The Issue The issue is whether the Petition to Contract the Boundary of the Capital Region Community Development District (Petition) meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (2006)1, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. The purpose of the hearing was to gather information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition to Establish the Coastal Lake Community Development District should be granted pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 42-1. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).
The Issue The issue on appeal is whether, pursuant to Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 4-505, to sustain or reverse, with or without conditions, the decision of the Community Development Board on June 20, 2003, denying Cepcot Corporation's application to build a convenience store with two islands for pumping gas.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner The Cepcot Corporation (Cepcot) owns real property located at 657 Court Street in the downtown zoning district of the City of Clearwater (Property). On December 17, 2002, Cepcot filed a Flexible Development Application for a comprehensive infill redevelopment project (Application) on the Property. At the time of the proposal, the Property, which comprises 0.95 acres, was developed with a restaurant in a building that was the former Clearwater train station, a thrift store, and a park. The Application proposes the demolition of these improvements and their replacement with a 3200 square-foot convenience store and two gas pump islands. The Property fronts Chestnut Street to the south, East Avenue to the east, and Court Street to the north. The surrounding area is developed with office uses to the west and south, a privately owned utility plant to the north, and warehouse uses to the east. Upon the completion of the Memorial Causeway bridge, which is presently under construction, traffic to the beach will use Court Street and traffic from the beach will use Chestnut Street. In response to questions and suggestions from Respondent's staff, Cepcot revised the proposed site plan several times. The Application is presently complete. Respondent's Planning Department prepared a Staff Report, which finds that the proposed project does not meet certain requirements and recommends denial of the Application on several grounds. On June 17, 2003, Respondent's Community Development Board (CDB) considered the Application. CDB denied the Application and issued a development order explaining the reasons for denial as follows: The proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Community Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines. The proposed automobile service station is not a permitted use within the downtown district. Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to downtown redevelopment. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project per Section 2-803. The proposal is not in compliance with the other standards in the Code including the general applicability criteria for Section 3-913. Most of the reasons cited for denial involve Respondent's Community Development Code (CDC), which is the land development regulations. The Property is in the Downtown District. CDC Section 2-901 states: "The intent and purpose of the Downtown District is to establish a mixed use downtown where citizens can work, live, and shop in a place which is the economic, governmental, entertainment and cultural focal point of a liveable city." CDC Section 2-902 sets forth the permitted uses within the Downtown District, and CDC Chart 2-100 lists permitted uses by zoning district. The proposed uses are not among the permitted uses for the Downtown District (or the Tourist District, to which portions of the record refer). CDC Section 2-903.C sets forth the following ten criteria to be applied in determining if the proposed use qualifies as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (CIRP) that may qualify an otherwise non-permitted use: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards; The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties; The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater; The uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses; Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater; The development of the parcel proposed for development as an comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; The design of all buildings complies with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. CDC Section 3-913.A sets forth the General Applicability criteria. CDC Section 3-913.A.1 states: "The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located." CDC Section 3-913.A.5 states: The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development."
Conclusions Having considered the entire record in this cause, it is concluded That all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct. That the creation of the district is consistent with applicable elements or portions of the state comprehensive plan and the St. Lucie County Growth Management Plan, as amended. That the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. That the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. That the community development services and facilities of the district will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. That the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 14th day of January, 1988. Appendix A (Names and Addresses of Witnesses) Joseph P. Strazzula, Post Office Box 3152, Fort Pierce, Florida 34948 Bruce Scott Benewitz, c/o Gee & Jenson, Post Office Drawer 4600, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Fred A. Greene, c/o Gee & Jenson, Post Office Drawer 4600, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, 201 North New York Avenue, Suite 300, Winter Park, Florida 32789 Exhibit 1 Appendix B (List of Documentary Evidence) St. Lucie County Context Nap Metes and Bounds Legal Description of District Warranty Deed of October 29, 1985 Conceptual Phasing Plan of District Conceptual Water and Wastewater Master Plan of District Estimated Infrastructure Construction Schedule and Cost 8A St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan 8B St. Lucie County Ordinance No. 86-92 Economic Impact Statement Authorization of agent Exhibit 2 Letter of September 29, 1987 from Secretary Robertson to Sharyn Smith Exhibit 3A Copy of Notice published in Florida Administrative Weekly Exhibit 3B Notice of publication in The News Tribune Exhibit 3C1 Service of Notice of Hearing on Edgar A. Brown Exhibit 3C2 Service of Notice of Hearing on Joseph P. Strazzula Exhibit 3C3 Service of Notice of Hearing on Douglas S. Putnam Exhibit 3C4 Service of Notice of Hearing on Charles Stone, Jr. Exhibit 3C5 Service of Notice of Hearing on Dr. Kenneth Fulton Exhibit 3D1 Service of Notice of Hearing on St. Lucie County Attorney Exhibit 3D2 Service of Notice of Hearing on St. Lucie County Commission Chairman Exhibit 3E Service of Notice of Hearing on Secretary, Department of Community Affairs Exhibit 4A Notice of St. Lucie County meeting Exhibit 4B Copy of St. Lucie County Resolution No. 87-241 Exhibit 5 Copy of St. Lucie County Ordinance 86-92 Exhibit 6 County Context Map (enlargement) Exhibit 7 Existing and Abutting Land Use Map (enlargement) Exhibit 8 Conceptual Phasing Plan of District (enlargement) Exhibit 9 Corrected Table 3 of Economic Impact Statement Exhibit 10 Table 3 of Economic Impact Statement Exhibit 11 Table 1 of Economic Impact Statement COPIES FURNISHED: Richard S. Brightman, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Glenn W. Robertson, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Brooks of Bonita Springs Community Development District.
Conclusions Having considered the totality of the record in this cause and being mindful of the development order of Lee County referenced above and the lack of expressed opposition to the establishment of the subject community services district by Lee County or any other person or entity, it is, concluded: That all statements contained within the petition are found to be true and correct. That the creation of the district is consistent with applicable elements or portions of the Lee County Comprehensive Plan. That the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional, interrelated community. That the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. That the community development services and facilities of the district would be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. That the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate, special-district government. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken van Assenderp, Esq. YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE & BENTON, P.A. Post Office Box 1833 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Melvin D. Deutsch, II, Esq. Timothy Jones, Esq. Westinghouse Gateway Communities, Inc. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 201 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Michael J. Ciccarone, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Lee County Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Glenn Robertson, Secretary Florida Land Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governori The Captol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the establishment of the Bartram Springs Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Overview Petitioner, SouthStar Development Partners, Inc., is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) to establish a community development district proposed to consist of approximately 1,025 acres located within the boundaries of the City of Jacksonville (City). The City is a consolidated government which has jurisdiction over and extends territorially to the limits of Duval County. The proposed name for the new District is the Bartram Springs Community Development District (the District). There are no parcels within the external boundaries of the proposed District which are to be excluded from the District. The estimated cost of the infrastructure facilities and services which are presently expected to be provided to the lands within the District was included in the Petition. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the establishment of the District as proposed by Petitioner. Summary of Evidence and Testimony Whether all statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 consists of the Petition and its attachments as filed with the Commission. Mr. J. Thomas Gillette, III, regional manager for north Florida for Petitioner, testified that he had reviewed the contents of the Petition and approved its findings. Mr. Gillette also generally described certain of the attachments to the Petition. Finally, Mr. Gillette testified that the Petition and its attachments were true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Douglas C. Miller, a professional engineer with England, Thims & Miller, Inc., testified that he had assisted in the preparation of portions of the Petition and its attachments. Mr. Miller also generally described certain of the attachments to the Petition which he or his office had prepared. Finally, Mr. Miller testified that the attachments to the Petition prepared by England, Thims & Miller, Inc., and admitted into evidence, were true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, president of Fishkind & Associates, Inc., testified that he had prepared Exhibit 11 to the Petition, the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC). Dr. Fishkind also testified that the SERC submitted as Attachment 11 to Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. The Petition included written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent of the real property located within the lands to be included in the proposed District. Mr. Gillette also testified that the ownership of the lands to be included within the proposed District had not changed. The Petition and its exhibits are true and correct. Whether the establishment of the District is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Mr. Gary R. Walters, a land planner and president of Gary Walters & Associates, reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan found in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Mr. Walters also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan. The State Comprehensive Plan "provides long-range policy guidance for the orderly social, economic and physical growth of the State" by way of twenty-six subjects, and numerous goals and policies. From a planning perspective, two subjects of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the establishment of the proposed District, as do the policies supporting those subjects. Subject 16, Land Use, recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. The proposed District will have the fiscal ability to provide services and facilities and help provide infrastructure in a fiscally responsible manner in an area which can accommodate development within the City. Subject 26, Plan Implementation, provides that systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination. The proposed District is consistent with this element of the State Comprehensive Plan because the proposed District will systematically plan for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the public improvements and the community facilities authorized under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, subject to and not inconsistent with the local government comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Additionally, the District meetings are publicly advertised and are open to the public so that all District property owners and residents can be involved in planning for improvements. Finally, Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file and update public facilities reports with the local governments, which they may rely upon in any revisions to the local comprehensive plan. Dr. Fishkind reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan and found that from a financial perspective, two subjects of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the establishment of the proposed District, as do the policies supporting those subjects. Subject 18, Public Facilities, provides that the state shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the District will plan and finance the infrastructure systems and facilities needed for the development of lands within the District; it will be a stable, perpetual unit of local government and will be able to maintain the infrastructure servicing the lands within the District; and it will allow growth within the District to pay for itself at no cost to the City. Subject 21, Governmental Efficiency, provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the proposed District will economically and efficiently finance and deliver those public services and facilities as needed by the District's residents and property owners. The proposed District will be professionally managed, financed, and governed by those whose property directly receives the benefits of the services and the facilities provided. Creating a District does not burden the general taxpayer with the costs for the services or facilities inside the proposed District. Based on the testimony and exhibits in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. The City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan contains various elements which are supported by numerous goals and objectives. Mr. Walters testified that portions of three of these elements were relevant when determining whether or not the proposed District was inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan. Within the Future Land Use Element are Goals and Objectives which are targeted to effectively manage growth in areas designated to accommodate future development and provide services in a cost-efficient manner. The proposed District is consistent with this plan element. The development within the proposed District is part of a Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, Development Order, which states that the "development is consistent with the local comprehensive plan and local land development and zoning regulations." The Development Order itself specifically notes that a community development district may be established. The proposed District is a recognized vehicle to provide the necessary services and facilities to the lands within the boundaries of the proposed District consistent with the City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan’s objective of coordinating land uses with urban services delivery. The goal of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is to establish processes among various governmental, public, and private entities to coordinate development activities, preservation of the quality of life, and the efficient use of available resources. The proposed District will assist in the coordination process by providing and maintaining community infrastructure in a way that is not inconsistent with the plans and activities of related public and private agencies. The Capital Improvements Element is intended to provide necessary infrastructure in a timely and orderly manner. The proposed District will expand the areas within the City that receive infrastructure in a manner consistent with the Development Order for the area and the City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan. Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the local Comprehensive Plan, and will in fact further the goals provided. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) reviewed the Petition for compliance with its various programs and responsibilities. After conducting a review of the petition for consistency with the approved Development Order and Comprehensive Plan, the DCA concluded that the Petition for the Establishment of the Bartram Springs Community Development District was not inconsistent with either the Comprehensive Plan or Development Order. Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Messrs. Miller, Walters, and Fishkind. The proposed District will include approximately 1,025 acres, located within the borders of the City. All of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community included in the Bartram Park Development of Regional Impact (the DRI). Functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the community's other purposes. Each function requires a management capability, funding source, and an understanding of the size of the community's needs, so as to handle the growth and development of the community. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or the maintenance of the community. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 1,025 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate the basic infrastructure facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community. The proposed facilities can be provided in an efficient, functional, and integrated manner. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. The community is sufficiently compact to be developed as a functionally inter-related community. The compact configuration of the lands will allow the District to provide for the installation and maintenance of its infrastructure in a long-term, cost-efficient manner. Petitioner is developing all of the lands within the District as a single master-planned community. All of these lands are governed by the DRI issued by the City. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. Whether the proposed district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the proposed district. It is presently intended that the District will construct or provide certain infrastructure improvements as outlined in the Petition. Installation and maintenance of infrastructure systems and services by the proposed District is expected to be paid through the imposition of special assessments. Use of such assessments will ensure that the real property benefiting from District services is the same property which pays for them. Two alternatives to the use of the District were identified. First, the City might provide facilities and services from its general fund. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, with maintenance delegated to a property owners' association or a home owners' association. The District is preferable to these alternatives at focusing attention on when, where, and how the next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in a full utilization of existing facilities before new facilities are constructed and reduces the delivered cost to the citizens being served. The District will construct certain infrastructure and community facilities which will be needed by the property owners and residents of the project. Expenses for the operation and maintenance of the facilities the District retains are expected to be paid through maintenance assessments to ensure that the property receiving the benefit of the district services is the same property paying for those services. Only a community development district allows for the independent financing, administration, operations, and maintenance of the land within such a district. Only a community development district allows district residents to ultimately completely control the district. The other alternatives do not have these characteristics. From an engineering perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities to the land included in the proposed District because it is a long-term, stable, perpetual entity capable of maintaining the facilities over their expected life. From planning, economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. Whether the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The services and facilities proposed to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities and services will not duplicate any existing regional services or facilities. None of the proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by another entity for the lands to be included within the District. Therefore, the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. As cited previously, from planning, economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community. The community to be included in the District has a need for certain basic infrastructure systems, and the proposed District provides for an efficient mechanism to oversee the installation of these improvements. From planning, engineering, economic, and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate special-district government. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. The Commission has certified that the Petition to Establish the Bartram Springs Community Development District meets all of the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District -- the State of Florida and its citizens, the City and its citizens, Petitioner, and consumers. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from establishing the District. These costs are related to the incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one additional local government report. The proposed District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which is difficult to quantify but nonetheless substantial. Administrative costs incurred by the City related to rule adoption will be modest. These modest costs are offset by the $15,000 filing fee required to accompany the Petition to the City. Residents within the District will pay non-ad valorem or special assessments for certain facilities. Locating within the District is voluntary. Generally, District financing will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to residents within the community development district will include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities within the area. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires a petition to include a SERC which meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The Petition filed herein contains a SERC. It meets all requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes, in that the City was provided four copies of the Petition and was paid the requisite filing fee. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Duval County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in Duval County (The Florida Times Union) for four consecutive weeks on May 3, May 10, May 17, and May 24, 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 120 and 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Bartram Springs Community Development District, as requested by Petitioner, by formal adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report as Appendix C. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Charles Canady, General Counsel Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Gregory M. Munson, Esquire Office of the Governor 400 South Monroe Street, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6536 APPENDIX A Petitioner's Witnesses at Hearing J. Thomas Gillette, III SouthStar Development Partners, Inc. 4720 Salisbury Road, Suite 126 Jacksonville, Florida 32256-6101 Douglas C. Miller, P.E. England, Thims & Miller, Inc. 14775 St. Augustine Road Jacksonville, Florida 32258-2463 Gary R. Walters Gary Walters & Associates 12 Crooked Tree Trail Ormond Beach, Florida 32174-4338 Dr. Henry H. Fishkind Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 11869 High Tech Avenue Orlando, Florida 32817-1490 APPENDIX B List of Petitioner's Exhibits Exhibit Number Exhibit Description Petition with attachments Notice of Receipt of Petition Division of Administrative Hearings Referral Letter Department of Community Affairs Transmittal Letter Department of Community Affairs Review Letter Ordinance 2000-451-E State Comprehensive Plan The Florida Times Union Proof of Publication APPENDIX C Text of Proposed Rule CHAPTER 42___-1 BARTRAM SPRINGS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 42___-1.001 Establishment. 42___-1.002 Boundary. 42___-1.003 Supervisors. 42____-1.001 Creation. The Bartram Springs Community Development District is hereby established. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 F.S. Law Implemented 190.005 F.S. History-New 42____-1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the District are as follows: A portion of Sections 28, 29, 32 and 33, together with a portion of Section 48, of the Christopher Minchin Grant, all lying in Township 4 South, Range 28 East, Duval County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: For a Point of Reference, commence at the corner common to said Sections 32 and 33, Township 4 South, Range 28 East, said Duval County and Sections 4 and 5, Township 5 South, Range 28 East, St. Johns County, Florida, said corner also lying on the county line dividing said Duval and St. Johns Counties; thence North 89° 04' 41" East, along said county line, 3281.18 feet; thence North 00° 55' 19" West, departing said county line, 5.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. From said Point of Beginning, thence South 89° 04' 41" West, 3281.22 feet to a point lying on the line common to said Sections 32 and 33; thence South 89° 33' 42" West, departing said common line, 699.85 feet to the Easterly limited access right of way line of State Road No. 9B, a variable width right of way as established on State Road Department Right of Way Map Section 72002-2513, dated 09-08-92; thence Northwesterly and Northeasterly, along said Easterly limited access right of way line, the following courses: (1) North 40° 25' 37" West, 2161.10 feet to the Point of Curvature of a curve, concave Northeasterly having a radius of 2744.79 feet; (2) along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of 14° 47' 23", an arc length of 708.51 feet to the Point of Tangency of said curve, said arc being subtended by a chord bearing and distance of North 33° 01' 55" West, 706.55 feet; (3) North 25° 38' 14" West, 2143.97 feet to the Point of Curvature of a curve, concave Easterly having a radius of 1789.86 feet; (4) along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 37° 18' 23", an arc length of 1165.41 feet to a point on said curve, said arc being subtended by a chord bearing and distance of North 06° 59' 02" West, 1144.93 feet; (5) North 10° 17' 40" East, along a non-tangent bearing, 500.14 feet; (6) North 11° 40' 10" East, 1913.60 feet to a point lying on the Southerly line of the North 1/2 of said Section 29; thence North 88° 42' 41" East, departing said Easterly limited access right of way line and along last said line, 2914.25 feet to the Southwest corner of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; thence North 89° 02' 27" East, along the Southerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, a distance of 233.49 feet to a point lying on the Westerly right of way line of the Florida East Coast Railroad, a 100 foot right of way as now established; thence South 41° 00' 02" East, along said Westerly right of way line, 1203.71 feet to a point lying on the Westerly line of the Easterly 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 28; thence South 00° 59' 05" East, departing said Westerly right of way line and along said Westerly line of the Easterly 1/4, a distance of 424.47 feet to the Southwest corner of said East 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4; thence North 88° 54' 34" East, along the Southerly line of said East 1/4, a distance of 355.82 feet to a point lying on the aforementioned Westerly right of way line; thence South 41° 00' 02" East, along said Westerly right of way line, 6946.50 feet; thence South 81° 44' 38" West, departing said Westerly right of way line, 1239.95 feet; thence North 89° 51' 10" West, 1102.07 feet; thence South 10° 16' 03" West, 955.68 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 1025.40 acres, more or less. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 F.S. Law Implemented 190.004, 190.005 F.S. History-New 42____-1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are designated as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors: J. Thomas Gillette, III, L. Alfredo Rodriguez-Walling, Walter Kehoe, Thaddeus D. Rutherford, and Leo W. Johns. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 F.S. Law Implemented 190.006(1) F.S. History-New.
The Issue Whether Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan Amendment Number 2017-B (the Plan Amendment) adopted by Ordinance Number 2018-006 (the Ordinance) is "in compliance," as that term is defined under section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018).
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Ibis Road is a limited liability company that applied to the County for the comprehensive plan amendment adopted by the Ordinance, in conjunction with a Development of Critical Concern and a rezoning to Village Planned Development for a property it owns along Ibis Street in unincorporated Sarasota County. Ibis Road owns approximately 533 acres designated under the County's Village/Open Space (VOS) Resource Management Area (RMA) future land use overlay. The County is a political subdivision of the state. The County adopted the Ordinance that approved the Plan Amendment on July 11, 2018. Petitioner Keath Cuyler appeared and objected at the May 23, 2018, adoption hearing, and is a citizen of the County. Petitioner Cuyler resides at 8300 Ibis Street, Sarasota, Florida, located in unincorporated Sarasota County, near and proximate to the lands that are subject to the Plan Amendment. Petitioner Cuyler testified he owns approximately 37 acres and shares his west and south property line with Ibis Road's property. He hunts on his property and likes its rural character. He is concerned about traffic since the entrance to the Village Planned Development would be near his property, which now fronts on an infrequently used dirt road. Petitioners Mitchell Goldberg and Ronald Newmark appeared and objected at the May 23, 2018, County adoption hearing and are citizens of Sarasota County. They co-own ten acres abutting Ibis Road's Village Planned Development. These Petitioners utilize their property for raising and riding horses. The entrance to Ibis Road's Village Planned Development is adjacent to their property and they are concerned that traffic and lights would disturb the horses and affect the rural nature of their property. Dismissed Petitioner David Anderson testified that he opposed Ibis Road's Village Planned Development because it would impact the rural character of his community, which was the reason he had moved from Washington, D.C., to Florida. The Petitioners and dismissed Petitioner Anderson deferred technical questions regarding the allegations of their challenge to their expert planner. The Comprehensive Plan The County's Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) adopted October 25, 2016, is the applicable version of the plan. The County's Comp Plan sets forth a listing of the material within it, entitled "The Components of the Plan." This section outlines seven categories of "Primary Components" of the Comp Plan and the remainder of the document is classified as "support material," used to explain the Primary Components. The list of Primary Components includes the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of each chapter, and such other components as the Future Land Use Map Series and the Future Thoroughfare Plan. The County's expert witness testified that the Primary Components are used to evaluate consistency with the County's Comp Plan. She also testified that the support material is not used as criteria for evaluating development proposals. The Future Land Use (FLU) Element of the County's Comp Plan is divided into two chapters. Chapter 7 of the County's Comp Plan contains the base or underlying FLU provisions and the FLU Map. Under Chapter 7 of the County's Comp Plan, most of the private land east of the County's Urban Service Area Boundary is designated as either Rural with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per five acres, or Semi-Rural with a maximum density of one dwelling unit per two acres. Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan contains the alternative FLU provisions called Sarasota 2050. Sarasota 2050 is a system designed to encourage preservation of open space by allowing transfer of density into developments called Villages and Hamlets. Sarasota 2050 allows owners of Rural or Semi-Rural FLU designated property to develop at higher densities than allowed under those FLU designations. Sarasota 2050 maps the unincorporated area of the County as RMAs. Outside of the Urban Service Area, it shows RMAs for "Publicly Owned Lands and Lands Protected for Preservation," the connecting environmental corridors called "Greenways," and others. Map 8-3: RMA-3 designates three large VOS RMAs outside of the County's Urban Service Area Boundary for Village Land Use. The three areas are referred to as the North Village Area, Central Village Area, and South Village Area. Ibis Road's property lies within the South Village Area. Within these Village Areas, there are multiple property owners. Sarasota 2050 offers the property owners significant density incentives, as well as opportunities for non-residential development if they develop their properties according to the Sarasota 2050 Village criteria. Approval of a Village requires rezoning to the Village Plan Development zoning district and approval of a Village Master Development Plan. Each Village must have at least one Village Center. Villages have a minimum open space requirement of 50 percent and the remainder of the Village is called the Developed Area. The Developed Area is comprised of the Village Center and the Neighborhoods. Each Neighborhood has its own Neighborhood Center. There may be several Villages within each Village Area. The maximum size of a Village is 3,000 acres and the minimum size is 1,000 acres. The long-range plan of the County, as reflected in Sarasota 2050, is for all of the lands within each Village Area to be developed as Villages. VOS Policy 1.3 provides that "Neighborhoods form the basic building block for development within the [VOS] RMA and are characterized by a mix of residential housing types that are distributed on a connected street system and the majority of housing is within a walking distance or ¼ mile radius of a Neighborhood Center." Neighborhood Centers may have "a combination of parks, schools, public type facilities such as churches and or community centers and may contain Neighborhood Oriented Commercial Uses that are no greater than 20,000 square feet of gross floor area and internally designed to specifically serve the needs of that Neighborhood." Sarasota 2050 does not require that Neighborhood Centers contain commercial or office development or that houses in the Neighborhoods be within walking distance of commercial or office uses. VOS Policy 1.2.A more specifically sets forth requirements for Villages. Villages Villages are a collection of Neighborhoods that have been designed so that a majority of the housing units are within a walking distance or ¼ mile radius of a Neighborhood Center. Villages shall be supported by internally designed, mixed-use Village Centers (designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and government use and services needs of Village residents), and the Village shall be surrounded by large expanses of Open Space that are designed to protect the character of the rural landscape and provide separation between Villages and existing low density rural development. The minimum size of a Village is intended to be sufficient to support a public elementary school. There is no requirement that residential development within the Village be within walking distance of commercial or office uses. A table in VOS Policy 1.2.A sets forth the maximum and minimum sizes, densities, and percentages of land uses within a Village. Two asterisked footnotes allow deviations from the table: *Projects may be less than 1,000 acres of Developed Area, if said project adheres to the requirements found in Policy VOS2.1(a)1, Developed Area Minimum Size. **After an initial Village Master Development Plan has been approved for a Village Area (North, Central, South), the gross leasable square footage may be reduced or eliminated and the minimum land area percentages adjusted for each additional contiguous Village Master Development Plan within that Village Area where it is demonstrated that the non-residential needs of the Village will be served within that Village Area in a manner consistent with the purposes of this chapter. Every Village must have a Village Center that includes non-residential uses. In practice, not every Village Center was required to include a commercial use, as described in the second asterisked footnote to VOS Policy 1.2.A. The County's witness testified that an initial Village in a Village Area was required to have a commercial component. However, an exception could be made for reduction or elimination of the commercial component for a new Village development in the same Village Area. Each new Village subsequent to the initial Village in a Village Area was evaluated to see if it could support its own commercial use, or whether it could be supported by the commercial component of other Villages in the Village Area. In addition, the exception should be "consistent with the purposes of [Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan]," and the subsequent Village was contiguous to the first Village. The Village Areas have multiple property owners. VOS Policy 2.6 addresses the possibilities that the property owners may apply for Village approval all together or in separate Village Master Development Plans. When they apply for approval separately, the policy provides that Village Master Development Plans subsequent to the first one "may be considered as related to the initial Village," with no requirement for contiguity. The initial Village Master Development Plan sets a framework for subsequent Villages in that particular Village Area. This includes the location of the school, the commercial center, and the primary road systems. The initial Village Center is required to have a commercial component. When subsequent Villages seek approval, the County evaluates how they would be connected, so that they complement each other. LT Ranch Village was the initial Village approved in the South Village Area, and it sets the framework for the entire Village Area. It has a Village Center that includes 300,000 square feet of commercial retail development. A typical Publix shopping center with a Publix and a few other in-line restaurants and stores is approximately 60,000 to 80,000 square feet. Subsequent Villages, such as that proposed by Ibis Road, may be developed within the South Village Area. Where it is shown that the commercial needs of subsequent Villages within the South Village Area may be met by the LT Ranch Village Center, subsequent Villages need not include a commercial component. The evidence established that Ibis Road provided a market study to the County to show that the commercial needs of its residents would be met by the LT Ranch Village Center. Thus, except for contiguity, Ibis Road's Village development is an illustration of the intent behind Sarasota 2050. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment would delete the word "contiguous" from the double-asterisked footnote exception in VOS Policy 1.2.A. The Plan Amendment would apply to all properties designated under the VOS RMA FLU overlay, i.e., in each of the three Village Areas. The change would allow the County to approve a reduction or elimination of commercial/office uses within the Village Center of a Village subsequent to the initial Village, which is not contiguous with the initial Village. To obtain this exception, the property owner would still demonstrate that the initial Village already serves the non-residential needs of the new Village, and the reduction is otherwise consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan. County staff reviewed the Plan Amendment for consistency with the remainder of the Comp Plan, and specifically referenced the original adoption of the double-asterisked footnote in 2014. The staff report stated that "[t]he analysis for the 201[4] amendment recognized that smaller subsequent Villages may not be of sufficient size to support their own non- residential uses (Village Center), and that the initial, larger Village could provide sufficient non-residential services to support the entire Village Area." Thus, County staff concluded that removal of the word "contiguous" from the double-asterisked footnote "would not impede on the intent of Policy VOS 1.2.A." On February 15, 2018, the County's Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and received public comments, reviewed the Plan Amendment, and by Resolution unanimously recommended approval. On March 14, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners held a duly advertised transmittal stage public hearing pursuant to Section 163.3184(3) and (15) and by Resolution approved the Plan Amendment for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). DEO, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District reviewed the Plan Amendment and had no objection to or comments on the Plan Amendment. The DEO reviewed the Plan Amendment and determined there was "no provision that necessitates a challenge of the Ordinance adopting the amendment." On May 23, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners held a duly-noticed public hearing and took public comment. The hearing was continued to the duly-noticed hearing on July 11, 2018, at which time the Plan Amendment was adopted by the Ordinance. Petitioners' Objections The Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the purpose, intent, and core principles of Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan, including VOS Objective 1, VOS Policy 1.1, VOS Policies 1.2.A and 1.4 (the first, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth bullet points), and the definition of urban sprawl. Central to the Petitioners' claims of inconsistency are the concepts of compactness, walkability, interconnectedness, and development with a mix of uses. The Petitioners' expert witness testified that removing the term "contiguous" caused inconsistency with the County's Comp Plan because it was inconsistent with the concepts of a compact development that is walkable, interconnected, and has a mix of uses. "Walkability" to the commercial component of a Village Center was a contention of the Petitioners. The Petitioners' expert testified that the rule of thumb for "walkability" was how far one can walk in 15 minutes. He did agree with the County and Ibis Road's expert witnesses that there is no requirement for Neighborhoods to be within any fixed distance of a Village Center, no requirement of walkability from residential development to the Village Center, and no requirement of walkability from a residence to any commercial/office use. VOS Policy 1.3 requires that the majority of the housing within a Village be within walking distance or one- quarter mile of a Neighborhood Center, but does not require that the Village Center be within walking distance from the Neighborhoods themselves. "Walkability" is used with respect to Neighborhoods and Neighborhood Centers, only the term "pedestrian friendly" is used with respect to Villages. "Pedestrian friendly" means that a range of pedestrian options are provided such as bicycle/pedestrian facilities, larger sidewalks, multimodal trails, accessibility, and lighting, the things that make it more comfortable for the pedestrian or the non-vehicle user. The Petitioners' contend that a Village Center must be walkable from all areas of a Village. However, the allowable maximum size of 3,000 acres for a Village would not accommodate the walkability described by the Petitioners' expert. There is no requirement in the County's Comp Plan for a specific location of a Village Center. The evidence established that in the South Village Area, the initially approved LT Ranch Village covers an area three or four times the distance from north to south as it does from east to west and its Village Center is located at the northernmost point. Based on the allowable size of a Village and the lack of any requirement as to the location of the Village Center, "walkability" to the Village Center would not be possible. For example, the distance from the southernmost Neighborhood of LT Ranch Village to its Village Center is about three and one-half to four miles. The Core Principles and the Introduction The "Core Principles" of the Sarasota 2050 RMA system are set forth on the first page of Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan. This page generally describes the objectives of Sarasota 2050, but these are not Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comp Plan, and are not Primary Components of the Comp Plan. The County views the "Core Principles" as support material that it does not use to evaluate the consistency of development proposals with the Comp Plan. The Petitioners' expert conceded that the "Core Principles" provide context but should not be relied on as the sole basis for a finding of inconsistency. Even if the Core Principles were a Primary Component of the Comp Plan, they do not contain a requirement regarding commercial/office uses in the Village Center or proximity of these uses to residences within the Village. Thus, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the Core Principles. The "Introduction" following the page of Core Principles is also viewed as support material rather than as a Primary Component of the County's Comp Plan. It generally describes Sarasota 2050's purpose as an incentive system to "encourage[] a compact development form," but does not address commercial/office uses within Village Centers, or set forth any standards that could be deemed inconsistent with the Plan Amendment. Thus, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with this support material. VOS Objective 1 and VOS Policy 1.1 VOS Objective 1 states the objective of preventing urban sprawl by guiding the development of lands outside the Urban Service Area into compact, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly Villages within a system of large areas of permanent open space. The Petitioners argued that the Plan Amendment's deletion of a contiguity requirement would be inconsistent with VOS Objective 1. The Petitioners' expert testified that "compact, mixed-use, and pedestrian friendly" to a layman meant creating the ability to walk to a commercial use such as a restaurant, as exemplified in a downtown or mixed-use area. However, VOS Objective 1 describes why Sarasota 2050 guides the development of land outside of the Urban Service Area into "compact, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly Villages" and is not a categorical prohibition against urban sprawl. "Compact" is not defined in the County's Comp Plan. The criteria for Sarasota 2050 Villages are that 50 percent of the Village that is not open space is Developed Area broken up into Neighborhoods with a majority of the housing within walking distance of a Neighborhood Center, and at least one Village Center. The Petitioners did not prove that excepting a second Village from providing unnecessary commercial/office uses violated the compactness of a Village or the requirement for mix uses. "Pedestrian friendly" is also not defined, but is more a matter of pedestrian safety than proximity to particular uses. The Plan Amendment does not prevent the Villages from being compact, mixed-use, or pedestrian-friendly. VOS Policy 1.1 also requires a connected system of roads encouraging alternative means of transportation such as pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. Removal of the requirement for one Village to be contiguous with another does not affect achievement of this policy. VOS Policy 1.2.A VOS Policy 1.2.A provides the general requirements for Village development, including an internal, mixed-use Village Center. As found above, the double-asterisked footnote was added in 2014 to reduce or eliminate the requirement of a commercial use within the Village Center where it is demonstrated that there is already an existing Village Center within that Village Area with a commercial component, and the commercial needs of the new Village will be served by that existing Village Center "in a manner consistent with the purposes of [Chapter 8 of the County's Comp Plan]." The Petitioners' expert admitted that the double- asterisked footnote was an exception that allowed for greater flexibility when approving Village developments without undermining the other policies of the Comp Plan. The Petitioners' expert opined that removal of the word "contiguous" from the double-asterisked footnote would be inconsistent with VOS Policy 1.2.A because it would result in development of a new Village without any non-residential land uses. However, the double-asterisked footnote's exception would have that same result whether or not the word "contiguous" was present. The County's expert witness testified that the Plan Amendment did not result in an inconsistency with VOS Policy 1.2.A, because the intent of the policy was that each Village Area, not each Village, meet the daily and weekly non- residential, including commercial, needs of the residents of the Village Area. Thus, deleting the word "contiguous" would not have a negative effect on this intent. VOS Policy 1.4 The Petitioners relied on bullet points within VOS Policy 1.4. The Petitioners contended that the first bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4, which requires a mix of uses within a Village, expressly mandated commercial development within every Village. However, the Policy should be read in conjunction with the double-asterisked footnote of VOS Policy 1.2.A. The double- asterisked footnote provides for reduction or elimination of commercial uses in a Village Center as described in the above findings. The County's and Ibis Road's experts testified that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with the first bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4 because it only requires a mix of uses within each Village, which can be achieved without having a commercial use. The fourth bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4 expressly provides that the Village Center must be conveniently served by regional bus service. This language does not contemplate that the Village Center must be a walkable distance from the residences. The language does not require that every Village Center have commercial uses. The Petitioners also relied on the sixth bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4 referencing "compact design" of a Village linking one Neighborhood to another. This language is specific to the connections between Neighborhoods within a Village, not the relationship of multiple Villages to one another. The compact design within a Village is not related to contiguity between Villages. The Petitioners relied on the seventh bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4 to support their argument of internal inconsistency. The language requires Villages to include interconnected streets to balance the needs of all users. This language is relevant to development within Villages, not the relationship between one Village and another. Finally, the Petitioners relied on the eighth bullet point of VOS Policy 1.4 to support their argument of internal inconsistency. This provision calls for a Village to have pedestrian-friendly components such as sidewalks, lighting, and signage. This language addresses the development of the internal components of a particular Village. The language is not relevant to the relationship between Villages. Attorneys' Fees Ibis Road did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioners and dismissed Petitioner Anderson participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose. Ibis Road did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Petitioners, dismissed Petitioner Anderson, or the Petitioners' attorney should be sanctioned for filing a pleading, motion, or paper for an improper or frivolous purpose. There was an arguable basis for the Petitioners' claims of inconsistency presented through the expert testimony of Thomas Hawkins. Mr. Hawkins is a certified planner and was accepted as an expert in comprehensive land use planning. Summary The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment causes Chapter 8, or any other portion, of the County's Comp Plan to be internally inconsistent.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Tesoro Community Development District (Petition), dated December 22, 2003, as supplemented and corrected. The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.2
