The Issue The issue for determination is whether the proposed Indiantown Cogeneration, L.P. (ICL) Project site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances of Martin County and Okeechobee County, Florida. See Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes. No party to the proceeding disputes that the site is consistent and in compliance with the plans and ordinances in effect on December 21, 1990, when the application was filed.
Findings Of Fact ICL published notices of this land use hearing on June 15, 1991, in The Stuart News, on June 19, 1991, in The Indiantown News, and on June 16, 1991, in The Okeechobee News. Notices of this hearing were published by the Department of Enviromental Regulation in the Florida Administrative Weekly on June 28, 1991. ICL mailed notice of this hearing to the chief executives of the local and regional authorities with responsibility for zoning and land use planning whose jurisdiction includes the site. The Applicant, ICL, posted a notice of this hearing at the proposed site. ICL proposes to construct and operate a 330 Mw cogeneration facility which captures waste heat from electrical generation to produce steam for industrial processes. The facility will burn pulverized coal to generate electricity for sale to Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) and supply up to 225,000 pounds per hour of steam for drying operations at the adjacent Caulkins Citrus Processing plant. Steam generation will be accomplished by means of a pulverized coal boiler. The boiler will be of an outdoor natural-circulation type in which coal will be mixed with air and ignited. Electricity will be generated by passing steam produced by the boiler through an extraction-condensing turbine generator. Sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide compounds and particulates will be removed from the boiler exhaust gases using various removal systems. Coal will be delivered by trains arriving from the north. A rail loop and coal unloading, handling and storage facilities will be constructed onsite. Ash will be temporarily stored in onsite silos before being removed from the site. A new site access road will be constructed along the western and southern boundary of the site to provide access to State Road 710 and West Farm Road. A railroad spur across the adjacent Florida Steel plant site will connect the site to the CSX railroad. The proposed project will include a water pipeline that will extend 19 miles southeast from Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough in Okeechobee County to the facility site. An intake structure will be constructed at Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough to pump water to the plant site. To distribute electricity generated, the ICL facility's electrical switch yard will connect to an existing FPL electrical transmission line which crosses the northern portion of the Project site. Site for Indiantown Cogeneration Project The site for the proposed Indiantown Cogeneration Project is a 220 acre tract which lies approximately 20 miles west of Stuart, three miles northwest of Indiantown and nine miles east of Lake Okeechobee. To the north of the Site are the Caulkins Citrus Processing Plant and a vacant Florida Steel Corporation plant site. Both of these facilities border State Road 710 and the CSX Railroad. The proposed corridor for the cooling water pipeline to serve the Project is within the existing CSX Railroad right-of-way which parallels State Road 710, running southeast from the intake structure location in Okeechobee County to the site. The permanent right-of-way for the pipeline is to be located within this corridor. Consistency and Compliance of the Project Site with Local Land Use Plans of Martin County The proposed site is designated for "Industrial" use on the Land Use Map adopted by the Martin County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) as part of its 1990 Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (Martin Plan). The Martin Plan was the local land use plan in effect in Martin County on the date ICL filed this SCA. This Plan encouraged future development of industrial uses, including cogeneration facilities, to occur under a planned unit development industrial zoning classification. The evidence at the hearing established that the Project is consistent and in compliance with the Martin Plan in effect on the date ICL filed the SCA. During the PUD(i) rezoning process discussed below, the proposed project was also reviewed by Martin County for consistency with the other policies of the Martin Plan. The project, as proposed, was found to be consistent with this Plan. On July 9, 1991, the Martin County BOCC adopted a land text amendment (ICL Exhibit 9), which added steam/electricity cogeneration plants as permitted uses within areas designated Industrial. The Department of Community Affairs has made no determination as to the amendment's compliance or non-compliance with Chapter 163 and specifically reserves its responsibility to review the amendment pursuant to its statutory authorization. Consistency of the Project Site With Martin County Zoning Regulations The Project is consistent and in compliance with the industrial zoning of Martin County that was in effect for the Project Site on December 21, 1990, the date ICL filed its SCA. On July 23, 1991, the BOCC granted petitions by ICL to change the zoning for the proposed site from M-3 and M-1, industrial, to Planned Unit Development (industrial) or PUD(i); to grant a height exception for structures higher than 60 feet; and to grant an advertised conditional use for utilities. All parties present throughout the land use hearing have stipulated that this zoning change and related approvals do not affect adversely the use of the site as the location for the proposed power plant while still protecting the public interest under the applicable land use plan and zoning ordinances of Martin County. The later-adopted PUD(i) zoning criteria for the Project are contained in a document titled "Indiantown Cogeneration Project Planned Unit Development Zoning Agreement" between ICL, the current property owners, and the Martin County BOCC, dated July 23, 1991. The PUD Agreement establishes certain conditions and standards upon which construction and operation of the ICL project may be undertaken at the proposed site. The Agreement incorporates and references various other local regulations with which a project at this site must comply. The PUD(i) zoning agreement also recognizes that final approval for the project will be obtained under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, and that the final development plan of approval contemplated by the Agreement would be obtained through this certification process. The PUD(i) Agreement provides that ICL shall have the right to develop the project in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances and regulations; with the provisions and requirements of the PUD(i) Zoning Agreement; and with the Preliminary and Final Development Plans. Exhibit D to the PUD(i) Zoning Agreement is a Preliminary Development Plan for the ICL project. This exhibit provides a conceptual layout for the proposed project that is subject to modification based on detailed site planning and engineering required as part of the certification of the Project in conjunction with the final development plan approval (site certification process). The Project, as proposed in the SCA, is consistent with this Preliminary Development Plan. A development schedule for the proposed project is established in Exhibit E to the PUD(i) Agreement. This timetable contemplates and incorporates site certification by the Governor and Cabinet under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. ICL will be able to develop the Project proposed in the SCA consistent with this timetable. Twenty-two (22) Special Conditions are established for the Indiantown Cogeneration Project in Exhibit F to the PUD Agreement. ICL has committed to meet all of the Special Conditions and its design, as developed to date and presented in the site certification application, is consistent and in compliance with all twenty-two Special Conditions. The special conditions are: Special Conditions 1 and 4 require that certain precautions be taken in the event that archaeological artifacts or endangered plants and animals are discovered on the site. A $1 million Community trust program is to be created by ICL to benefit projects in the Indiantown community, under Special Condition 2. Special Condition 8 requires ICL to encourage Project employees to live and become active in the Indiantown Community. Under Special Condition l0, ICL is to make employment applications available in the Indiantown area during periods of significant hiring. Special Condition 3 provides that ICL is solely responsible for obtaining necessary drainage permits from the South Florida Water Management District and that Martin County has no responsibility for funding of Project drainage improvements. With regard to special Condition 5, the Department of Community Affairs concurs that the evidence at the land use hearing established that the Project at this location is consistent and in compliance with local land use plans and zoning ordinances in effect as of December 21, 1990. Special Condition 6 prohibits disposal of wastewater filter cake at the Martin County landfill. Under Special Condition 7, ICL agrees not to haul fill to or from the Site without Martin County approval. This is in compliance with the Excavation and Fill provisions of the Martin County Code, Sections 33-804, 805, 806, and 809. A hazardous waste management plan, consis- tent with a hazardous waste management plan attached to the Zoning Agreement, is required by Special Condition 8. Landscaping along the access road and around the administration buildings and parking areas is required by Special Condition 10. This condition satisfies the requirements of the Martin County Landscape Code, Chapter 23, Article III of the Martin County Code. Special Condition l3 requires that plant operations not cause unreasonable levels of sound to reach the boundary of any existing adjacent residential district. ICL is to provide general public notice of any planned steamblows. No quantitative noise standards are established by Martin County. Special Condition 14 establishes performance standards which are consistent with the provisions of Section 33-581.44(G) and (H) of the Martin County Code. The performance standards establish limits on the density of smoke; size of particulates; emissions of odors, dust and dirt, and of obnoxious gases and fumes; sewage disposal; set-backs for unenclosed buildings; fire protection measures; building heights; vegetative buffers adjacent to S.R. 710; and Project lighting. Several of these special performance standards provide additionally for compliance to be shown as part of the final certification order under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. Special Conditions 15 and 17 provide that potable water and wastewater services for the Project will be supplied by the Indiantown Company. Final agreements for the provisions of these services are to be provided as part of the final development plan approval. Special Condition 16 provides for protection of upland and wetland preserve areas as shown on the approved development plans. This condition complies with the upland and wetland preservation policies of the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. The size and dimension criteria of project facilities are governed by Special Condition 18. Special Condition 19 requires that soil erosion and sedimentation be controlled during construction through such practices as wetting, seeding or sodding of exposed areas. Under Special Condition 20, shoulders of Project roadways are to be stabilized. Pursuant to Special Condition 22, a south-bound turn lane on S.R. 710 is to be constructed at the entrance road to the Project. Permitted uses on the site are set out in Special Condition 23, allowing uses including pulverized coal electric generating unit, coal handling and storage facilities, rail trans- portation facilities, and other associated facilities. The uses permitted are described in greater detail in attachment 4 to that Exhibit F. The ICL Project, as designed, committed to by ICL, and proposed in the site certification application, is consistent and in compliance with the foregoing provisions of the PUD(i) Zoning Agreement. Project Compliance with Martin County Height Limitations On July 23, 1991, the Martin County BOCC adopted a special exception to allow heights in excess of 60 feet for facilities associated with the Indiantown Cogeneration Project. The project, as proposed, is consistent and in compliance with the provisions of this height exception. The PUD(i) Zoning Agreement in Special Condition 13 establishes maximum heights of the various project facilities; and the proposed Indiantown Cogeneration Project, as designed, committed to by ICL and proposed in the site certification application, complies with all of them. Consistency and Compliance of the Water Pipeline, Rail Spur and Site Access Road with Local Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances of Martin and Okeechobee Counties The location and construction of the cooling water pipeline is consistent with the policies of the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan that protect the residential quality of life and prevent impacts to tree canopies and soil erosion from such uses. The Martin County Zoning Code provides, in Chapter 35, Article II, that normal linear distribution facilities, such as the proposed water pipeline, are excepted from the definition of those utilities that are treated as advertised conditional uses. The water pipeline is, therefore, a permitted use in all zoning districts in Martin County. The Electric Utility Element of the adopted Okeechobee County Comprehensive Plan (Okeechobee Plan) provides that support facilities needed to provide electric utility service are deemed consistent with that Plan and are an allowed use in all land use categories. The water pipeline and intake structure are necessary support facilities to the Indiantown Cogeneration Project and, therefore, are consistent with the Okeechobee Plan. The Okeechobee County zoning ordinance allows, in any zoning district, installations necessary to the performance of an essential service, including water systems. Such facilities are to conform to the character of the zoning district. The water pipeline and intake structure are consistent with these provisions of the Okeechobee County zoning regulations. The Martin Plan provides that new rail facilities and roads be designed to minimize impacts on natural systems, which ICL has done in the siting of the rail spur and site access road to serve the site. The proposed location of the site access road is in the basic alignment of a future road between S.R. 710 and West Farm Road shown in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Martin Plan. The site access road to be constructed by ICL fulfills this objective of the Plan. Martin County zoning regulations are silent on the issue of the location of a rail spur or new roads. The proposed access road and rail spur are, therefore, consistent and in compliance with Martin County land use plans and zoning ordinances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a final order determining that the proposed Indiantown Cogeneration Project and its site (including the associated water pipeline and intake structure), as proposed in the Site Certification Application, are consistent and in compliance with land use plans and zoning ordinances of Martin and Okeechobee Counties. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 5th day of August, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas S. Roberts Gary P. Sams Attorneys at Law Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 (Counsel for Applicant) Richard T. Donelan, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kathryn Funchess, Assistant General Counsel David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel Stephen Pfeiffer, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Vernon Whittier R. Bishop Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 Fred W. Van Vonno Assistant County Attorney Martin County 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, FL 34996 John Fumero Attorney at Law South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Roger G. Saberson Attorney at Law 70 S.E. 4th Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483-4514 (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council) Peter Merritt Suite 205 3228 Southwest Martin Downs Boulevard P. O. Box 1529 Palm City, FL 34990 (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council) Ken Plante, General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 Robert V. Elias, Staff Counsel Division of Legal Services Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Fletcher Building, Room 212 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Brian Sodt Ernie Caldwell, Interim Executive Director Central Florida Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 2089 Bartow, FL 33830-2089 John D. Cassels, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 968 400 Northwest Second Street Okeechobee, FL 34973 (Counsel for Okeechobee County) James Antista, General Counsel Kenneth McLaughlin, Assistant General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Hamilton S. Oven, Jr., P.E., Administrator Office of Siting Coordination Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Room 153 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the land development regulation adopted by Respondent, Town of Medley (Town), by Ordinance No. C-306 on September 6, 2005, is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (Plan).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record presented by the parties, the following undisputed findings of fact are determined: The Town appears on a map to be located in the northern part of Dade County, south of U.S. Highway 27 and east of the Florida Turnpike, and just south of the City of Hialeah Gardens and southwest of the City of Hialeah. Besides a Plan originally adopted in December 1988, and amended from time to time, the Town also has a Code containing its land development regulations. Waste Management owns and operates a landfill in the Town known as the Medley Landfill & Recycling Center located at 9350 Northwest 89th Avenue.4 Because the landfill has been in operation since 1952, or long before the Plan was adopted, the landfill is considered a nonconforming use under Section 62-61 of the Town's Code. On September 6, 2005, the Town adopted Ordinance C- 306 which amended Section 62-61 of the Code to create a new procedure for allowing the expansion of qualifying facilities operating as nonconforming uses. (Except for Section 62-61, which is found in the Town's land development regulations, there are no provisions in the Plan itself relating to nonconforming uses.) Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, Subsection 62-61(b) provided the following limitation on the expansion of nonconforming uses: (b) The lawful use of land existing at the time of the passage of this chapter, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this chapter may be continued; provided, however, that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased, nor shall any nonconforming use be extended to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the passage of this chapter. Ordinance C-306 amended Subsection 62-61(b) as follows to allow for an exception to the rule against enlargement or expansion of nonconforming uses: (b) The lawful use of land existing at the time of the passage of this chapter, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this chapter, may be continued; provided, however, that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased except as provided in subsection (d) hereof, nor shall any nonconforming use be extended to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the passage of this chapter. To implement the exception against enlargement or expansion of nonconforming uses, the Ordinance further amended Section 62-61 by adding a new Subsection (d) to read as follows: (d) Any nonconforming use which serves as a Public Facility may be enlarged up to fifteen percent of the current building and/or land area of such use after formal approval by the Town Council via resolution according to the Municipal Code of Medley, Florida. Before approving such enlargement or increase the Town Council shall conduct at least two public hearings. The basis for calculation of such enlargement or increase shall exclude buildings and/or land areas not currently operating as a Public facility, though contiguous thereto. The new provision allows any nonconforming use which serves as a Public Facility to be enlarged or increased up to fifteen percent of its current building or land areas after formal approval by the Town Council by resolution. Because the Code did not define the term "Public Facilities," Ordinance C-306 amended Section 62-1 (the definitions portion of the Code) by adding a new Subsection (a), which reads as follows: "Public facilities" means major capital improvements, including, but not limited to, transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks and recreational, and health systems and facilities. As is evident from a reading of the definition, the term "public facilities" is not limited to solid waste facilities, but it also includes seven other types of public facilities. Gateway is the owner of real property commonly known as Medley Commerce Center, which is located in the Town immediately adjacent to and north of Waste Management's landfill. On October 6, 2005, Gateway filed a Petition with the Town alleging that the Ordinance was not consistent with the Plan in various respects. The Town did not respond to Gateway's Petition within thirty days after receipt of the Petition. Because no response was made by the Town, on November 7, 2005, Gateway filed a Petition with the Department requesting that the Department declare the Ordinance inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (Plan). See § 163.3213(3), Fla. Stat. The Petition referred to a Complaint filed in a circuit court case, Town of Medley v. Waste Management Inc. of Florida, Case No. 03-25832 CA 13, as stating the reasons for inconsistency. Although a copy of the Complaint was not attached to its Petition, Gateway later supplied the Department with a copy. After conducting an informal hearing on December 7, 2005, on February 21, 2006, the Department issued its Determination. In general terms, the Determination concluded that the concerns in Gateway's Petition should more appropriately be raised in a circuit court action under a different provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, through a challenge to any development order or approval that authorizes the expansion of a nonconforming public facility. See Determination, paragraph 17. On March 15, 2006, Gateway filed its Request with DOAH contending generally that the Ordinance was inconsistent with the Plan and that the Department had used the wrong legal standard in determining that the Ordinance was consistent with the Plan. The City, which appears on a map to lie directly south of the Town, shares a border with the Town in the area of Waste Management's landfill property. On February 9, 2006, the City filed a Petition with the Town seeking to have the Town declare that the Ordinance was inconsistent with its Plan. The Petition raised the same issues as did Gateway. On March 2, 2006, the Town provided a response to the Petition by asserting that the claim was barred by collateral estoppel due to the Department's Determination issued on February 21, 2006. The City then waived its right to have the Department conduct informal proceedings under Section 163.3213(4), Florida Statutes, and filed a Motion to Intervene and Incorporated Petition with DOAH on April 27, 2006. Although the City sought to intervene in Case No. 06-0918GM, the filing was treated as a new filing under Section 163.3213(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was assigned Case No. 06- 1548GM, and was consolidated with Gateway's case. Except for one additional consistency claim, discussed below, the filing raises the same issues as did Gateway. The purpose of Ordinance C-306, as expressed in Section 2 thereof, is as follows: PURPOSE: The limited increase or enlargement of nonconforming uses allowed by this ordinance is intended to further the goals, objectives and policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan found in the Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Element as well as the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The Plan's Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Element (Element) in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) identifies as its primary (and only) goal the "[p]rovision of needed public facilities in a manner that protects public and private investments in existing facilities and promotes compact urban growth." (Vol. IV, Record, page 603). Objective 1 of the same Element provides that an aim of the Plan is the "[p]rovision of sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable water facilities and services to meet existing and projected demands identified in this Plan." Id. Policy 1.2 also indicates that the Town is to "[i]mplement procedures to ensure that adequate facility capacity is available or will be available at the time a new development permit is issued." Id.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Environmental Regulation published notice of this land use hearing on March 21, 1981 in the Florida Times-Union newspaper. Notice was also published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The Applicant, Jacksonville Electric Authority, (hereinafter JEA) posted notice of this hearing at the proposed site and the Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter DER) mailed notice of this hearing to the chief executives of the local and regional authorities with responsibility for zoning and land use planning whose jurisdiction includes the site. JEA is an electric utility and agency of the City of Jacksonville. Its application in this proceeding seeks site certification for the construction of a coal-fired electric generating plant and ancillary facilities, including a coal unloading facility and ancillary facilities, including a coal unloading facility and associated transmission lines, all of which are to be located in Duval County, Florida. The proposed site comprises approximately 1,636 acres located north of the St. Johns Rive in northern Duval County, immediately contiguous to JEA's existing Northside Generating Station. Ordinance 80-1290-700 of the City of Jacksonville was adopted specifically for the purpose of zoning the land which comprises the site for which certification is sought in a classification which allows the land use JEA intends by its application. The Ordinance zones the site as GU, Government Use, a zoning classification which does allow the use to which the land will be put by the Applicant should the site be certified. By the terms of this Ordinance, the classification GU shall apply to the subject land on the date that Fee Simple title to that land passes to the Jacksonville Electric Authority. To the extent that Fee Simple title to that land has not already passed to the Jacksonville Electric Authority, the subject land is currently zoned IH, Industrial Heavy. JEA is a governmental agency of the City of Jacksonville and possesses all powers of eminent domain necessary to acquire the land comprising the site. The foregoing zoning classification does not apply to any land located within Government Lot 2, Section 6, Township 1 South, Range 28 East. JEA has stated that it has not intent to develop any part of Government Lot 2 within the proposed site and it is therefore not considered part of the site. The site certification application includes a proposed coal unloading facility to be located on approximately 55 acres of Blount Island, contiguous to the St. Johns River, and owned by the Jacksonville Port Authority, another agency of the City of Jacksonville. That 55-acre parcel is currently zoned IW, Industrial Waterfront, and a coal unloading facility is consistent with the uses allowed within the IQ zoning classification. The site certification application includes certain directly associated transmission lines to connect the proposed generating facility to the existing transmission network. The preferred corridors for these directly associated transmission lines extend in the same general direction as the existing transmission lines from JEA's Northside Generating Station and will run to existing substations in all cases. Transmission lines, substations and similar installations are classified as "essential services" and as such are permitted in any zoning district within Duval County without any unique zoning to allow that land use. The use of the proposed site, including the coal handling facility and directly associated transmission lines, are all consistent with the elements of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Jacksonville relating to land use. The plant site and the coal unloading facility appear on the land use plan map as "water related industrial" uses, and JEA has stated its intent to comply with the locational criteria for transmission lines found in the electric utility element of the City of Jacksonville 2005 Comprehensive Plan. The 2005 Comprehensive Plan has been approved by the State Department of Community Affairs and the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council for consistency with state and regional land use planning requirements.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 05S-01 (the Plan Amendment) adopted by Polk County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 05-004 is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,1 and whether Petitioner, Citizens for Proper Planning, Inc. (CPPI), has standing as an “affected person” as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The ECRA is a local special district governmental agency established pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, and is composed of a seven-member board of directors. The boundaries of the Eloise Community Redevelopment Area include an area consisting of approximately 665 acres within the unincorporated Eloise area of Polk County (the Redevelopment Area). The Subject Property is located within the Redevelopment Area. See JE 8A. The ECRA meets once a month, except July, when they do not normally meet. Its purpose is to discuss and implement the ECRA Redevelopment Plan’s six objectives within the Redevelopment Area. The ECRA opposed the Plan Amendment by and through its attorney and submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County regarding the Plan Amendment during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. As a part of its presentation to the County regarding the Plan Amendment, the ECRA delivered to the County, ECRA Resolution No. R-05-01, objecting to the Plan Amendment. The parties agree that the ECRA has standing in this proceeding. Petitioner, Bruce Bachman (Mr. Bachman), resides in Winter Haven, Polk County, Florida. His residence is located outside of the Redevelopment Area and is approximately three (3) miles from the Subject Property. He is employed as the operator (since 1980) and general manager of Phoenix Industries, LLP, (Phoenix), located at 621 Snively Avenue, County Road (CR) 655 in Eloise, which is adjacent to and across the street from the Subject Property. Mr. Bachman has served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ECRA since 1998. Phoenix operates a warehousing and distribution complex for dry, refrigerated, and frozen food products east of Snively Avenue and across the street from the Subject Property. The Phoenix property stretches north and south within an elongated area within the Redevelopment Area, and is open 24-hours a day, seven days a week.2 See JE 8A at "30". (The railroad, designated with a red line, runs north and south through the Phoenix property. JE 8A.) Phoenix has spent approximately $115,000 changing the angles of its buildings and moving docks so that trucks could maneuver on the property, and not have to enter Snively Avenue to do so. Mr. Bachman is involved with the Eloise residential area and the Redevelopment Area generally and his contributions to the Eloise area are well-noted in the record. His work with the community includes working with the students at Snively Elementary School. Individually, and on behalf of the ECRA, Mr. Bachman submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. The parties agree that Mr. Bachman has standing in this proceeding. Petitioner, Johnny Brooks (Mr. Brooks), resides at 143 8th Street, Eloise, Polk County, Florida, approximately three (3) blocks southwest from the Subject Property. His home is located within the main residential component of the Redevelopment Area. He was born in Eloise (on 5th Street) and has lived, with his wife, at the 8th Street address for 41 years. Mr. Brooks also serves as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ECRA. Although disabled, Mr. Brooks is an active member of the Eloise Community. For example, he and his wife conduct a “homework club” at the Eloise Community Resource Center (opened in 2002) located between 7th and 8th Streets and Snively Avenue, which is east and down the block from his residence. JE 8A at "2". They also use the computer lab at the resource center for adult education. They use the neighborhood Snively/Brooks Park, JE 8A at "4", approximately one block south of the Brooks' residence and west of the Snively Elementary School, JE 8A at "3", for, among other activities, Easter egg hunts and Christmas parties. Mr. Brooks is also involved in the Eloise Neighborhood Association, which offers adult computer classes, GED classes, and classes in English as a Second Language. He and his family use other resources within the Redevelopment Area, such as the Snively Elementary School, and a post office, JE 8A at "1", which is located approximately one block north of the Subject Property between 4th and 5th Streets, near Snively Avenue. Mr. Brooks attends the Eloise United Methodist Church (built in 1966-1967), which is located on land designated as Industrial (IND) on the FLUM. 3 JE 8A at "10". This church is located on the southwest side of Snively Avenue, and approximately five or six blocks south of the Subject Property and approximately two blocks south of the Snively Elementary School and the Snively-Brooks Park.4 Mr. Brooks submitted oral comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. The parties agree that Mr. Brooks has standing in this proceeding. CPPI is an organization comprised of approximately two hundred members, located throughout Polk County, Florida. CPPI has been an existing corporation since 2002. No application, request to join or payment of dues is currently required for membership. According to its executive chairperson, Jean Reed, its purpose is to "better plan for our growth in Polk County." Ms. Reed lives approximately one mile east of Eloise and four of five of the CPPI Board of Directors live within a mile of Eloise. All CPPI members live in the County. CPPI had been involved in County hearings and an administrative hearing involving a small scale comprehensive plan amendment. The organization currently encourages donations and plans to charge dues next year. CPPI submitted oral comments, recommendations and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. No evidence was presented to show that CPPI owns real property within the County. The County and the Intervenor dispute CPPI’s standing in this proceeding. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, empowered to adopt, implement, and amend its Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the laws of Florida. Intervenor, Don C. Smith (Smith or Intervenor), owns the Subject Property. He purchased the Subject Property of 9.9 acres, which is part of a contiguous 20-acre site, in May of 2003. Mr. Smith learned that the Subject Property had an RL-4 land use designation just prior to his purchase of the Subject Property. The parties agree that Mr. Smith has standing in this proceeding. The Eloise Community Redevelopment Area The Redevelopment Area consists of approximately 665 acres. EE 2, Plan at 30. It is generally bounded by the CSX railroad to the north of US 17; by Lake Lulu and Shell Road on the east; by Snively Avenue (CR 655) on the south; and by Wahneta Canal and a portion of Wahneta farms on the west. JE 8A.5 (Snively Avenue is a four-lane undivided, major collector highway, but is not a buffer.) Both historically and presently, the Redevelopment Area has been composed of mixed uses in an urban area. Under the FLUM, there are eight separate land uses within the Redevelopment Area: Industrial (IND), Business Park Center (BPC- 2), High Impact Commercial (HIC), Institutional (INST-1), Community Activity Center (CAC), Residential Suburban (RS), Residential Low-1 (RL-1), and Residential Low-4 (RL-4). JE 8A. Beginning at the northern portion of the Redevelopment Area and moving from west to east, south of the CSX railroad and approximately one block south of US 17, the land uses designated on the FLUM are HIC, CAC, and HIC. Moving southward and east of Snively Avenue, the land use designation for a triangular portion of land is BPC-2. The land use designation adjacent to and immediately south of the BPC-2 designation and east of Snively Avenue is designated as IND. The IND designation covers the land in a southerly direction until Snively Avenue intersects with Croton Road. The land to the east and adjacent to the BPC-2 and IND designations is designated as RL-1. There is a small portion of land near Shell and Croton Roads at the southern boundary of the Redevelopment Area designated as Residential Suburban (RS). (The RS designation continues to the east outside of the Redevelopment Area. Lake Lulu is to the east of the eastern RL-1 and RS designations.) There is also land designated as RL-1 west of Snively Avenue, bisected by Unnamed Street, extending west of Wahneta Canal and south-southwest of the Snively Elementary School/Snively-Brooks Park area, to the southwestern boundary of the Redevelopment Area.6 The Snively Elementary School and the Snively-Brooks Park are located in the INST-1 land use designation.7 JE 8A. Approximately 150 children walk to and from this elementary school (with another 60 to middle and high schools outside the Redevelopment Area), utilizing the sidewalk bordering the western portion of Snively Avenue. The majority of the children attending the elementary school reside in the RL-4 designated area (mainly between 1st and 9th Streets). Mr. Smith agreed that the elementary school was in close proximity to the Subject Property. Mr. Smith testified that after meetings with the ECRA, he moved the fence in front of the Subject Property and business back ten feet so that the children could have more room to walk down the street. He also instructed his drivers of big trucks and heavy equipment not to enter the Subject Property during times when the children are going to and from school. There are several school crossings, crossing Snively Avenue. There is a bus stop at 5th Street and Snively Avenue for children attending middle and high school. JE 8A at "6". There are also bus stops on 7th Street and in front of the elementary school. JE 8A at "5" and "7". Except for the residential portions of the CAC and BPC-2 areas, the primary residential area of the Redevelopment Area is generally bounded by US 17 and 1st Street on the north, the Wahneta Canal on the west, and to just north of Snively Elementary School and 9th Street on the south. JE 8A; EE 2, Plan at 6 and Figure 2. The Eloise Community Redevelopment Area Uses 1. In General The Redevelopment Area, for at least the last 40 years, has supported a wide variety of industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential uses. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Smith testified that the Redevelopment Area has supported these mixed uses and has historically been defined by the interrelationship of these various uses with the predominant industrial activities within its boundaries. In the past, the established residential area (RL-4) was once a successful working-class neighborhood which primarily provided homes to those workers who were employed in the citrus plants located within the industrial classified areas. That residential area is now blighted and provides housing for low and moderate income families. Though well established, the RL-4 residential area contains a substantial number of vacant lots within that residential designated area. 2. Redevelopment Area Problems and Redevelopment During the early 1980’s, Eloise was a troubled community, suffering, for example, from theft and vandalism. The community had difficulty finding minority contractors willing to work at Phoenix because of the problems associated with the community. By the early 1990s, the residential area of the Redevelopment Area had deteriorated to such an extent that the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HND), an agency of the County, became actively involved in the redevelopment of the community. In 1992, the Eloise Neighborhood Association was formed. In 1996, a Neighborhood Revitalization/Redevelopment Plan was commissioned by HND. This plan was prepared by County staff. Also in 1996, the HND and the Eloise Neighborhood Association prepared the Eloise Neighborhood Revitalization/Redevelopment Plan, which “focused on the 138 acres generally bounded by the CSX Railroad on the east, the railroad and US 17 on the north, the Wahneta Canal on the west, to just south of the Snively Elementary School. Its recommendations included improved social services, land use changes, housing programs and infrastructure improvements.” In 1998, a Declaration of Slum and Blight was adopted by the Board through Resolutions Nos. 98-08 and 98-66, which, respectively, made a finding of blighting conditions in Eloise and adopted a redevelopment plan for Eloise. As a result, the ERCA was created pursuant to Section 163.356, Florida Statutes, to rehabilitate, conserve, and/or redevelop the Redevelopment Area. In 2000, the Board, pursuant to Section 163.360, Florida Statutes, adopted Ordinance No. 00-33, approving of the Eloise Redevelopment Plan as the Community Development Plan for the Redevelopment Area. It was the purpose and intent of the Board that the Eloise Redevelopment Plan be implemented in the Redevelopment Area. The Board made numerous findings in Ordinance No. 00- 33 including a determination that “[t]he Plan conforms to the general plan of the county as a whole” and that “[t]he Plan conforms to the Polk County Comprehensive Plan.” The Board also determined that “[t]he need for housing accommodations has increased in the area.” The Eloise Redevelopment Plan has not been adopted as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the Plan Amendment need not be consistent with the Eloise Redevelopment Plan to be “in compliance.” The May 2000, Eloise Redevelopment Plan describes the then existing ownership patterns such that “[t]he existing Eloise residential neighborhood between 1st and 9th Streets is subdivided into platted, fifty-foot wide lots. Most are 100-125 feet in depth. Lots along 9th Street abutting the school are platted as 70-foot wide lots. The ownership pattern in this area typically follows the lot lines. Most are individually owned lots. (See Figure 6).” EE 2, Plan at 16. Particularly relevant here, it is also stated: “Lots 33 and 34 [part of the Subject Property] are each approximately 9 acres and are owned by Alterman Transport Corporation (ATC). The site is currently used for storage and, in the past, was zoned GI [General Industrial] and R-3. In the current Comprehensive Plan, however, this site is planned for Residential Suburban (RS) to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The trucks are a legal-nonconforming use and may continue but any future development shall comply with the RS land use district.” EE 2, Plan at 16. The Eloise Redevelopment Plan also recommended that the Alterman Trucking Annex, also known as the Alterman Transportation Corporation, be developed for up to 75 single- family homes by the end of 2004. EE 2, Plan at 32; JE 3 at 3 of (The Subject Property was also formerly known as the Alterman Motor Freight Terminal. JE 2, 8/10/2004 site map.) In 2001, the County also changed the classification of the Subject Property from RS to RL-4 pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-45. See Finding of Fact 54. In addition to the creation of the ECRA, the County, through the HND, has attempted to revitalize the Redevelopment Area. Since 1993, HND has spent approximately $4.4 million dollars in these efforts. These funds have been spent on community policing ($424,790), slum and blight clearing ($47,428), housing rehabilitation ($186,807), parks and recreation ($149,982), water/sewer/drainage ($1,094,677), construction of the Eloise Community Center ($2,147,037), replacement of five homes ($314,138), and rehabilitation and repair of five homes ($46,819). As part of the Eloise Redevelopment Plan, many additional infrastructure improvements have been proposed, such as fire hydrants, turnaround areas for emergency vehicles and fire trucks, storm water installation, and sewer for the Residential Area of Eloise between 1st and 9th Streets and between Snively Avenue and the canal. The proposed projects for water, sewer, and storm water include 350 parcels to be served in this Residential Area. The construction of the Eloise Community Center has been the most costly expense in these efforts. After the County obtained this parcel from Phoenix Industries, it was discovered that the land was contaminated and more than $400,000 was spent on environmental clean-up costs for this property. The ECRA and the County have made progress in the area of code enforcement. Furthermore, crime has been cut in half and a drinking ordinance was passed by the County upon request of the ECRA and the Eloise Neighborhood Association. Eloise, with the County's cooperation, also initiated a Community- Oriented Policing program. There has been an increase in construction in the area, both on the residential and commercial/industrial side of Snively Avenue. The ECRA has also been working on a beautification strategy. For example, Phoenix spent $35,000 for landscaping, removing barbed wire, installing an irrigation system, and installing an attractive entrance to its facilities. Further beautification is planned for other areas along Snively Avenue, the main gateway to the area from US 17, and improvements to Snively Elementary School, for which the ECRA allocated up to $10,000. Currently, the socio-economic status of the families living within the residential portion of the Redevelopment Area is low and moderate income. But, as noted above, the area is being revitalized, including the addition of several Habitat for Humanity-built homes. Mr. Bachman confirmed that "[t]hings have changed now," including the employment of minorities and an increase in diversity at the elementary school. The Subject Property The Subject Property is located within the Redevelopment Area on the southwest side of Snively Avenue between 5th and 6th Streets. JE 8A. The Subject Property consists of approximately 9.9 acres, which is part of a 20-acre parcel owned by Mr. Smith. Tr. 261. (There is a vacant parcel not subject to the Plan Amendment, also acquired by Mr. Smith at the same time, adjacent to and west of the Subject Property, which appears to be within a flood zone area. JE 8A at “46”. The canal serves as the western border for this parcel.) Currently, there are ten to eleven residences along 5th Street, north of the Subject Property, and ten residences between the Subject Property and 6th Street, south of the Subject Property. See EE 7. There does not appear to be any appreciable distance between these residences and the Subject Property. Aside from the residential homes north and south of the Subject Property, there are also retail, auto repair, and other commercial uses which border on Snively Avenue. See, e.g., IE 1, aerial with 15 photographs; JE 3 at 5 of 27; Tr. 295-297; JE 8A. According to Mr. Smith, he requested the land use designation change to cure the non-conforming status of the Subject Property. All operations on the Subject Property had ceased for less than one year when he purchased the Subject Property. The Subject Property has historically and, except as noted above, continuously been utilized since the late 1960’s for industrial-type purposes, including motor freight activities which include loading and unloading citrus trucks, racking, truck repair, and truck weighing. These activities would not necessarily be restricted to an Industrial land use designation;8 the current use of the Subject Property as a motor freight terminal is also permitted within a BPC-2 land use designation. There has been no substantial change in the use of the Subject Property since 1980.9 Mr. Brooks testified that while he was growing up in Eloise, the Subject Property "was primarily truck parking for the citrus plant." He "worked for the scale house back in the late 60's before the plant went down and all [they] did was like park the trucks there for unloading and which would be in the citrus plant itself." However, he never knew the Subject Property "to be an industrial park itself," during the late 1960's. Historically, Mr. Snively, who died in 1957, owned several different businesses across the street from the Subject Property, including a fresh fruit packing house, JE 8A at "20", juice plant, JE 8A at "21", concentrate plant, JE 8A at “22”. The plant closed in 1969 or 1970. In and around 1972, during the summer, Mr. Smith worked for the Snively operation when they parked their citrus trucks on the Subject Property and then for the Alterman operation on-site when he loaded and unloaded trucks. Under the County's zoning ordinance adopted in November 1970, the Subject Property, along with the Phoenix Industries Property, its adjoining property, and the property southeast and adjacent to Snively Elementary School, were zoned as General Industrial (GI). Like the Subject Property, this industrial area is located east and immediately adjacent to property classified as residential (RS) (although the property is presently undeveloped). By an amendment to the FLUM adopted by Ordinance No. 91-06 on April 19, 1991, the Subject Property was classified as RS, rather than IND.10 At the same time, the Phoenix Industries Property, its adjoining property, and the property immediately adjacent to Snively Elementary all maintained their Industrial classification. The May 2000 Eloise Redevelopment Plan recommended, in part, consideration of "a plan amendment from RS to RL-4 for the properties north of Snively [Elementary] School and west of Snively Avenue" which included the Subject Property. EE 2, Plan at 38. On July 11, 2001, the County adopted Ordinance No. 01- 45, which changed the land use designation on the FLUM from RS to RL-4, for all of the property (including the Subject Property) between 1st Street and just south of 9th Street and between Snively Avenue on the east and the canal on the west. EE 1 at map page 2. The land use designation for the Snively- Brooks Park was also changed to INST-1 from IND. Other land use designations were changed pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-45. EE 1. See also Tr. 130-136, 139-140. The FLUM changes implemented strategies set forth in the Eloise Redevelopment Plan and adopted recommended changes to the FLUM. See Tr. 163. The RL-4 designated property is located immediately adjacent to and on the north, west, and south sides of the Subject Property. JE 8A. Across Snively Avenue from the RL-4 property is the industrial area which was previously used in the citrus industry and which is currently used by Phoenix warehousing and trucking activities. JE 8A. "The purpose of the [RL-4] District is to provide areas for low density residential needs of residents in urban areas who desire areas with smaller lots, a minimum of 6,000 square feet." § 204A7., Land Development Code (LDC). The County and Mr. Smith contend that the Subject Property was mistakenly or erroneously classified as RS in 1991 and RL-4 in 2001. However, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that no mistake or error was made in 1991 or 2001 based, in part, on the chronology of events regarding the land use changes mentioned above. Merle H. Bishop, A.I.C.P., the current Director of Growth Management for the County, has been an employee of Polk County for 30 years, and was involved in the adoption of the original Comprehensive Plan in 1991. In preparing land use designations for the initial FLUM, he used aerial photographs primarily and the existing zoning at the time. Since that time, he and staff have discovered errors in mapping the land uses of property, including industrial. Typically, the errors have been corrected when presented to the Board for comprehensive plan changes to the FLUM. Mr. Bishop testified that pursuant to a policy in the Comprehensive Plan, the County desired to “recognize industrial uses.” Tr. 444-445. According to Mr. Bishop, an active industrial use would only be eliminated with good reason, i.e., such as it was a remote and isolated industrial use. Tr. 455. According to Mr. Bishop, the Subject Property, the southern parcel by the elementary school, and the Phoenix Industries property made up a major industrial use area. Tr. 456. Although Mr. Bishop stated the Subject Property "would have been" designated as Industrial in 1991 given its use, Tr. 511-512, Mr. Bishop could not "say whether or not [they] missed this on the map when [they] mapped it. I mean it appears -- I mean, when you look at the map, it's very general; or whether there was an intention to not map it." Tr. 483-484. Mr. Bishop did not testify persuasively that the Board, in 1991 or in 2001, erroneously designated the Subject Property as RS and then RL-4. The February 2, 2005, staff report, mentions the applicant’s contention that a mapping error occurred, but implicitly rejects this argument. JE 3 at 11 and 12 of 27. Staff stated: The site has recently changed ownership and the current property owner wants the non-conforming uses to become conforming uses. Recognizing the existing use will enable to [sic] owner to continue utilizing the site as it has historically been used and allow the redevelopment of the property as needed. In addition, the use has remained the same since the early 1970’s according to the applicant. The applicant also states that Policy 2.113-A2 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the [FLUM] Series shall include all major existing industrial areas; since the property has historically been used for industrial uses, the recognition of the site will correct the County’s mapping error. On the other hand, staff and the ECRA has [sic] indicated, for this and the prior requested land use change (CPA 04A-05), that the impacts to the residential neighborhood is [sic] more significant than the redevelopment of the site for commercial or industrial uses. The County worked with the residents, business owners, and land owners in the area to develop a redevelopment plan, in which, the site was intentionally made non-conforming by the community and the County in order to create separation between the industrial uses across the street from the residential uses on the west side of CR 655 (Rifle Range Road [sic]). Therefore, the applicant’s primary argument for recognizing the historical use is not relevant. JE 3 at 12 of 27. Mr. Bishop was not directly involved with the staff review although he participated at the pubic hearing before the Board. If the Subject Property were vacant, Mr. Bishop would not recommend an Industrial land use designation. He supports the land use change because of the existing (at the time) use of the Subject Property and to have the property be a conforming use. Tr. 506-507. The history of industrial-type use on both the Subject Property and other sites in the Redevelopment Area has been a subject of significant concern. Although no tests have been conducted to determine whether the Subject Property is contaminated, Dr. Cherry testified that as a result of its long industrial use, it is likely that contamination will be present, which would render its use for residential purposes not realistic. Tr. 221-223. Since the subject property is located near the property upon which the community center was constructed and both parcels were part of a larger industrial area and utilized for similar uses, Dr. Cherry suspects that the Subject Property will likewise be contaminated. Tr. 222. If the Subject Property is contaminated, it is Dr. Cherry's opinion that there will be insufficient funds to clean the area. Tr. 219. Consequently, Dr. Cherry opined that if the Subject Property could not be used for industrial purposes, it would likely be unable to be developed as residential and most likely would be abandoned, thereby becoming a “brownfield.” This would significantly burden the redevelopment efforts in the Redevelopment Area. However, the Subject Property has not been declared a “brownfield” and no finding can be made regarding the environmental condition of the Subject Property based upon the record of this case. The Small Scale Plan Amendment Application and Adoption On or about August 10, 2004, Mr. Smith filed an application requesting the County to re-designate the land use of the Subject Property from RL-4 to IND. JE 2. According to the “Narrative Summary,” “[t]his change will provide for the continuation of historical motor freight uses and provide for optional industrial uses.” Id. On January 4, 2005, the County published Notice in a newspaper of local circulation providing that the Board would consider the adoption of the Plan Amendment at its meeting of January 19, 2005. At the January 19, 2005, meeting, the County tabled consideration of the Plan Amendment to its meeting of February 2, 2005. The Polk County Planning Division Staff report is dated February 2, 2005. This report contains a detailed analysis of the application. The Planning Division recommended denial of the Plan Amendment. (The report indicates that the Planning Commission recommended approval (3 to 1 vote) of the Plan Amendment.) The Planning Division found, in part, that "the proposed development request IS NOT compatible with surrounding land uses and general character of the area of the residential uses on the southern side of Snively Avenue (CR 655) and IS NOT consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan for a land use change to Industrial (IND) because it would likely intrude into the existing residential neighborhood, allow for more intensive uses to be developed next to existing homes, and not be consistent with the approved Eloise Redevelopment Plan." (Emphasis is original). On February 2, 2005, the Board voted to adopt the Plan Amendment by the adoption of Ordinance No. 05-004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order concluding that the Plan Amendment adopted by Polk County Ordinance No. 05-004 is not "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 8th day of July, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Bradford County Board of County Commissioners should approve or deny an application to rezone a 12.76-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Highway 301 and County Road 18 in unincorporated Bradford County (“the Property”) from Residential, (Mixed) Single Family/Mobile Home (RSF/MH-1) to Commercial Intensive (CI).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Craig W. Patterson and Timothy Buffkin own the Property and are the applicants for the proposed re-zoning. Bradford County is the local government responsible for determining the land use designation and zoning classification for the Property and has adopted a comprehensive plan and LDRs which it amends from time to time. The Property The Property is a 12.76-acre parcel located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 301 (US 301) and County Road 18 (CR 18) in unincorporated Bradford County. US 301 is a four-lane divided principal arterial roadway, and CR 18 is a two-lane major collector roadway. The intersection has a traffic light and left turn lanes on US 301. This is the only intersection of a principal arterial road and a major collector road in unincorporated Bradford County. The Property is roughly rectangular, with approximately 1,240 linear feet fronting on US 301 (eastern boundary of the Property) and approximately 450 feet fronting on County Road 18 (northern boundary). The Property is not located within a flood-prone area and has little or no wetlands. Approximately a half mile to the east of the Property is Hampton Lake. The Property is relatively flat. The soils on the property are poorly drained soils, but not indicative of wetlands. The soils and topography of the property do not preclude its development with a system to control stormwater and drainage. Currently, the Property contains one single-family dwelling unit. The Property is bounded on the north by a commercial land use and single-family residences, on the east by vacant and commercial land use, on the south by vacant land, and on the west by vacant land and single-family residences. Current Zoning and Land Use Designations Before October 2004, the Property was designated on the County’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as “Residential Low Density,” which authorizes residential development at a density of less than or equal to two dwelling units per acre. On October 21, 2004, the County amended the FLUM to re-designate the Property as “Commercial.” However, the zoning for the Property remained “Residential, (Mixed) Single Family / Mobile Home (RSF/MH-1). The current zoning does not allow the types of uses appropriate under its Commercial land use designation. The Property is also located within an Urban Development Area which is defined in the Future Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan as an “area to which higher density agricultural, residential (single family, multi-family and mobile homes) and commercial and industrial uses are to be directed.” Within Urban Development Areas, lands classified as “Commercial” are to be used for the “sale, rental and distribution of products or performance of services, as well as public, charter and private elementary, middle and high schools.” Certain other uses may also be approved as special exceptions or special permits. Surrounding Land Uses A portion of the land to the north of the Property and all of the land immediately east are within the municipal boundaries of the City of Hampton. The City of Hampton has zoned property at the US 301/CR 18 intersection as “CG”, a commercial designation which includes all of the uses authorized under Bradford County’s CI zoning district. Within the past several years, a truck repair and auto parts facility was located and is still operating east of the Property, across US 301. Farther east, but bordering those commercial lands, a residential subdivision (Fox Hollow) is under development. The Requested Re-zoning The Applicants seek to re-zone the Property to Commercial Intensive (CI). Permitted principal uses and structures allowed within the CI zoning district are consistent with the types of commercial uses listed in the comprehensive plan for the Commercial land use designation, namely retail outlets for the sale of food, home furnishings, vehicles, etc.; service establishments such as barber shops, shoe repair shops, repair and service garages; medical or dental offices; and wholesaling. The CI zoning district is described as “intended for intensive, highly automotive-oriented uses that require a conspicuous and accessible location convenient to streets carrying large volumes of traffic and shall be located within commercial land use classifications on the [FLUM].” The Property meets the description of a conspicuous and accessible location that is convenient to streets carrying large volumes of traffic. Concurrency Management Assessment The requested re-zoning is a “straight” re-zoning request, meaning that the re-zoning is not associated with any particular proposed use. Future development of the site will be subject to development plan review and approval, pursuant to Article Fourteen of the County LDRs. A concurrency reservation is not available until final site plan approval. However, at the County’s request, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (NCFRPC) performed concurrency management assessments of the re-zoning in 2006 and again in 2008. In 2006, the NCFRPC provided the County with nonbinding concurrency determination that the applicable service levels would be met or exceeded for potable water (to be supplied by potable water wells); sanitary sewer (to be served by on-site septic tanks); solid waste; drainage; recreation; affordable housing; and historic resources. As to transportation facilities, the 2006 concurrency management assessment determined that the maximum potential development of the Property would generate 389 trips on US 301 at “PM peak hour.” When added to the then-existing PM peak hour trips, based on Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic count data, US 301 would continue to operate within the adopted level of service (LOS). Between 2006 and 2008, the adopted LOS standard for US 301 was raised from “C” to “B,” meaning that the governmental objective was changed to maintain a freer flow of traffic during evening peak traffic. Therefore, despite the reduction of “background” trips on US 301, the 2008 concurrency management assessment determined that maximum development of the Property would cause the new LOS “B” standard to be exceeded. Petitioners presented a traffic analysis based upon more recent FDOT traffic count data than was used by the NCFRPC for its 2008 concurrency management assessment. The newer data showed a further decline in background trips on US 301, so that adding the maximum potential trips from the Property would no longer result in total PM peak hour trips that would exceed the adopted LOS standard. Petitioners’ more recent data and analysis is professionally acceptable and should be used. At the time of site plan review for any future development of the Property, an updated concurrency assessment will be required and will be based on the number of trips generated by the actual proposed use, rather than the trips that would be generated by the maximum development potential of the Property. The assessment will also use the most current FDOT traffic count data. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses The County’s Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the application for re-zoning at its July 10, 2006, meeting. It recommended denial of the re-zoning based upon the impact of the proposed change upon living conditions in the neighborhood. As factual support for the recommended denial, the Planning and Zoning Board’s report cites “all comments received during the said public hearing and the Concurrency Management Assessment concerning said application.” At the August 19, 2008, public hearing held before the Administrative Law Judge, members of the public expressed concern that the CI zoning would be incompatible with the existing residential development to the west, in the Hampton Lake area. Some members of the public also expressed concern about possible future uses of the Property, such as a truck stop or bar. Package stores for the sale of alcoholic beverages, bars, taverns, cocktail lounges, truck stops and automotive service stations can only be approved as special exception uses in the CI zoning district. Special exception uses require approval of the County’s Board of Adjustment after a public hearing, upon a finding that granting the special exception use would promote the “public health, safety, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, propriety or the general welfare.” The Board of Adjustment must also determine that the special exception use would be compatible with adjacent properties. A favorable decision here on the requested re-zoning to CI is not a determination that a bar or truck stop on the Property would be compatible with the adjacent residential area. The LDRs impose site use and design criteria for commercial uses that adjoin residential districts. Site plan approval for commercial developments in CI zoning districts requires the consideration of landscape buffers, height restrictions, off-street parking requirements, lot coverage and yard standards. These development conditions are designed to minimize impacts to adjacent residential areas. Stormwater Some of the speakers at the public hearing expressed concern about stormwater runoff from the Property. One speaker, Michael Davis, testified that stormwater from the Property currently flows across his property. Another expressed concern that runoff from the Property would flow directly to Hampton Lake. On-site stormwater retention facilities would be required for the Property in conjunction with its development. The LDRs require that post-development runoff rates not exceed pre-development conditions. The objective of the required stormwater runoff controls is to approximate the rate, volume, quality, and timing of stormwater runoff that occurred under the site’s unimproved or existing state. There is no basis, at this stage of analysis, to determine that the County’s stormwater regulations are not adequate to prevent adverse stormwater impacts to adjacent residences or to Hampton Lake. Traffic on CR 18 Several speakers expressed concerns regarding increased traffic on CR 18. Petitioners conducted a site-specific traffic count for CR 18 east of US 301 and determined that the peak hour trips are now 131. The capacity for CR 18 is approximately 600. Based upon the total of 389 additional trips generated by the maximum potential development of the Property (on either US 301 or CR 18), the adopted LOS standard for CR 18 would not be exceeded. Petitioners demonstrated that the proposed re-zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the LDRs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Bradford County Board of County Commissioners approve the requested re-zoning. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 18th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Norman, Clerk of the Board Bradford County Board of County Commissioners 945 North Temple Avenue Starke, Florida 32091 Marcia Parker Tjoflat, Esquire Charles L. Gibbs, Esquire Pappas Metcalf Jenks & Miller, P.A. 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William E. Sexton, Esquire Brown & Broling 486 N. Temple Avenue Starke, Florida 32091
The Issue Is Southworth Advertising Displays, Petitioner (Southworth), entitled to a permit for a sign in Madison County, Florida, 1.5 miles west of U.S. 221, on the north side of I-10 facing east, DOAH Case No. 99-1660T, to be issued by the Department of Transportation, Respondent (the Department)? Is Southworth entitled to permits issued by the Department for a sign in Madison County, Florida, 1.31 miles east of County Road 255, on the north side of I-10 facing east and west, DOAH Case No. 99-1661T?
Findings Of Fact Permit Denial Southworth applied to the Department for a state sign permit for a location in Madison County, Florida, 1.5 miles west of U.S. 221 on the north side of I-10 facing east. By separate application, Southworth applied for sign permits for a sign in Madison County, Florida, 1.31 miles east of County Road 255 on the north side of I-10 facing east and west. If permitted, all signs would be located within portions of the interstate highway system controlled by the Department for purposes set forth in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. That law confers regulatory authority on the Department in determining Southworth's ability to construct the signs. Following permit review the Department denied the applications based upon proposed agency action finding that Southworth was out of compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (1997). For the sign to be located in the vicinity of U.S. 221, there was an additional concern about the placement of the sign in proximity to the state right-of-way. At hearing the parties expressed a willingness to resolve that issue through the conduct of a survey of the parcel in determining the proper placement of the sign if otherwise permitted. Southworth challenged the denials by petitions filed March 23, 1999. Local Comprehensive Plan Madison County has a comprehensive plan in conformance with requirements in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, to include a future land use map. Additionally, Chapter 4, entitled Land Development Code, addresses zoning within Madison County as land use development regulations. Section 4.2-2 to that code lists the land use districts within the county, to include A-2, also referred to as Agriculture-2. Section 4.4B specifically describes Agriculture-2 where it states: Purpose and Intent. These areas are predominantly in agricultural and silvicultural use. Allowable Uses. Agricultural. Residential, subject to the density standards in the code. Institutional, excluding residential care facilities and nursing homes, as contained in (i). Outdoor Recreational. Public Service/Utility, as contained in (i). Mining. General Commercial; neighborhood scale only; subject to locational requirements. Public, as contained in (i). Special Exception Uses: (see also Section 4.6-4). Borrow Pits intended for use exceeding 60 days; Residential care facilities and nursing homes; Prison/Correctional facilities. Public Service/Utility. Public. In association with the description of neighborhood scale, Section 4.5 Development Standards, B. Special Locational, density and intensity requirements, 4. Neighborhood commercial uses shall: Be located within three-hundred thirty (330) feet of the intersection of major roadways (principal arterial, minor arterial, major collector, or minor collector). Not exceed 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. Not occupy more than five (5) percent of the district in which the neighborhood commercial use is located. Contrary to Southworth's contention, free-standing signs such as those under consideration do not conform to the Agriculture-2 General Commercial Designation or any other designation in the land use district. The signs standing alone are unassociated with the general neighborhood commercial enterprise described in the land use development regulations. Even should the proposed free-standing signs be considered a general commercial activity, they are not located within 330 feet of the intersection of major roadways, failing which the signs would not be considered a neighborhood commercial activity allowed under terms set forth in the land use development regulations. Changes to Chapter 479 After the Department noticed its Intent to Deny the Southworth applications for sign permits, but prior to the formal hearing, amendments were made to Section 479.01(3) and (23), Florida Statutes, as those provisions are implicated in Section 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (1997). The effective date of those amendments was July 1, 1999. The amendments were made in House Bill 591, Section 37. As a result, Section 479.01, Florida Statutes, reads as follows: (3). 'Commercial or industrial zone' means a parcel of land an area within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right of way of the interstate or federal aid primary system designated predominately for commercial or industrial use under both the future land use map of the comprehensive plan and the land use development regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 163. If a parcel is located in an area designated for multiple uses on the future land use map of a comprehensive plan and the land development regulations do not clearly designate that parcel for a specific use, the area will be considered an unzoned commercial or industrial area if it meets the criteria of subsection (23). Where a local governmental entity has not enacted a comprehensive plan by local ordinance but the zoning regulations governing the area, the zoning of an area shall determine whether the area is designated predominately for commercial or industrial uses. (23). 'Unzoned commercial or industrial area' means a parcel of land designated by the an area within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right of way of the interstate or federal aid primary system where the land use is not covered by a future land use map of the comprehensive plan for multiple uses that include commercial or industrial uses but are not specifically designated for commercial or industrial uses under the land development regulations or zoning regulation pursuant to subsection (2), in which there are located three or more separate and distinct conforming industrial or commercial activities are located. These activities must satisfy the following criteria: At least one of the commercial or industrial activities must be located on the same side of the highway and within 800 feet of the sign location; The commercial or industrial activities must be within 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way; and The commercial industrial activities must be within 1,600 feet of each other. Distances specified in this paragraph must be measured from the nearest outer edge of the primary building or primary building complex when the individual units of the complex are connected by covered walkways. Uses located within a 1,600 foot radius of each other and generally recognized as commercial or industrial by zoning authorities in this state. Certain activities, including, but not limited to, the following, may not be so recognized as commercial or industrial activities: 1.(a) Signs. 2.(b) Agricultural, forestry, ranching, grazing, farming, and related activities, including, but not limited to, wayside fresh produce stands. 3.(c) Transient or temporary activities. 4.(d) Activities not visible from the main-traveled way. 5.(e) Activities conducted more than 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way. 6.(f) Activities conducted in a building principally used as a residence. 7.(g) Railroad tracks and minor sidings. 8. Communication towers. Non-compliance The parcels in question are located in areas designated for multiple uses under the future land use map. The local land development regulations do not clearly designate the areas where the parcels are found for a specific use. Therefore, Southworth must meet the criteria for unzoned commercial or unzoned industrial to qualify for the permits. To that end, three or more separate and distinct conforming industrial or commercial activities are not presently located in the areas where the signs would be placed when examining the criteria set forth in House Bill 591, Section 37, related to Section 479.01(23)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which denies the applications for permits to place signs in Madison County, Florida, 1.5 miles west of U.S. 221 on the north side of I-10 facing east, and 1.31 miles east of County Road 255 on the north side of I-10 facing east and west. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 3rd day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy D. Padgett, Esquire Penson & Padgett, P.A. 2810 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attn: James C. Myers, Agency Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether a Residential Office (RO) designation for the thirty acre parcel at the southeast corner of McMullen-Booth and Curlew Roads, which is owned by Gas Kwik (Petitioner), is consistent with the Countywide Comprehensive Plan for Pinellas County (Countywide Plan); or Whether a split designation of RO for the northern nine acres with Low Density Residential (LDR) for the southern twenty-one acres of the subject parcel, as recommended by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC), is consistent with the Countywide Plan and supported by competent substantial evidence, and Whether the PPC is authorized to initiate this split designation amendment rather than limiting its review and recommendation to the RO designation which was approved by the City of Safety Harbor (City), and forwarded to the PPC by the City as a proposed amendment to the Countywide Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns a thirty acre parcel of property located in the City of Safety Harbor, Pinellas County, Florida, which is the subject of the proposed land use change at issue in this case. The PPC is the countywide land planning agency charged with development and implementation of the Countywide Plan. As it relates to this case, it is responsible for review of the proposed amendment to the Countywide Plan concerning Petitioner's parcel, and for recommending action on that amendment to the Board of County Commissioners. The City of Safety Harbor (City) received the Petitioner's application for a redesignation of the subject property from Suburban Low Density Residential (SLDR) to Residential/Office/Retail (ROR), and after review it approved an amendment to the City's land use plan map on March 6, 1989, which redesignated Petitioner's property to Residential/Office (RO). Thereafter, the City requested an amendment to the Countywide Plan to change the designation of the subject property to RO. After review, the PPC recommended denial of the City's request, and further, recommended an alternative split designation of Residential/Office - Low Density Residential (RO/LDR). Neither the City nor the Petitioner have agreed to the PPC's compromise alternative. The Petitioner timely filed its request for a hearing on the PPC's denial of the City's request, and its recommendation of the split alternative. The City did not seek to become a party to this action, but as the owner of the property in question, the Petitioner is substantially affected by the PPC's action, and its right to maintain this action without the participation of the City is not at issue. Location and Characteristics of the Property The subject property is located at the northwestern boundary of the City, bordered on the north by unincorporated Pinellas County, on the west by the City of Clearwater, and on the east, across the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal, by the City of Oldsmar. The property lies at the intersection of McMullen- Booth and Curlew Roads, both of which are designated scenic, non- commercial corridors, although where it abuts the subject property Curlew Road is not so designated. The City does not recognize this portion of McMullen-Booth Road within its jurisdiction as a scenic, non-commercial corridor. Across Curlew Road to the north of the Petitioner's parcel is a vacant tract of about 7.5 acres in unincorporated Pinellas County that is currently designated SLDR, which allows 2.5 units per acre. The adjoining property to the south is also a vacant parcel in unincorporated Pinellas County, with a designation of SLDR, and is approximately 30 acres in size. Further to the south, is Mease Countryside Hospital and related office and health care facilities. Across the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal to the east is a low density residential mobile home park in the City of Oldsmar with a land use designation that allows 7.5 units per acre. A residential subdivision in which one lot abuts the subject property is located to the southeast. Across McMullen-Booth Road to the west in the City of Clearwater are a single family residential area and nursing home, with land use designations which allow from 1 to 5 units per acre. Mease Countryside Hospital, and associated offices, are appropriately located along McMullen-Booth Road to the south of the subject property since this location is consistent with the relevant portion of the Countywide Plan that states, "Hospitals should continue to be built adjacent to freely moving traffic corridors so that they are conveniently accessible to emergency and private vehicular traffic." The siting of the nursing home to the west of the Petitioner's parcel, across McMullen-Booth Road, is consistent with those portions of the Countywide Plan which provide, "Nursing homes should be built near community hospitals whenever possible in order to encourage inter-institutional activities", and which encourage prospective builders of nursing homes to locate such facilities in residential settings. There is a clear potential for a substantial impact on surrounding jurisdictions from the development of the subject property. Approval of the proposed RO designation, with its allowable density of 15 units per acre, can reasonably be expected to result in pressure to redesignate the vacant parcel located to the immediate south of the subject property from its current SLDR designation, allowing 2.5 units per acre, to the higher density allowable under RO, which is, in fact, the highest density allowed in the unincorporated county. Concerns of other jurisdictions must be considered under the Countywide Plan, which sets forth the following guidelines for intergovernmental coordination: Evaluate the potential impacts proposed programs and activities may have on adjacent government entities before actively pursuing implementation. Consider the programs and activities of surrounding jurisdictions before making decisions which may have multi-jurisdictional affects. The subject property is vacant and consists of approximately thirty acres. Its current designation is SLDR, which allows up to 2.5 units per acre. This current designation is consistent with surrounding residential uses. The Possum Branch Creek drainageway traverses the property in an approximately east to west direction, with approximately nine acres lying to the north and twenty-one acres to the south. The original channel was meandering, but currently it is a straight line with a spoil bank on the north side. This is a channelized, natural drainageway which is classified as a major drainageway under the Drainage Element of the Countywide Plan, which includes the policy of restoring drainageways to their natural course whenever possible. Significant portions of the southern twenty-one acres of this parcel lie within the 100 year flood plain. Residential land use designations in the Countywide Plan provide that densities of greater than five units per acre are inappropriate for areas with significant environmental constraints, such as areas within the 100 year flood plain. While development in a flood plain is not prohibited, relevant portions of the Plan specifically list both SLDR and LDR, which allow densities of from 2.5 to 5 units per acre, as appropriate for flood zone restricted property. The southern portion of the property includes a portion of a five acre eagle protection area which extends to the south and southeast beyond the Petitioner's property, and which separates this property from the existing residential subdivision to the southeast and vacant property to the immediate south. It extends into the vacant parcel to the south The Eagle's continued use of this area is uncertain. Because the Countywide Plan allows for the transfer of development density out of this eagle protection area, the existence and location of this area does not favor any particular pattern of development on the subject property. The predominate vegetation on the parcel consists of oak trees located in the right-of-way of McMullen- Booth Road in the southwest corner of the site. Scenic Non-Commercial Corridor The purpose and intent of the scenic, non- commercial corridor policy in the Countywide Pan is to protect the corridor's traffic carrying capacity, to limit adjacent non- residential uses, and to encourage the scenic and natural qualities along the corridors. It is a policy of long-standing application, originally adopted in 1977, and covers six such corridors, including McMullen-Booth Road. Stability and control of land uses along such corridor is a significant component of transportation planning for the corridor. Commercial uses allowed under the RO land use designation are not permitted within 500 feet of the right-of-way of a designated scenic, non-commercial corridor, unless approved by plan amendment or recognized on the Future Land Use Plan. No dwelling units may be located within 350 feet of the scenic, non- commercial corridor right-of-way. Two parcels with an RO designation exist south of the Mease Hospital, but each of these were authorized while the PPC lacked authority to apply the scenic, non-commercial corridor policy and before the effective date of the Countywide Plan. Under the Countywide Plan, there have been no deviations from the protection of the scenic, non-commercial corridor policy along McMullen-Booth Road, and in several specific instances the PPC has, without exception, refused to recommend approval of amendments which would have been inconsistent with that policy. While there are instances of multi-family, office and commercial development along McMullen-Booth Road, the land use designations along this scenic, non-commercial corridor are predominantly residential intermixed with vacant parcels, particularly north from the intersection of State Road 580 with McMullen-Booth to Curlew Road where there is a total of only 12 to 15 acres of office uses and these offices are associated with Mease Hospital. Petitioner's proposed RO amendment would more than double the number of acres on this portion of the corridor presently designated for office use. The predominant land use along McMullen-Booth north of Curlew Road to State Road 584 is also residential intermixed with vacant parcels. The non-residential intensity level established as appropriate for preserving the traffic carrying capacity along the scenic, non-commercial corridor is similar to the LDR density of 5 units per acre. However, the RO designation sought by the Petitioner allows densities of 15 units per acre, and therefore, this scale of potential non-residential use would be inconsistent with the pattern of development along this portion of the McMullen-Booth corridor from State Roads 580 to 584, and with the Countywide Plan which states, "Land planning should weigh heavily the established character predominately developed in areas where changes of use or intensity of development is contemplated. It is the position of the Petitioner that the subject property falls within a commercial node, or commercial intersection, which should be excepted from the scenic, non- commercial corridor policy. However, that policy does not specifically include an exception for "commercial nodes", and in fact such commercial nodes were not shown to exist between State Roads 580 and 584 on McMullen-Booth. There is a nodal exception policy in the housing element of the Countywide Plan which provides that higher density residential areas should be located in proximity with commercial nodes, and in areas immediately served by arterial streets and mass transit. The scenic, non-commercial policy, in contrast, encourages low density residential development and discourages mass transit. In fact, the area surrounding the subject property is not planned to receive mass transit service. The intersection of Curlew and McMullen-Booth Roads is significantly different from commercial nodes recognized in the MPO long range plan where large areas of high density residential development are concentrated, such as at the intersection of State Roads 584 and 580, and at the intersection of State Roads 586 and 584. Unlike other nodes, the subject property has only one limited access point onto McMullen-Booth, and no access onto Curlew. It is also the position of Petitioner that there would be minimum impacts resulting from an RO designation on the year 2010 Plan levels of service along this corridor. However, this is based upon the unrealistic assumption that such designation of this parcel would not result in a proliferation of similar higher density redesignations for the vacant thirty acre parcel to the south, as well as for other vacant parcels along the corridor. Such a proliferation would result in the elimination of any visual relief and any scenic transition along McMullen-Booth Road. Traffic Considerations Curlew Road (State Road 586) is presently a two- lane road in the vicinity of the subject property, while McMullen-Booth is a four-lane divided road adjacent to the property. In the MPO Year 2010 Plan, Curlew Road is designated as a six-lane divided roadway, and McMullen-Booth is designated as a four-lane divided facility. Portions of McMullen-Booth south of State Road 580 are designated for six-laning. The right-of-way design for the intersection of McMullen-Booth and Curlew Roads abutting the subject property has been designed to accommodate an elevated six-lane urban interchange, and pavement width of McMullen-Booth at this intersection is sufficient to allow it to be striped as a six-lane divided roadway at some, undetermined time in the future. While these roadway improvements have been budgeted for construction through 1992-93, no assurance of funding was shown, and therefore, these improvements are considered to be planned, but not committed. According to David Healey, who was accepted as an expert in land use and municipal planning, approval of the RO designation sought by the Petitioner will result in a 750% increase in projected vehicle trips per day over what would result from the present designation of this property as SLDR upon which these roadway improvements were planned. According to Hubert Pascoe, who was called by the PPC arid was accepted as an expert in MPO planning, Petitioner's request would generate approximately 250% more vehicle trips per day than the alternative split designation recommended by the PPC. Nevertheless, under either proposal the levels of service for these adjacent roadways would remain acceptable under the MPO Year 2010 Plan, and while an RO designation would intensify use and lower service levels somewhat, it would not create an unacceptable level of service. However, the impact of an RO designation on existing traffic and upon these adjacent roadways as they presently exist would be substantial, and is reasonably estimated to result in as much as a 30% increase in existing traffic. The Countywide Plan specifies that the "scale of (any) proposed land use development should be compatible with the capacity of existing supporting facilities, such as roads and facilities." While roadway improvements are planned, as found above, the substantial impact on existing facilities of this RO designation, without those improvements in place, would threaten continued acceptable service levels for these unimproved, existing facilities, and would perpetuate a pattern of development preceding essential facility improvements which results in unacceptable levels of service for existing facilities until planned improvements can catch up with such growth. The designation of McMullen-Booth as a scenic, non-commercial corridor, with resulting limitations on commercial and high density development, has significantly influenced the transportation planning that has taken place with regard to this corridor, and the identification of appropriate roadway improvements, specified above. The present SLDR designation of this parcel is consistent with the low intensity transportation planning assumptions considered under the Countywide Plan. Significant changes in adjoining land uses, such as redesignating vacant parcels from SLDR to RO, would result in significant changes in projected impacts and render such planning less meaningful and relevant. The RO designation sought by the Petitioner is inconsistent with basic assumptions used in the identification of projected traffic impacts that lead to the development of proposed roadway improvements which both parties acknowledge and contend will be sufficient to handle expected traffic volumes. It is unrealistic since it ignores the basic fact that these anticipated improvements are premised upon the continued viability of this scenic, non-commercial corridor which excludes high density, commercial development. The Countywide Plan states that, "The transportation system should not dictate the form and future development pattern but should be a supporting service system for the area's development plan." The transportation system can only function as a "supporting service system" when the area's development plan remains consistent, and when long standing policies, such as a scenic, non-commercial corridor, are not abandoned on a piecemeal basis. The fact that Mease Hospital is appropriately located along the McMullen-Booth corridor, south of the subject property, is not a basis on which this RO designation should be approved. Such a designation would contribute to an increase in the traffic burden on the McMullen-Booth corridor, especially when the potential for additional RO amendments based upon this redesignation is considered, and this could reasonably be expected to result in the elimination of this as a "freely moving traffic corridor" upon which the hospital siting was based. There is limited accessibility to the subject property with only northbound traffic on McMullen-Booth Road having direct access to the site. All other traffic is required to go through the McMullen-Booth and Curlew Road intersection and make a left hand turn from McMullen-Booth southbound across northbound traffic onto the site. Given this very limited access, an RO designation, with its densities up to a maximum of 15 units per acre, is inappropriate. The fact that this parcel has limited accessibility was a significant factor in the transportation planning process. The Petitioner's analysis is based upon the unrealistic assumption that other land use changes would not occur on these adjacent roadways between the present and the year 2010, even if an RO designation is approved for this parcel. The reasonable likelihood that the owners of similar parcels along McMullen-Booth Road will seek higher densities for their properties, if this RO designation is approved, must be considered in any meaningful analysis. Development Potential Petitioner does not allege that the current SLDR designation of the subject property is confiscatory. Evidence offered by Petitioner that it has been unable to market this property for low density residential development was neither competent nor substantial. Additionally, the extent and diligence of these marketing efforts is suspect since Petitioner purchased this property for the purpose of high density, commercial and office development, despite its low density residential designation, as well as that of parcels to the south and east, and also since Petitioner remains primarily interested in office and high density development. According to the Petitioner, an RO designation would serve as an appropriate buffer, or step-down, between the existing low density mobile home park, residential area, and vacant SLDR parcel to the east, southeast and south, respectively, and the high intensity activity intersection of McMullen-Booth and Curlew Roads to the north. However, the pertinent provision in the Countywide Plan provides that "development patterns should recognize and support coherent neighborhoods. Neighborhoods should be insulated wherever possible from disruptive land uses and nuisances." Placing an RO designation on the subject property lying to the north and west of residential parcels would not serve as a buffer for those residential parcels designated SLDR, nor would it insulate them from potential commercial and office development which would then be authorized for the subject property. While RO is recognized in the Countywide Plan as an appropriate buffer between major traffic corridors and LDR (5 units per acre), it is not recognized to be an appropriate buffer between such high intensity activity areas and SLDR (2.5 units per acre). The fact that there is a fully developed and apparently successful, low density, residential subdivision to the west of the southern portion of the Petitioner's parcel, across McMullen-Booth Road, conclusively establishes that this area is appropriate for residential development. Additionally, to the west of the northern portion of the subject property, across McMullen-Booth, is a nursing home. While there was evidence that residents in the subdivision have blocked some access roads into their subdivision to limit traffic on residential streets entering the subdivision from McMullen-Booth, there was no competent substantial evidence to establish that residents have been selling their homes at below market value in order to leave the subdivision, whether the rate of home sales has been increasing, or that noise levels resulting from traffic along McMullen-Booth for residents of the subdivision or the nursing home are unacceptably high. The Countywide Plan requires site planning regulations which protect residential development from such noise concerns by providing buffers along arterial roadways, including berms, walls, or woody vegetation. The open space set-back requirement of the scenic, non-commercial corridor policy is well suited for use as a buffer. Most Appropriate Designation: RO vs. RO/LDR The Petitioner seeks approval from the Board of County Commissioners of the City's action redesignating the subject 30 acre parcel from SLDR (2.5 units per acre) to RO (15 units per acre). The PPC has recommended a split designation of RO on the northern 9 acres and LDR (5 units per acre) on the southern 21 acres of Petitioner's property. The split designation provides an appropriate buffer between low density residential development and vacant parcels to the east and south, as well as projected high volume traffic at the intersection of Curlew and McMullen-Booth Roads. The southern 21 acres of the property would provide an appropriate transition density of 5 units per acre from the 2.5 units per acre to the south, and the 15 units per acre which would be allowed in the northern RO portion of the subject property adjacent to the roadway interchange. Traffic volumes at the interchange do not justify redesignating the entire parcel RO, since this would ignore, and be inconsistent with, the Countywide Plan policy of buffering low density residential areas designated SLDR. The use of Possum Creek Branch drainageway to separate the RO and LDR designations on the subject property, as recommended by the PPC, is logical and consistent with the depth of other non-residential designations along Curlew Road, as well as with prior actions by the PPC in recognition of an interchange influence area. The RO designation sought by Petitioner is inconsistent with the fact that the southern 21 acres of this parcel lie within the 100 year flood plain where low density development under SLDR or LDR is allowed, as recommended under the PPC's split designation. The scale of allowable development under an RO designation of up to 15 units per acre is not consistent with the pattern of development along the McMullen-Booth scenic, non- commercial corridor, north of State Road 580 through the Curlew Road intersection to State Road 584, or with Countywide Plan policies which seek to protect existing development patterns. The split designation recommended by the PPC does provide for consistency with existing patterns of development along adjacent portions of McMullen-Booth. The LDR designation on the southern 21 acres of the subject property aligns with the residential subdivision to the west, across McMullen-Booth Road, and is consistent with residential densities in that subdivision, as well as densities to the east and southeast. The subject property's existing SLDR designation is consistent with surrounding residential uses, with concerns for intergovernmental coordination expressed in the Countywide Plan, and with the low intensity assumptions used for transportation planning. The PPC's split designation balances these concerns for intergovernmental impacts with the Petitioner's stated desire for high density development. An LDR designation for the southern 21 acres of this parcel will provide for a viable opportunity for development, consistent with other residential developments to the west, southeast and east, and with sound planning principles. The RO designation sought by Petitioner would result in unplanned, contiguous uses along McMullen-Booth and Curlew Roads which would be inconsistent with basic assumptions that have gone into planned improvements to these roadways. Stability and control of land uses along the adjoining scenic, non-commercial corridor is a significant aspect of transportation planning for the McMullen-Booth Road corridor, which is premised upon low density residential development. Petitioner's traffic projections, concluding that land use changes associated with an RO designation would have no significant impact on the functional capacity of these adjacent roadways and planned interchange improvements, were not based upon competent substantial evidence, and were conclusively rebutted by evidence of adverse, cumulative, unplanned impacts presented by the PPC. Due to this parcel's limited accessibility, an RO designation for the entire site is inappropriate because it will result in significant adverse impacts on the traffic carrying capacity of the adjacent scenic, non-commercial corridor. The PPC's split designation retains significant low density residential acreage, which is consistent with limited access points and protection of the corridor's traffic carrying capacity. The split designation recommended by the PPC is consistent with the scenic, non-commercial corridor policies of the Countywide Plan since it will prevent the proliferation of high density development, maintain visual relief and scenic transition along McMullen-Booth Road north from Mease Hospital, and limit non-residential development along the corridor. The development of 30 acres under an RO designation at this intersection would represent an isolated nodal increase in intensity which would be inconsistent with development along this portion of the McMullen-Booth corridor, and would occur without any plans to provide mass transit services to this area. Thus, this would be inconsistent with the nodal exception policy adopted by the PPC which identifies community nodes as areas immediately served by arterial streets and mass transit. The PPC split designation does allow limited intensification of development on the northern 9 acres of the subject property immediately adjacent to the McMullen-Booth and Curlew Road intersection, thereby recognizing a reasonable extent of impact from intersection traffic and improvements. This is a reasonable approach, consistent with the Countywide Plan. Approval of the Petitioner's request for RO designation of this entire 30 acre parcel would be inconsistent with prior decisions of the PPC under the scenic, non-commercial corridor policy. The split RO/LDR designation is a reasonable compromise of competing interests and policies, and is consistent with pertinent portions of the Countywide Plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners enter a Final Order disapproving an RO designation for Petitioner's subject property, and approving, as a compromise, the PPC's split designation of RO/LDR, subject to the Petitioner and the City of Safety Harbor affirmatively joining in said compromise. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 89-3438) Rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding 1. 2-4. Adopted in Finding 3. 5. Adopted in Finding 2. 6-7. Adopted in Finding 3. 8-9. Adopted in Findings 6 and 7. 10-11. Adopted in Finding 12. 12-13. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 5, 7, 10, 12. Rejected in Findings 8, 27, 35. Adopted in Findings 6, 21. Rejected in Findings 6, 30, and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding 12. Rejected in Findings 32-40, and otherwise as speculative. 20-23. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 24-25. Adopted in Finding 21. 26. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 27-29. Adopted in Finding 21. 30-31. Rejected as unnecessary. 32. Adopted in Finding 22. 33-37. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 22. Rejected in Findings 24, 26, and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and as simply a summation of testimony rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected in Findings 24 and 26. 42--43. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 44-45. Rejected in Finding 10. 46-47. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 48. Adopted in Finding 11. 49-50. Rejected as speculative and not based on competent substantial evidence. 51-53. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected in Finding 19. Rejected in Findings 13-20, and 40. Rejected in Finding 16, and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 8. Rejected in Finding 16, and otherwise as irrelevant. Rejected in Findings 18, 19, 39. Adopted in Finding 14. Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings 16, 18, 19, 39. Adopted in Findings 33 and 39. 64-67. Rejected in Findings 13, 16, 18, 19, 34, 37-40. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 3, 33, 38-40. Rejected in Findings 18, 19 and 39. Adopted in Finding 13. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected in Findings 18, 19 and 39. Adopted in Finding 14, but otherwise Rejected as speculative and immaterial. Adopted in Findings 17 and 24. 75-78. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected in Findings 18 and 19. Rejected in Finding 8, and otherwise as irrelevant and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 14. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 5. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 28. 87-88. Rejected in Findings 28 and 30. 89-90. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings 28 and 30. Adopted in Finding 30. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings 18, 19 and 39. Rejected in Finding 16 and otherwise as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 98-99. Rejected as speculative and immaterial. Rejected in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 5, but Rejected in Finding 16. Rejected in Finding 29. Rejected as immaterial, irrelevant and contrary to competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Findings 34-40 and otherwise as contrary to competent substantial evidence. 105-106. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Findings 32-40. Rejected in Finding 29. Rejected in Findings 32-40, and otherwise as unnecessary and immaterial. Rejected in Finding 25, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. 111-112. Rejected in Findings 32-40. 113-165. Rejected in Findings 8, 9, 11, 12, 16-20, 22, 24-27, 29, 30 and 32-40, and otherwise as unnecessary, irrelevant, and needlessly cumulative and duplicative of previous proposed findings of fact. Rulings on the PPC's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 4. 4-5. Adopted in Finding 8. 6. Adopted in Finding 5. 7-8. Adopted in Findings 11 and 33. 9-10. Adopted in Finding 10. 11. Adopted in Finding 33. 12. Adopted in Findings 9 and 10. 13. Adopted in Finding 33. 14. Adopted in Finding 12. 15. Adopted in Findings 6 and 12. 16-17. Adopted in Finding 6. 18. Adopted in Finding 16. 19. Adopted in Finding 30. 20-21. Adopted in Finding 7. 22-23. Adopted in Finding 16. 24. Adopted in Finding 15. 25-26. Adopted in Finding 16. 27. Adopted in Finding 17. 28. Adopted in Finding 9. 29. Adopted in Findings 17 and 34. 30-31. Adopted in Findings 29, 32 and 39. 32. Adopted in Findings 16 and 17. 33. Adopted in Finding 9. 34. Adopted in Finding 40. 35-40. Adopted in Findings 8, 20, 24, 27 and 35. 41-42. Adopted in Finding 28. 43-46. Adopted in Finding 30. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 30. 49-50. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted in Finding 23. 53-59. Adopted in Findings.24 and 36, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Finding 23. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 36. Rejected as unclear in the use of the term "particular amendment". Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 35. Adopted in Finding 39. 68-70. Adopted in Findings 13 and 16. Adopted in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 20. 73-74. Adopted in Findings 21 and 23, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 75-76. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 77-78. Adopted in Findings 37 and 40. 79-83. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 84-85. Adopted in Finding 38. 86-87. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 88-98. Adopted in Findings 18, 19 and 39, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary, 99-100. Adopted in Finding 40. 101-107. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Bennett, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, FL 34616 Keith W. Bricklemyer, Esquire 777 South Harbour Island Blvd. Suite 350 Tampa, FL 33602 David P. Healey Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 440 Court Street Clearwater, FL 34616
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Winter Springs' (City's) plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-29 on June 12, 2006, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City was incorporated in 1959 and is located just inside Seminole County in a highly developed area surrounded by the City of Oviedo to its east, the City of Casselberry to the south, the City of Longwood to the west, Lake Jesup to the north, and the City of Orlando a few miles to the southwest. The City adopted the amendment in question. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the City. Keewin is a Florida corporation and has a contract to purchase the property that is the subject of the challenged plan amendment. It offered comments in support of the plan amendment during the adoption process. The Association is a Florida Homeowners Association operating as a not-for-profit corporation under Section 720.301, Florida Statutes. It currently comprises approximately 1,378 residential units on 550 acres within the City, including single-family attached and detached dwellings, apartments, and condominiums. The Association is made up of nineteen separate subassociations of residents; however, the Association serves as the "master association." One of the subassociations (Greens Point) lies "a stone's throw" to the east from the subject property, while the others lie further east, separated from the subject property by another residential subdivision known as Wildwood (which is not a part of the Association). Wildwood has a MDR land use category, which is the same land use being sought for the Keewin property. Besides five miles of nature trails, the Association also owns and maintains five parks, a tennis facility, a pool, and a clubhouse. A representative of the Association offered comments, recommendations, or objections to the City during the adoption of the amendment. As a property owner within the City who submitted objections to the plan amendment during its adoption process, the Association meets the definition of an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and accordingly has standing. As discussed below, however, the City and Intervenor (but not the Department) argue that the Association still lacks standing because its Board of Directors never authorized the filing of the initial Petition in this matter. Background In 2005 the City began consideration of an application by Keewin (on behalf of the current owner, Dittmer Properties, Inc.) to change the land use on the 47.7-acre tract of property. The land use change was also accompanied by a proposed change in the zoning of the property; however, that matter is not of concern here. The amendment was initially considered and approved by the City Commission at a meeting conducted on February 13, 2006. An amendment transmittal package was then sent to the Department for its review. After the Department issued an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC Report) on April 20, 2006, which noted four specific objections to the map change, the City provided further information to the Department to resolve these concerns. On June 12, 2006, the City voted to adopt Ordinance No. 2005-29, which approved the map change in issue. On August 4, 2006, the Department published in the Seminole County Edition of the Orlando Sentinel its Notice of Intent to Find the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan Amendment in Compliance. Sometime in September 2006, the Association filed its initial Petition for a hearing to contest the plan amendment. The Petition was apparently dismissed without prejudice by the Department, with leave to file an amended petition. On September 25, 2006, the Association filed its Amended Petition raising the following objections: the new land use would be incompatible with the surrounding land uses; the land use change "further erodes" the City's ability to meet the requirements in its Plan for industrial uses; the amendment will have a "negative overcrowding impact on schools, particularly Highlands Elementary"; the amendment will cause overcrowding of the nearby roadways; the amendment will negatively impact the City's level of service standards for recreational facilities; and the amendment conflicts with various provisions within Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes. Authorization by the Board of Directors Citing various provisions within the Articles of Incorporation and the By-Laws, and the sometimes conflicting testimony of two members of the Association's Board of Directors, the City and Intervenor have argued extensively in their Joint Proposed Recommended Order that the Association's Board of Directors did not formally authorize its outside counsel to file the initial Petition in this matter. They point out that under the By-Laws, in order for the Board of Directors to initiate a legal action, as it did here, prior to the filing of a petition, it must have either had a vote of the majority of the Directors at a meeting at which a quorum was present or consent in writing by all members of the Board of Directors. See Art. VI, §§ 6.5 and 6.8, By-Laws. They further contend that the president of the Board of Directors, Paige N. Hinton, had no authority, as she assumed she did here, to advise another member of the Board of Directors, Helga R. Schwarz, that Ms. Schwarz could authorize outside counsel to file a petition with the Department. The affairs of the Association are managed by a Board of Directors made up of seven members. See Art. V, § 5.1, By- Laws. When this matter arose, Ms. Hinton served as president of the Board of Directors while Ms. Schwarz served as its secretary and a member. Both testified at the final hearing. When the plan amendment was first being processed and considered by the City in its early stages, a number of Association residents approached members of the Board of Directors and voiced their concerns with the proposal. Based upon those concerns, the Board of Directors held a special meeting on January 13, 2006, to discuss the issue. All seven directors were present at the meeting. A copy of the minutes of that meeting has been received in evidence as Respondents' Exhibit 3. The minutes are normally prepared by Bonnie J. Whidden, a full-time employee who serves as property manager, and "are not required to be detailed." After preparation by Ms. Whidden, the minutes are then reviewed at the following month's meeting and approved for form. There is no indication in the record that the Board of Director's outside counsel attended the meeting in question. The minutes reflect that the following action was taken at that meeting: The Board discussed the implications facing The Highlands if the Dittmer parcel were to be rezoned from light industrial to medium density residential as proposed by Keewin Real Property. Discussion ensued on impacts to The Highlands' recreational amenities, neighborhood roads, school capacities, and other concerns. The Board agreed that the proposed change in zoning was not in the best interest of The Highlands. The Board agreed to hold a community town hall meeting on the Keewin Large Scale Plan Amendment for The Highlands' residents in order to provide residents with information and to seek their input and feedback prior to the public hearing. The Board discussed committing funds for Clayton & McCulloh's legal services to represent The Highlands' interests on this issue. A motion was made to empower Ms. Schwarz to work with Clayton & McCulloh on this matter and to represent the Association at any city meeting related to the Dittmer rezoning. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding having Clayton & McCulloh represent the Association at the city's public hearing on February 13, 2006. Ms. Schwarz would discuss the matter with counsel and apprise Ms. Hinton. Although the minutes refer primarily to the Association's opposition to the rezoning of the property, it is fair to infer that the Board of Directors was opposed to both the rezoning of the property and a change in the land use on the FLUM. According to Ms. Hinton, the Association intended that Ms. Schwarz act as the Board of Director's "primary point of contact with Clayton & McCulloh [its outside counsel] should [the Association] need to petition the [S]tate, and also to speak on behalf of the Association at City [C]ommission meetings for the City of Winter Springs." However, authorization to file a petition with the Department was not discussed at the meeting nor voted on. This is because it would have been premature to do so at that point as the amendment had not yet even been formally considered or adopted by the City. As the minutes disclose, the Board of Directors directed that Ms. Schwarz, a long-time resident and its secretary, represent the Association "at all city meetings" and to liason with its outside counsel. Acting on those instructions, she attended the February 13, 2006, meeting of the City Commission, when the Commission voted to transmit the amendment package to the Department for its preliminary review, and the meeting on June 12, 2006, when the map change was finally approved. (She also attended several meetings of the City Planning and Zoning Board, which presumably considered the zoning change.) At least twice, Ms. Schwarz presented oral objections on behalf of the Association at City Commission meetings. On an undisclosed date before the Association's initial petition was filed, Ms. Hinton spoke with Ms. Schwarz by telephone and advised Ms. Schwarz that pursuant to the Board's decision on January 13, 2006, Ms. Schwarz should instruct its outside counsel to file a petition challenging the new amendment. This information was given to outside counsel, who presumably filed the initial Petition, which was later amended on September 25, 2006. After the January 13 meeting, the Board of Directors was given a number of "updates" concerning the status of the plan amendment throughout the adoption and Department review process, including advice that a petition had been filed by outside counsel with the Department. However, no other formal action was taken by the Board concerning this matter before the initial petition was filed in September 2006. On advice of outside counsel, on November 16, 2006, a special closed meeting of the Board of Directors was called by Ms. Hinton to discuss "pending legal matters," including ratification of the Petition that had previously been filed. One reason for calling this meeting was the fact that the issue of whether the Board of Directors had authorized the petition to be filed had just arisen during the course of discovery for the hearing. A copy of those minutes is not of record since they were not reviewed and approved until the Board of Directors held its December 2006 meeting. Although the record is somewhat confusing (due to conflicting testimony) as to what action was taken at the meeting, it is clear that the Board of Directors (of whom six were present) orally ratified the filing of the Petition by "unanimous consensus." The Amendment The amendment consists only of a change in the FLUM on the subject property from Industrial to MDR. There are no accompanying changes to the text of the Plan. The property is currently vacant, but carries an Industrial land use and PUD zoning. The land uses surrounding the subject property are industrial to the north (across Shepard Road), medium density residential (including multi-family units) to the east, industrial and low density residential to the south, and predominately industrial and commercial to the west. There are "public lands" on the southeast side of the property. Less than one thousand feet west of the subject property and running in a north-south direction is U.S. Highway 17-92, a major arterial roadway maintained by the State. (Just across that road is the City of Longwood.) Shepard Road, a two- lane collector road which runs in an east-west direction, adjoins the northern boundary of the subject property and part of the Association and eventually exits to the west into U.S. Highway 17-92 at a major intersection with a traffic signal. Petitioner's Objections Petitioner has challenged the amendment based on compatibility, need, schools, roads, recreational facilities, and alleged violations of various provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. There are no challenges to the amendments based upon internal inconsistency with the City's plan, inconsistency with the East Central Florida Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan, or inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility. The Amended Petition contains allegations that the MDR designation is incompatible with surrounding land uses, and, in particular, with the Association property that is located to the east of the subject property that is designated as MDR on the FLUM. The ORC Report raised an objection regarding land use compatibility of the amendment with the industrial land use designation to the west. The concern was that the amendment was not supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the amendment was compatible with the industrial use. In response to the objection, the City set forth Plan provisions that require buffering and also provided a Development Agreement in which the developer agreed to build a buffer between the amendment site and the industrial properties to the west. By doing so, the City adequately responded to the objection by indicating that the subject property would contain a buffer to address the potential compatibility concerns with the adjoining industrial property. The MDR designation on the subject property provides a transition from the commercial and industrial uses fronting U.S. Highway 17-92 and is compatible with the MDR to the east. Thus, the MDR use on the subject property is appropriate as a transitional use between the residential to the east and the industrial and commercial properties to the west that front U.S. Highway 17-92. Based on the evidence, it is fairly debatable that the MDR land use is compatible with the industrial use to the west and the MDR to the east. Need for Industrial Lands The Amended Petition alleges that the change from Industrial to MDR "further erodes" the ability of the City to meet requirements in its plan for industrial uses. There is no Plan policy that calls for a certain number of acres of industrial property. Rather, the Plan contains an analysis of the existing industrial acreage and a projection for future acres. Looking only at the industrial land use category, the City has 170 acres, and the plan amendment reduces that number by 47 acres or approximately twenty-eight percent. However, industrial is allowed in other future land use categories besides the industrial category. Moreover, the industrial land use designation has been on the property since at least 1991, but has remained vacant. Thus, the appropriateness of the industrial designation at this location did not come to fruition. By contrast, the City's analysis indicated a need for approximately 328 additional acres of MDR land. The FLUM change on the Keewin property furthers the need for that land use. Also, as found above, the subject property is an appropriate location for the MDR because it serves as a transition, and the property had remained vacant under the industrial future land use designation since 1991. Coordination With Schools The Association has also contended that the amendment "will have a negative overcrowding impact on schools, particularly Highlands Elementary," which lies just north of Shepard Road and serves the Association residents. Unless elected by local option, local governments are not required to have a school facilities element in their comprehensive plans at this time, are not required to have a level of service (LOS) standard in their plan for school facilities, and are not required to implement school concurrency. The City has not elected the local option of school concurrency. At this time, the Department requires only coordination of the plan amendment with the Seminole County School Board (School Board) so that the School Board and the City have a general understanding of the potential implications of the plan amendment. The ORC Report contained an objection regarding coordination of the amendment with the School Board. In response to the objection, the City indicated that it provided notice of the amendment to the School Board and an additional opportunity for School Board comment. The City also provided an analysis from the School Board indicating that the amendment would generate only 76 students. Additionally, in the Development Agreement between the City and the Developer, the Developer agreed to pay $1,235.00 for each residential unit to the School Board in addition to the school impact fees required for each residential unit. The Agreement for this mitigation represents an additional step toward helping to address what is the understanding of the impact on schools and is a further indication of coordination between the land use and school planning. The Department does not currently have a standard to use to measure the adequacy of the dollar amount since school concurrency is not required at this time. Therefore, the City has not established LOS standards. Given these considerations, it is fairly debatable that the City has demonstrated adequate coordination with the School Board regarding school facilities. Impact on Transportation The Association further contends that the LOS on public streets serving the Association's members and serving property owned by the Association will deteriorate. It also contends that traffic flowing from the subject property will overcrowd and/or negatively impact the Association. In support of these contentions, the Association presented the testimony of Harry A. Burns, Jr., a professional engineer, regarding potential traffic impacts based upon his review of the Plan and transportation element. According to the Plan, the segment of U.S. Highway 17-92 north of Shepard Road is currently operating at LOS F, which is below the adopted LOS standard. As noted earlier, U.S. Highway 17-92 is a major arterial very close to the subject property. Although the Plan indicates that U.S. Highway 17-92 is slated for a six-lane project by 2010, the Plan also indicates that it is anticipated the LOS will still remain at F. Mr. Burns opined that Shepard Road and Sheoah Boulevard, a minor two-lane collector road which winds through the Association in a north-south direction, will be "impacted" by the MDR land use designation. He concluded that a traffic study should be done for Sheoah Boulevard because it is a collector road and is in the amendment's impact area. Although he testified that Shepard road would be impacted, he had no information indicating that Shepard Road would be negatively impacted. Also, he did not know whether the plan amendment would result in a reduction in the operating LOS for Shepard Road and Sheoah Boulevard. Petitioner's expert also opined that traffic generated by a change in the land use would have a different trip distribution than traffic generated by industrial. He testified that, from a traffic circulation standpoint, it was likely that residential traffic would be more willing to travel east through the Association than would industrial traffic because the industrial traffic would prefer to access the nearby U.S. Highway 17-92 to the immediate west. He further opined that there were not "attractors" for industrial traffic to travel east through the Association. He admitted, however, that the City's Town Center as well as the Greenway toll road (State Road 417) were located to the east of the subject property. Although the expert believed that the trip generation characteristics of an industrial land use would be different than those for a residential land use, he agreed that he would need to model the trip distribution to accurately determine where the traffic would go. The witness had not done that prior to the hearing. Data and analysis relative to traffic impacts were submitted to the Department by the City and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Based upon its review of the plan amendment, on March 22, 2006, FDOT provided a letter to the Department in which it determined that an Industrial land use would generate 7,176 average daily trips (ADT) and 1,308 PM (afternoon) peak hour trips. On the other hand, a MDR designation would generate only 3,936 ADT and 394 PM peak hour trips, resulting in a decrease of 3,240 average daily trips. This is a substantial reduction. All experts in this case agreed with the FDOT's assessment. FDOT further concluded that because the "amendment would result in a decrease in daily trips . . . FDOT has no comments on this amendment." The letter did not raise any concerns regarding impacts to U.S. Highway 17-92, a state road under its jurisdiction. The City Engineer and the City's expert planner established that a further traffic study or analysis at this stage was unnecessary because the land use change resulted in a substantial decrease in trips. In addition, the Department's planner opined that reducing the trip generation potential from the amendment parcel is a strategy to reduce the potential traffic on the road network that, in combination with other actions, can have a significant effect on helping improve the coordination between land use and transportation relative to the operating LOS on the roadways. Due to the specific nature and context of this particular amendment, he also agreed that no further general planning or transportation analysis was warranted at this stage. In fact, the reduction helps the Plan better coordinate land use and transportation in terms of the potential trips that might occur on the road system. Coordination of land use and transportation facilities was appropriately addressed at the plan amendment stage through the significant reduction in trip generation potential on the property. Finally, although Petitioner's expert pointed out that the City's Plan indicates that even with scheduled improvements the segment of U.S. Highway 17-92 north of Shepard Road will have deficiencies by the year 2010, he could not say that the amendment would cause LOS deficiencies on that road or indicate with any degree of precision the effect the amendment would have on the LOS. As noted above, he did not perform a traffic analysis of the amendment. Given these considerations, it is found that Petitioner did not demonstrate beyond fair debate that the amendment will result in LOS deficiencies on U.S. Highway 17-92, Shepard Road, or Sheoah Boulevard. Further, it failed to prove beyond fair debate that the amendment is not in compliance with respect to transportation issues. Open Space and Recreational Land and Facilities Contrary to the Association's assertion, the plan amendment will not impact or adversely affect the City's LOS standards for recreational facilities. There have been increased recreational facilities in the City since the Plan was written, which has increased the LOS that is available, and there is no LOS deficiency for parks through the year 2010. Indeed, the LOS will be met even if park lands are not built on the subject property. The Development Agreement between Keewin and the City requires Keewin to include park lands on the subject property. The Agreement specifically provides a paragraph on "Parks and Recreation" which includes the following language in paragraph 4: In accordance with Winter Springs Code Section 20-354 and other applicable provisions of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Code, the Developer agrees to dedicate an appropriate amount of land as a park for the residents of the Project. Such park shall have recreational facilities built in accordance with the standards of the National Recreational Association. In addition, such park shall be protected through deed restrictions . . . which shall ensure the preservation of its intended use, the payment of future taxes, and the maintenance of the park and facilities for a safe, healthy and attractive living environment. The park shall be included in the phasing plan, if any, and shall be constructed and fully improved by Developer at an equivalent or greater rate than the construction of the residential structures for which it serves. Therefore, the subject property will provide its own park and recreation area on-site. There is sufficient land on the site to accommodate on-site park facilities based on the residential densities that might be allowed on the subject property. The Department established that the land use is being adequately coordinated with recreational facilities. There is appropriate coordination between the land use and recreational facilities, and the residents of the subject property would not have to make use of any other city park facilities. Petitioner acknowledges that the Developer's Agreement indicates that the Developer will provide for a park; however, Petitioner still complains that there is not enough detail about the parks to be provided on-site. However, there is no requirement at this stage of the process that such a degree of specificity for parks be provided. The evidence supports a finding that a change to MDR is compatible with adjacent land uses and will have no impact on private parks and recreation areas on adjacent lands. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the plan amendment will impact the Association. Indeed, the subject property will have two City parks that service the area and a 315-acre county-owned community park facility less than a mile from the subject property. Consistency With Rule and Statutory Provisions The Amended Petition alleges that the amendment is inconsistent with various provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. However, Petitioner did not present any testimony addressing any of the rule or statutory provisions. Conversely, the evidence presented by Respondents and Intervenor demonstrates that the amendment is consistent with these provisions. Accordingly, it is found that the amendment is not inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)1., 9J-5.006(2)(a), 9J- 5.006(3)(c)2. and 3., 9J-5.016(1)(a) and (b), 9J-5.016(2)(b), 9J-5.016(3)(b)1. and 5., 9J-5.016(3)(c)5., 9J-5.0055(2)(a), and 9J-5.0055(3)(b) and (d), and Section 163.3177(3), (6)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Petition. Trespass and Vandalism Concerns Finally, Petitioner has alleged that residential development of the subject property will increase the unauthorized use of its private recreational facilities and amenities, as well as increase vandalism to its personal property by non-residents. However, allegations regarding potential trespass and unauthorized use of recreational facilities on nearby lands is not a compliance issue under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Issues Under Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes In its Amended Petition filed on September 25, 2006, the Association raised five grounds for determining the plan amendment to be not in compliance: increased traffic that would impact the Association's members; school overcrowding, and particularly the elementary school just north of Shepard Road; inadequate open space and recreation land and facilities, including unauthorized use of Association facilities, as a result of the new development's residents and children; reduced industrial zoning; and inconsistencies with various provisions within Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. There is no evidence that the Association has ever participated in a prior proceeding involving the City or Keewin and the same project. The Association representative, Ms. Schwarz, acknowledged that before the Amended Petition was filed, the Association did not consult with any experts regarding the issues raised in that filing. According to Ms. Schwarz, the allegations represented concerns expressed by various members of the Association to the Board of Directors. Most of these concerns are specifically reflected in the minutes of the meeting held on January 13, 2006. However, the Association did consult with outside counsel in drafting the issues in the Petition. This is evidenced by the fact that at least three of the concerns in the Amended Petition (traffic, school overcrowding, and inadequate open space and recreational facilities) were previously discussed in detail in a letter from outside counsel to the City on February 7, 2006, or just before the City Commission initially met to consider the amendment. Although the case was originally scheduled to be heard in February 2007, on October 31, 2006, Intervenor filed its demand for an expeditious hearing under Section 163.3189(3), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, by Order dated November 1, 2006, this case was rescheduled to be heard on November 29, 2006, under the mandatory fast track timelines in that statute. Because of this short timeframe, Association counsel represented during a status conference on November 10, 2006, that he was experiencing difficulty in interviewing and hiring outside experts on such short notice, particularly with the intervening Thanksgiving holidays. This was confirmed by Ms. Hinton at final hearing, who represented that if the hearing had been held in February 2007, the Association had planned on hiring a number of experts. Even so, on short notice, the Association was able to engage the services of a professional engineer who offered expert testimony on the traffic issue. The remainder of its evidence was presented through lay witnesses, by cross- examination of the other parties' experts, and by documentation. No direct evidence was affirmatively presented on the issue of whether the plan amendment was in conflict with various provisions of Department rules or Florida Statutes. As to all other issues, even though the Association did not prevail on any of its claims, it did present some evidence, albeit minimal in some respects, in support of its position. There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to support a finding that the Association's primary motive in filing its Petition was to simply harass the City or developer, delay the project (which will be built on the property after the land use change is approved and building permits obtained), or needlessly increase the cost of litigation for those parties.
Recommendation Based on 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 amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-29 is in compliance. Jurisdiction is retained to consider the City's Motion for Sanctions Against Petitioner and Intervenor's Motion for Sanctions, Fees and Costs filed under Sections 120.569(2) and 163.3184(12), Florida Statutes, if renewed within 30 days after issuance of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 3rd of January, 2007.
Findings Of Fact No changes have been made in the land use plans applicable to the proposed site for Unit No. 3, Power plant No. 3, since the initial public hearing held on November 8, 1974. By Ordinance No. 1914, the City Commission of the City of Lakeland, Florida, has classified and zoned the proposed site for Unit No. 3, Power Plant No. 3; as "Industrial," which classification and zoning allows an electrical power generating facility.
The Issue The issues are whether the City of Jacksonville's (City's) Ordinance No. 2008-628-E adopted on September 9, 2008, which remediates Ordinance No. 2007-383-E, is in compliance, and whether Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, renders this proceeding moot, as alleged by Petitioner, Dunn Creek, LLC (Dunn or Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Petitioner is the owner of a vacant 89.52-acre parcel of property in Council District 11, which is located in the northern reaches of the City. More specifically, the property lies around four or five miles east of the airport and Interstate 95, just south of Starratt Road between Dunn Creek Road and Saddlewood Parkway, and within a "couple of miles of Main Street," a major north-south State roadway. Dunn submitted oral and written comments to the City during the plan amendment process. As such, it is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. The City is a local government that is subject to the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. It adopted the amendments being challenged by Dunn. Except for the challenged plan amendment, the City's current Plan is in compliance. Intervenor Britt owns property and resides within the City. The parties have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish that she is an affected person and therefore has standing to participate in this matter. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, including the City. Background On May 14, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2007- 383-E, which amended the FLUM by changing the land use category on Dunn's property from LDR to RPI, which would allow an increase in the density and intensity of use on the property. (The LDR land use allows up to seven dwelling units per acre, while RPI is a mixed-use category that allows up to twenty dwelling units per acre if built to the maximum development potential.) On July 9, 2007, the Department issued its Notice and Statement of Intent finding that the Ordinance was not in compliance on the ground the map change was not supported by adequate data and analysis to demonstrate that the City would achieve and maintain the adopted LOS standards for the roadways within its jurisdiction. The Department further determined that the traffic study submitted by the City was not based on the maximum development allowed under the RPI category. On August 1, 2007, the Department initiated this case by filing a Petition, which tracked the objections described in its Notice and Statement of Intent. The City, Dunn, Department, and Britt later entered into settlement discussions. As part of the settlement discussions, Dunn submitted a revised traffic study and coordinated with other applicants for map changes to perform cumulative traffic impact studies. The parties eventually entered into a proposed settlement agreement which would limit development of the property to 672 condominiums/townhomes and 128,000 square feet of non-residential uses through an asterisk to the Plan. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 25. Also, the proposed settlement agreement noted that the data and analysis confirmed that certain future road improvements in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Plan would offset the traffic impacts of the new RPI land use. These were improvements to the East-West Connector (U.S. Highway 17 to New Berlin Road) and Starratt Road. Id. Finally, Dunn agreed to pay $4.3 million in "fair share money" to the City to offset the proportionate share of the development's traffic impacts. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The proportionate share agreement was intended to match the trip count anticipated from the RPI development. On September 3, 2008, the proposed settlement agreement and remedial amendment were presented to the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee (Committee) for approval as Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 2008-628, respectively.3 At that meeting, the Committee heard comments from several members of the public who opposed the amendment, a Dunn attorney, and the City's Director of Planning and Development, William B. Killingsworth. The City Council member who represents District 11 and is a member of the Committee also spoke in opposition to the proposal. Based primarily upon data in a new traffic study prepared on August 28, 2008, by a member of Mr. Killingsworth's staff, and the opposition of the District 11 Council member, the Committee voted unanimously to revise the proposed settlement agreement and remedial amendment by changing the land use designation on the property back to LDR, its original classification. The revised settlement agreement was approved by Ordinance No. 2008- 627-E, while the remedial amendment changing the land use was approved by Ordinance No. 2008-628-E. The two Ordinances were then forwarded to the full City Council, which approved them on September 9, 2008. The revised settlement agreement was later executed by the City, Department, and Britt, but not by Dunn, and is known as the Sixteenth Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The essence of the revised agreement was that by changing the land use back to its original designation, the potential adverse impacts to transportation facilities would be resolved. Id. The remedial amendment package was transmitted by the City to the Department for its review. On December 18, 2008, the Department issued a Cumulative Notice of Intent to Find Ordinance Nos. 2007-383-E and 2008-628-E in compliance. On January 8, 2009, Dunn filed a Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene pursuant to Section 163.3184(16)(f)1., Florida Statutes. Because Dunn objected to the revised settlement agreement and challenged the remedial amendment, the parties were realigned, as reflected in the style of this case. On June 1, 2009, Senate Bill 360, engrossed as Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, became effective. That legislation amends Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, in several respects. Among other things, it designates the City as a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA).4 See § 163.3180(5), Fla. Stat. The new law also provides that plan amendments for land uses of a local government with a TCEA are deemed to meet the LOS standards for transportation. See § 163.3177(3)(f), Fla. Stat. Therefore, after a TCEA becomes effective, the Department no longer has the authority to review FLUM amendments in the TCEA for compliance with state-mandated transportation concurrency requirements. However, Senate Bill 360 contains a savings clause, which provides that "this subsection does not affect any contract or agreement entered into or development order rendered before the creation of the [TCEA] except as provided in s. 380.06(29)(e)." See § 163.3180(5)(f), Fla. Stat. The City, Department, and Britt contend that this provision "saves" the Sixteenth Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement executed by them in November 2008, and that the Department still retains jurisdiction to consider the remedial amendment. Conversely, Dunn contends that the savings clause does not apply to the revised agreement, that the Department no longer has jurisdiction to review the challenged amendment, that the remedial amendment was not authorized, and that because the remedial amendment never became effective, the Department's Petition should be dismissed as moot. Objections to the Remedial Amendment Besides the contention that the proceeding is moot, Dunn raises three issues in its challenge to the amendment. First, it contends that the amendment is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis related to traffic impacts and therefore is not in compliance. Second, Dunn contends that the amendment does not address the concerns raised in the Department's original Notice and Statement of Intent regarding the City's achieving and maintaining the adopted LOS of affected roadways. See § 163.3184(16)(f)2., Fla. Stat. Third, Dunn contends that due to procedural errors in the amendment adoption process, it was unduly prejudiced. Data and analysis Because almost all of the unresolved FLUM amendments in this case involved "traffic issues," on September 4, 2007, a Department employee, Melissa Hall, sent an email to counsel for a number of applicants, including Dunn, describing "what the department would be looking for in terms of traffic analysis." See Petitioner's Exhibit 12, p. 1. The email required those applicants to submit revised traffic studies. Id. Among other things, the applicants were advised that the revised traffic impact analysis for each amendment had to use "a professionally acceptable traffic impact methodology." Id. Dunn followed the requirements of the email in preparing its revised traffic study. At the time Ordinance No. 2007-383-E was adopted, based on total background traffic, which includes existing traffic plus reserve trips for approved but not-yet-built developments, eight road segments in the study area already failed to meet LOS standards. (LOS E is the adopted passing standard on those roadways.) The study area includes affected roadways within a two-mile radius of the boundaries of the proposed project site where project traffic consumes more than one percent of the service volume. If the Dunn project is built, six segments impacted by the development will continue to fail. According to the City's expert, as a general rule, an applicant for a land use amendment is not required to bring a failing segment back up to its adopted LOS. Rather, it is only required to pay its proportionate share of the improvements for bringing it up to compliance. The unique aspect of this case is that the City has simply reclassified the property back to what it was, LDR, when Ordinance No. 2007-383-E was adopted. At that time, the Plan was in compliance. In response to Dunn's contention that Ordinance No. 2008-628-E is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, the City, joined by the Department and Britt, first contends that, given the unique circumstances presented here, no data and analysis were required. Alternatively, it contends that there are sufficient relevant and appropriate data and analysis to support maintaining the LDR land use designation. The data and analysis include the traffic study prepared by Dunn's consultant in October 2007, the additional traffic analysis performed by the City staff just before the Committee meeting, and the testimony provided at the Committee meeting on September 3, 2008. At hearing, the City first pointed out that the RPI designation was never determined to be in compliance, Ordinance No. 2007-383-E never became effective, and the property has remained LDR throughout this proceeding. See § 163.3189(2)(a), Fla. Stat. ("[p]lan amendments shall not become effective until the [Department] issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9), or until the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance"). Therefore, the City takes the position that Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E did not need to be supported by data and analysis because the LDR category was the land use designation on the property at the time of the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-628-E. In the same vein, it argues that the remedial amendment is the equivalent of a repeal of the prior ordinance (2007-383-E), which would not require any data and analysis support. While at first blush these arguments appear to be plausible, the City could not cite any provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-55 that relieves a local government from the requirement that a plan amendment be supported by data and analysis. The City also argues that even if Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E is deemed to be a change in the land use (from LDR to LDR), the net impact of the change would be zero. This argument is based on the accepted testimony of Mr. Killingsworth, who stated that the City, Department, and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) agreed upon a methodology which entitled the City to give "credit" for uses permitted under the existing land use category.6 Under that methodology, the City subtracts the number of trips that the existing land use (LDR) generates from the additional trips generated by the proposed land use (LDR). Therefore, the net transportation impact of a change from LDR to LDR, in effect, would be zero. The methodology is described in Petitioner's Exhibit 15, a memorandum authored by Mr. Killingsworth and sent on October 4, 2007, to Dunn and other parties seeking map changes in this case. The memorandum stated that the methodology described therein was "developed in coordination [with] FDOT District 2" and "is the suggested methodology for use in determining traffic impacts of proposed land uses for the City." See Petitioner's Exhibit 15, p. 1. Mr. Killingsworth could not cite any provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5 allowing for such a credit for traffic generated by a prior permitted land use in the data and analysis required for a FLUM amendment. At the same time, however, Petitioner could not cite any rule or statute that prohibits the Department from allowing this type of methodology when deemed to be appropriate. Even though it differed from the methodology described in Ms. Hall's earlier email by allowing credit for the existing land use, it was nonetheless "a professionally acceptable traffic impact methodology" approved by the Department and FDOT and could be used as data and analysis to support a change back to the property's original land use classification. Therefore, it constitutes relevant and appropriate data and analysis to demonstrate that the net traffic impact of the change in land use from LDR to LDR is zero. The City further argues that if it was required to provide other data and analysis, the traffic impacts of the new ordinance are offset by the two roadway improvements negotiated with the Department in the proposed settlement agreement for Ordinance No. 2008-627. See Finding 7, supra. Based upon the City staff's analysis, which is found in City Exhibit 3, the LDR land use generates less trips than the RPI land use. (This study was prepared a few days before the Committee meeting in response to an inquiry from a Committee member.) More specifically, page 3 of that exhibit reflects that there are 169 less afternoon peak hour trips for LDR than RPI with the development cap of 672 dwelling units and 128,000 square feet of non-residential uses. It is fair to infer, then, that if the proposed mitigation in the original settlement agreement offsets the impacts of the more intense RPI land use, the mitigation also offsets the impacts of the less intense LDR land use. City Exhibit 3 is a comparative calculation of the difference in vehicle trips generated by development of the property under the LDR category approved by Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E and the development of the property under the RPI category approved by Ordinance No. 2007-383-E. Dunn points out, however, that the exhibit does not show how the trips generated are distributed on affected roadways or how those trips, as they may be distributed, affect LOS of any roadways. Despite the fact that the data in Exhibit 3 are limited to trip generation data, and establish no facts relating to the LOS of affected roadways, they support a finding that more trips will be generated under the RPI designation than the existing LDR designation. Also, they provide further support for a finding that if the proposed road improvements offset the impacts of the RPI use, the mitigation will offset the impacts, if any, of the original LDR use. For data and analysis relating to the LOS of affected roadways, the City, joined by the Department and Britt, rely upon a traffic study performed by Dunn's traffic consultant, King Engineering Associates, Inc. (King). That firm prepared a transportation analysis dated November 19, 2007, for the purpose of supporting a mixed-use development on the property under the RPI category. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8. This study, however, does not apply to development of the property under the LDR category because it was based upon a mixed-use project which would allow for credit based upon the internal capture of some trips. (In other words, a portion of the new trips will be internal to the site, that is, trips between the residential and commercial land uses on the property.) Because of this, any reference to the King study and proposed mitigation therein was deleted from the revised settlement agreement. In this respect, the study does not support the amendment. The King study addresses impacted roadway segments, existing and background traffic, proposed traffic generated by the development, and LOS for the impacted roadways, as suggested by Ms. Hall in her email. Dunn's traffic engineer established that in the impacted study area, six out of eight roadway links will continue to fall below adopted LOS standards based upon existing traffic and that generated by the RPI development (segments 174, 372, 373, 374, 377, and 543). See Table 4, Petitioner's Exhibit 8. The study also identifies proposed roadway improvements in the vicinity of the project site that are intended to help cure or mitigate the failing standards. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8, p. 12. These improvements are listed in the CIE and will cost around $85 million. A "fair share" agreement has also been executed by the City and Dunn, which requires Dunn to pay more than $4.3 million to offset impacts of the RPI development. Those monies would be applied to improvements in Sector 6.1 (the North Planning District), which includes Starratt Road and the East-West Connector. The agreement notes that this contribution would offset the proportionate share of traffic impacts of the proposed RPI development. Notably, the City has already funded both the widening of Starratt Road and the improvements to the East-West Connector, U.S. Highway 17 to Berlin Road, through the Better Jacksonville Plan. Therefore, even if the Dunn fair share agreement is not implemented, the two improvements will still be made. According to Dunn's engineer, the completion of the four projects listed on page 12 of his traffic study, which are labeled as "mitigation," will not restore or cure any of the LOS failures that now exist on the six impacted segments in Table 4 of the study. However, two of the failing segments (373 and 543) may be "helped" by the projects listed on that page. Dunn's engineer also analyzed City Exhibit 3 and concluded that if the Dunn property is developed as LDR, rather than RPI, there would be potentially one less roadway segment (374) impacted by development, while five other segments would continue to fail. When the proposed mitigation in the King study is factored in, he opined that the East-West Connector may help two other failing segments. He further opined that if LDR development on the property occurs, probably three of the six impacted segments will continue to fail adopted LOS standards. Even so, the improvements identified in the CIE, including those already funded by the Better Jacksonville Plan, should offset the proportionate share of traffic impacts associated with any future LDR development.7 The foregoing data and analysis establish that the LDR land use category generates less traffic impacts than the originally-proposed RPI use; that a change from LDR to LDR should have zero effect in terms of traffic impacts; that even if there are impacts caused by a change back to LDR, the proposed mitigation in the CIE will offset the proportionate share of the impacts associated with any LDR use; that while it differed from other studies, a professionally acceptable traffic impact analysis was used by the City to support the remedial amendment; and that the proposed road improvements are fully funded without having to implement the fair share agreement. Finally, in adopting the amendment, the City has reacted to the data and analysis in an appropriate manner. Does the Remedial Amendment Resolve All Issues? Dunn also asserts that the amendment does not resolve the issues raised by the Department in its Notice and Statement of Intent dated July 9, 2007. Under Section 163.3184(16)(f)2., Florida Statutes, an affected party may assert that a compliance agreement does not resolve all issues raised by the Department in its original notice of intent. The statute allows an affected party to then address those unresolved issues in the realigned proceeding. In this case, Petitioner asserts that the Department's original objection that the change in land use would result in a lowering of the LOS in the study area was not addressed by the remedial amendment. In its Notice and Statement of Intent to find the amendment not in compliance, the Department cited the following rules and statutes as being contravened: Sections 163.3164(32) and 163.3177(3)(b),(6)(a), (8), and (10), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and (c), 9J-5.006(2)(a), (3)(b)1. and 3., 9J-5.016(4)(a)1. and 2., and 9J-5.019(3)(a) through (h) and (4)(b)2. Although these sources of authority were cited in a single generic notice of intent as a basis for objecting to all seventeen map changes, it is assumed that they have equal application to this proceeding. The cited statutes relate to funding of transportation projects and concurrency issues, while the rules relate to data and analysis requirements, concurrency issues, the capital improvement element, and required transportation analyses, all subjects addressed by Dunn at the final hearing. Assuming arguendo that the remedial amendment does not address all of the issues raised in the original notice of intent, Dunn was given the opportunity to fully litigate those matters in the realigned proceeding. Procedural Irregularities Rule 9J-5.004 requires that the City "adopt procedures to provide for and encourage public participation in the planning process." See also § 163.3181(1), Fla. Stat. ("it is the intent of the Legislature that the public participate in the comprehensive planning process to the fullest extent possible"). Dunn does not contend that the City failed to adopt the required procedures. Rather, it contends that the City did not follow those procedures during the adoption of the remedial amendment. More specifically, prior to the Committee meeting, Dunn says it spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of the millions that [it] had spent previously, working for fourteen months in conjunction with the City and [Department]" so that the parties could resolve the Department's objections. Dunn argues that it was unduly prejudiced by the last-minute revisions made by the Committee and City Council, and that it did not have an adequate opportunity to respond. Dunn points out that a City Planning Commission meeting was conducted before the Committee meeting, and that body unanimously recommended that Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 628 be approved. It further points out that when the Committee met on September 3, 2008, the proposed revisions to the settlement agreement, the accompanying remedial amendment, and the new traffic data were not discussed until after the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. (The transcript of that meeting reflects, however, that after the new revisions and traffic study were raised, Dunn's counsel was briefly questioned about Dunn's traffic study and the density/intensity of the project. Also, according to Mr. Coe, a copy of the City's newly-prepared traffic study was given to a Dunn representative just before the Committee meeting.) For both public meetings, the City's published notices indicated that the purpose of the meetings was to consider the proposed revised settlement agreement and remedial amendment allowing a cap on the development of the RPI property through the use of an asterisk, as reflected in Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 2008-628. See Petitioner's Exhibits 16 and 17. Dunn contends that it had insufficient time between the Committee meeting on September 3, 2008, and the final City Council meeting on September 9, 2008, in which to review and evaluate the new traffic information and respond to the comments of the Committee member who supported the revisions. It also points out that, like other members of the public, Dunn's attorney was only given three minutes to present comments in opposition to the revised agreement at the City Council meeting on September 9, 2009. Notwithstanding any procedural errors that may have occurred during the City's adoption process, Dunn received notice and attended both the Committee and City Council meetings, it presented written and oral objections to the revised plan amendment prior to and at the City Council meeting on September 9, 2008, and it was given the opportunity to file a petition to challenge the City's decision and present evidence on the revisions at the hearing in this case. Savings Clause in Senate Bill 360 In support of its position that the matter is now moot, and that the savings clause in Senate Bill 360 does not "save" the revised settlement agreement executed by the City, Department, and Britt, on November 10, 2008, Dunn submitted extrinsic evidence to show the Legislature's intent in crafting a savings clause, which include four separate analyses by the Legislative staff (Appendices A-D); an article authored by the Bill's Senate sponsor (Senator Bennett) and published in the St. Petersburg Times on May 23, 2009 (Appendix E); a similar article authored by the same Senator and published in the Sarasota Harold-Tribune on June 11, 2009 (Appendix F); a seven-page letter from Secretary Pelham to Senator Bennett and Representative Murzin dated July 23, 2009, concerning the new law and a two and one-half page summary of the bill prepared by the Department (Appendix G); a power point presentation for the Senate Community Affairs Committee on October 6, 2009 (Appendix H); and an article published in the October 2009 edition of The Florida Bar Journal (Appendix I). The Florida Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact contained in Appendix A was prepared on February 17, 2009, and does not reference the relevant savings clause. A second Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact contained in Appendix B and prepared on March 19, 2009, merely acknowledges that the legislation includes a savings clause but provides no further explication. See App. B, p. 9. Appendix C is the Florida House of Representatives 2009 Session Summary prepared in May 2009, while Appendix D is a Summary of Passed Legislation prepared by the House of Representatives Economic Development and Community Affairs Policy Council on an undisclosed date. Neither document addresses the issue of what types of agreements were intended to be saved. Appendices E through I are guest newspaper columns, correspondence, a power point presentation, and an article in a professional journal. None are authoritative sources of legislative intent.
Recommendation Based on 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 amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-628-E, which remediates Ordinance No. 2007- 383-E, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. 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 28th day of December, 2009.
