community Commercial Nodes Will be located in areas designated on the Future Land Use Map Series as locations appropriate for nodal commercial development; Will be located proximate to the intersection of two roadways of a status of collector road or greater; Full median cuts will generally not be allowed any closer then 660 feet from the intersection to maintain the proper functioning of the intersection; Will be located on the fringe, not the interior, of the residential areas; May be exempt from the criteria of 1, 2, and 4, if proposed as part of or proximate to an integrated, mixed-use planned development project; Will not compromise the integrity of the residential areas; Will generally range from 40-60 acres in size. General Commercial Nodes Will be located in areas designated on the Future Land Use Map Series as appropriate for nodal development; Will be located proximate to the intersection of an arterial highway and a second road of at least collector status; Full median cuts will generally not be any closer than 1,320 feet on arterials and 660 feet on collectors for the intersection to maintain the proper functioning of the intersection; Will generally range from 50 to 100 acres in size; Will be located within three to five miles of population areas to support the size and intensity of the development proposed; Will be of a design which does not compromise the integrity of adjacent uses of close proximity; May be exempted from the criteria of 1 and 2, if proposed as part of or proximate to an integrated, mixed-use planned development project. Regional Commercial Nodes Will be located proximate to the intersection of two arterial roadways; Will have a minimum node size of 80 acres; Will be of a design which does not compromise the integrity of adjacent uses of close proximity; Full median cuts will generally not be any closer than 1,320 feet from the intersection to maintain the proper functioning of the intersection. POLICY 4: Development in commercial nodes shall provide for extension of the County's frontage road network on arterial roadways. POLICY 5: In order to encourage compact commercial development and maintain the viability of adjacent roadways, commercial development can only extend outward from commercial nodes where there is a frontage road connected to the commercial node, unless it is determined that wetlands or existing development make frontage road extension unfeasible. POLICY 6: Commercial development in nodes will be encouraged to utilize unified surface drainage plans, unified landscaping plans, and unified signage criteria. POLICY 7: Prior to the issuance of building permits within the commercial nodes on U.S. 19, north of S.R. 50, an access management plan will be developed. POLICY 8: Media cuts for commercial nodes on U.S. 19 north of S.R. 50 will be limited to one per quadrant unless it can be demonstrated to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) that additional cuts will result in an improved traffic flow. POLICY 9: The access management plan will provide for interconnection between the commercial activities and residential areas. STRIP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE N: LIMIT AND MANAGE STRIP COMMERCIAL AND INFILL COMMERCIAL AREAS SO AS TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND VISUAL QUALITY. POLICY 1: Strip Commercial will only be allowed along commercial corridors which have significant existing commercial development, remaining parcels are generally zoned commercial and commercial development is expected to continue. POLICY 2: Expansion of the existing strip commercial areas shall not be allowed except for appropriate infill commercial development. POLICY 3: The County shall not permit the creation of any new strip commercial areas during the planning period. POLICY 4: Infill commercial development can occur only within the strip commercial areas as described in Policy 1. POLICY 5: Where practicable, the County shall encourage the redevelopment of existing strip commercial areas through the designation of commercial nodes in locations consistent with the criteria as found in Objective L. POLICY 6: The County shall encourage the redevelopment of older strip commercial areas in locations consistent with the Future Land Use Map. POLICY 7: Regulations shall be prepared to address the special needs of these corridors such as, additional setbacks, buffers, landscaping requirements, access limitations, and frontage roads. * * * In its compliance review, the Department considered the amount of commercial land use along the State Highway System. The Department's analysis centered on the fact that the entire length of U.S. 19 and S.R. 50 had been designated as a commercial land use in the 1989 plan and would negatively impact the level of service on a State Highway System, a primary concern of the Department. Because of the relationship of the commercial and residential land uses along and in proximity to the State Highway System, the Department concluded that the commercial designations proposed on the June 1989 FLUM would have adverse impacts on the State Highway System particularly along U.S. 19, S.R. 50 and U.S. 98. The "ORC Report" dated September 21, 1990, identifies the Department's concerns for the commercial land use designations on the FLUM. The County responded to the Department's ORC Report and attempted to reduce the allocation of commercial in the County, particularly along U.S. 19, by reducing the amount of commercial nodes from the proposed land use map to the adopted land use map. The actual placement of the nodes on the adopted map was a local decision by the Board of County Commissioners. Strip vs. Node Commercial development The existing plan allows expansion and extension of commercial nodes. The residential land use category in the plan amendment allows for professional office use in the residential land use category. A commercial node is a center of commercial development generally located at major intersections. It is a concentrated interrelated commercial development pattern and should be designed to serve a much larger area than just the node itself. Commercial strip development involves a series of commercial developments strung along the highway system. It is basically a linear type of development activity that is frequently not well interrelated to other surrounding land uses. Planners will differ as to which is the preferable approach for commercial land use designation, a commercial node or a commercial strip. Strip commercial development is less compact, less interrelated, less coordinated. It can be more difficult to implement access control mechanisms and more difficult to implement steady control. The County selected the use of commercial nodes on U.S. 19 north of the City of Weeki Wachee to serve residential development shown on the Future Land Use Map. A number of the nodes correspond with historic developments that are in that area as well as several developments that were platted in the early 1970's. A couple of the nodes correspond with major intersections with U.S. 19. Predominately, either intersection criteria or existing historic development approvals were the criteria used to select the placement of the commercial nodes along U.S. 19. Appropriate methodologies were used in selecting the placement of the commercial nodes along U.S. 19. Commercial nodes were chosen by the County, as opposed to linear strip commercial land use designations in the vicinity of the intersection of S.R. 50 and U.S. 19 in order to reduce the amount of commercial development, specifically strip commercial development. The County elected to let existing strip commercial development remain as strip commercial, with opportunities for infill, and in other areas the County used nodes for its commercial development activities, since nodes give a more compact development pattern. Strip commercial can result in "bad" commercial areas. These commercial areas have numerous access points onto a road and inhibit the flow of traffic, possibly resulting in increased accidents and reduced transportation time from one point to another. Strip commercial development in these instances is not planned and is not appropriately related to the roadway facility. Strip commercial development is also a contributor to urban sprawl. The use of the commercial nodes along S.R. 50 and U.S. 19, as reflected in the 1990 Plan Amendment, help to reduce concerns regarding promotion of urban sprawl. The half node of commercial designated in the area of Mr. Hamm's property can be developed in a manner that is functionally related to the Oak Hill Hospital which is nearby. No new or independent data and analysis was offered at the hearing to support a designation of commercial land uses along S.R. 50 or U.S. 19 preferable to that designated by the County in its comprehensive plan amendments, nor was any such data and analysis provided to show that the County's commercial land use designation in this area is not in compliance or otherwise unsupported. Nodal commercial development is generally a good concept, provided the location of those nodes make planning sense versus the use of infill development of strip commercial areas. In that regard, a distance of 2.3 miles (approximate distance from the northerly end of the strip commercial designation on U.S. 19 and the westerly edge of the strip commercial designation along S.R. 50) is a significant difference or gap such that extension of strip commercial development should not be classified as infill development. The total amount of commercial land use in the County (consisting of strip commercial, the opportunity for infill plus the assignment of commercial nodes) meets the needs for commercial land use for the projected population of the County within the planning time frame. Infill An important consideration in the location of strip commercial development for determining whether a FLUM complies with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, is whether the commercial development as designated is existing commercial development and whether there are opportunities for infill. The FLUM adopted by the County allows infill of existing strip commercial development along S.R. 50 between C.R. 491 and U.S. 19 and along S.R. 50 south of the City of Weeki Wachee. The opportunity for infill of the existing strip commercial area along S.R. 50 in the vicinity of Oak Hill Hospital is significant. The area of existing strip commercial development to the east of Oak Hill Hospital along S.R. 50 offers anywhere from 50 to 80 percent commercial infill development. Vesting/Nodes Along U.S. 19 The County anticipates that the U.S. 19 corridor will continue to develop as it has to the south through the planning horizon of year 2010. There are a number of projects anticipated in the north U.S. 19 area and the County's analysis of population growth indicates that there will be growth in that area. Additionally, there are commitments to infrastructure and a subregional sewer plant site shown in the area. The estimated 2010 population for the area north along U.S. 19 is approximately 40,000. The placement of the nodes along U.S. 19 was based upon at least one of the following four criteria: construction had commenced and is continuing in good faith; projects were DRI vested under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes; common law vesting; or locational criteria as prescribed in the Hernando County Plan Amendments. It is good planning practice for planners to evaluate vested rights along U.S. 19 in determining the placement of commercial nodes. It is an appropriate planning practice to locate commercial nodes where there exist platted subdivisions. It is a legitimate planning device for a county to direct future development to existing platted subdivisions as opposed to creating new platted subdivisions. The historical development and vested status of the properties were considered by the County in the placement of nodes along U.S. 19. The County recognized certain binding letters as part of the information it used in compiling and adopting the comprehensive plan amendments and the placement of commercial nodes along U.S. 19. Planned infrastructure and public services are available within the 2010 horizon to support the commercial nodes placed along U.S. 19, including the four laning of U.S. 19 arterial, two subregional sewer plants, and waterlines proposed along U.S. 19 to serve development activities. Protecting the Integrity of the State Highway System Section 187.201(20), Florida Statutes sets forth the transportation goal of the State Comprehensive Plan and requires that: Florida shall direct future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway or mass transit and other transportation modes. Applicable policies of that goal are set forth in Section 187.201(20)(b), Florida Statutes, and read as follows: Policy 2. To coordinate transportation investments in major travel corridors to enhance system efficiency and minimize adverse environmental impacts. Policy 3. To promote the comprehensive transportation planning process which coordinates state, regional, ad local transportation plans. Policy 9. To ensure that the transportation system provides Florida citizens and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions. Policy 13. Coordinate transportation improvements of the state, local, and regional plans. The main purpose of the state highway system is mobility: the timely and safe transportation of people and goods over the roads in an efficient and cost effective manner. Strip commercial adversely affects the operation of the mobility factor on the state highway system. Rule Chapters 14-96 and 14-97, Florida Administrative Code, adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation, regulate the spacing of access points, driveways, and median cuts in order to assist the mobility of people and goods on the state highway system. Development in a linear or strip commercial fashion is counter productive to that effort and is not as efficient or cost effective as the use of commercial nodes along the state highway system. The integrity of the state highway system can be protected through local government comprehensive plans which limit strip commercial development. Linear strip commercial development causes more trips on the highway system and at some point requires roadway widening and increased traffic signalization. Commercial node development allows better system control and management. The over-commercialization of land uses along the state highway system has the potential to adversely or negatively impact the level of services provided by state roads. Alternatively, commercial nodes have less of a adverse impact because the node concept concentrates commercial development in an area where planning controls can be used to mitigate adverse impacts through methods such as limited curb cuts or frontage roads. Generally, effective access management programs help to limit strip sprawl development patterns, maintain the through-carrying capacity of arterial roadways, and enhance the preservation of rural scenic values as development occurs. Curb cuts and access points can be minimized by requiring development to utilize parallel access roads, share existing or new access points, and construct local road networks that provide alternatives to the use of arterial roads. It is essential when employing this technique that the plan and implementing land development regulations require new subdivisions, planned unit developments, and like development to cluster commercial development sites in nodes and to connect their internal roadways to existing local networks so that a grid of alternative travel routes eventually results. Adequate Data and Analysis The data and analysis to support the plan amendments include the following: The Hernando County Future Land Use Map designates segments of U.S. 19 and S.R. 50 for continued commercial strip development. These two sections are located between the Pasco/Hernando County Line and the southern boundary of Weeki Wachee along U.S. 19, and between Oak Hill Hospital Drive and the southern extension of C.R. 491 along S.R. 50. The 2010 network and socio-economic data residing in the Hernando County FSUTMS Transportation Model was utilized to analyze future conditions. The commercial service and total data (the ZDATA2 file) was modified to reflect commercial build-out conditions along U.S. 19 and S.R. 50. The commercial and service data in the Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's) along the two corridors were factored up to appropriately represent a 100% build- out scenario. The June 1990 Compliance Agreement between Hernando County and the Department sets forth a level of service (LOS) standard "C" for non backlogged facilities. It is assumed that S.R. 50 and U.S. 19 will not be in a backlogged condition at the end of the planning period. Only two links are projected to exceed LOS "C" urban, one on U.S. 19 just south of the City of Weeki Wachee, and one link of S.R. 50 between the future North South (Suncoast) Corridor and Wiscon Road. In these cases LOS "C" was exceeded by 208 and 251 vehicles/hour respectively. However, exceeding the standard by 4 or 5% is not significant since this amount is well within the tolerance error of the model. That is to say, the error margin of model exceeds the estimated excess volume. Since all of the other affected links maintained service levels of "C" or better, with most links being in the "A" category, it is assumed that the commercial build-out of the subject areas will not adversely impact service volume levels by the year 2010, the end of the current planning period. State Facility Backlog Analysis. The State facilities designated as backlogged in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Hernando County Comprehensive Plan include sections of U.S. 19, S.R. 50, and U.S. 41. Daily and peak hour traffic counts were taken by Hernando County staff on these facilities in the Autumn of 1990. The results of this effort are recorded in Table 3A. As was stated in the previous section, State maintained roads were to be analyzed on the basis of peak hour analysis. The peak hour level of service standard is LOS C. rural. U.S. 41 is in a backlogged condition from Cortez Boulevard (S.R. 50) to Ayers Road. State Road 50 is backlogged from U.S. 19 to Cortez Boulevard to I-75. Jefferson Street (S.R. 50A) is backlogged from S.R. 50 to west boundary of the City of Brooksville to Cortez Boulevard. U.S. 19 south of S.R. 5 to Spring Hill Drive is in a backlogged status in the peak hour given the statistical confidence level of the counts taken. Additionally the segment exceeds the daily LOS threshold standard. Data and analysis to support a comprehensive plan is information about the County that is utilized in the development of the county's plan. Examples include demographic information, population projections, growth trends, and existing land use patterns. Part of the data and analysis supporting the Hernando County Comprehensive Plan was developed through the public participation process. Further, the County through its consultants and its own planning staff furthered that effort with supporting documentation for both the original 1989 plan and the 1990 amendments. The plan is adequately supported by data and analysis gathered by professionally accepted methodology. Also, the plan does not promote urban sprawl. Ultimate Findings The November 14, 1990 amendments to the Future Land Use Map reduced strip commercial development along State Road 50, east and west of Brooksville on State Road 50 in the vicinity of U.S. 19 and U.S. 41 south of Brooksville and on U.S. 19 north of S.R. 50. Additionally, the amendment reduced the amount of residential land use on a county-wide basis. The County reduced the number of commercial nodes along U.S. 19 in conformity to the date and analysis. The Land Use Element contained in the 1990 amendments, including the Future Land Use Map series was created, established, and adopted pursuant to generally accepted planning principles. The goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment coupled with the data and analysis support the Future Land Use Map series of the adopted amendments. The Plan as a whole serves to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The proof presented fails to show that the 1990 Amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan are not in compliance with provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, the Withlacoochee Regional Policy Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan set forth in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, and provisions of Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding the comprehensive plan amendment adopted November 14, 1990 by Hernando County to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1993.
