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
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The parties Respondent, Jefferson County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. At issue in this case is a plan amendment adopted by the County. Petitioner, Jack Hamilton, is a resident of Jefferson County. He owns and operates a nursery, orchard and cattle operation on his property on the east side of Highway 19, approximately two miles north of Monticello, Florida. The land, which is approximately 135 acres in size, is presently designated in a land use category known as Agriculture 2. For the last twenty years or so, the Jefferson Nursing Center (JNC), a nursing home, has been situated on a seven acre parcel of land surrounded on three sides by petitioner's property. Here, petitioner challenges a plan amendment which allows nursing homes, including JNC, in the Agriculture 2 category. The parties have stipulated that petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law and thus he has standing to bring this action. The nature of the dispute The County adopted its comprehensive plan (plan) on July 19, 1990. Through inadvertence, in the original plan, institutional uses such as churches, schools, nursing homes, parks and recreation areas were not specifically allowed as permitted uses in any residential or agriculture district even though such uses were commonly found in both types of districts. Even so, on an undisclosed date, the plan was determined by the DCA to be in compliance. On April 1, 1994, the County submitted to the DCA various amendments relating to a proposed petroleum pipeline project. During the course of preparing those amendments, the County became concerned for the status of all of the existing churches, nursing homes, schools, and other institutional uses in the County, because of their not being specifically mentioned in the plan. To avoid any question about the status of these uses and their treatment in the Land Development Code, which implements the plan, the County included an amendment to Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5-9 to provide for the adoption of land development regulations to permit all public land uses. On June 8, 1994, the DCA issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report concerning the proposed public land uses amendment. Among other things, the DCA determined that the language in the amendment was too broad. In response to the ORC, on August 3, 1994, the County adopted revised Ordinance 94-10, which amended the comprehensive plan to add a Public Facilities Land Use District, adopt a Public Facilities Land Use Map, and adopt a List of Public Facilities. Under this amendment, only existing public uses were included within the district, and these were specifically identified on a series of maps and a List of Public Facilities, both of which were included as part of the plan amendment. On September 26, 1994, the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find Ordinance No. 94-10 not in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. This determination was based in part on the fact that the amendment did not sufficiently detail what land use regulations and restrictions would apply in the district. On March 28, 1995, the County submitted to the DCA for its review a proposed ordinance repealing Ordinance 94-10 and amending the County's comprehensive plan to add a Public Facilities Land Use Overlay District, adopt a Public Land Use Map, and adopt a List of Public Facilities. This proposed amendment provided that the current land use district designation, and all applicable regulations for that district, would continue to apply to lands included within the overlay district. It also provided standards for any future additions to the overlay district. On June 2, 1995, the DCA issued its ORC Report concerning the proposed Public Facilities Land Use Overlay District amendment in which it continued to object to the proposed district. In response to the ORC, and after consulting with the DCA, on July 20, 1995, the County adopted Ordinance No. 95-07. That ordinance repealed Ordinance No. 94-10 and amended the comprehensive plan to allow (a) churches in all land use categories except Conservation District and (b) adult care facilities, day care facilities, and nursing homes in any land use district that allows residential use. Ordinance No. 95-07 was not adopted pursuant to a compliance agreement. On September 7, 1995, the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find Ordinance No. 95-07 in compliance. Petitioner timely filed his appeal of the DCA's determination that Ordinance No. 95-07 was in compliance. As amended, the petition contends that the plan amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis, lacks standards pertaining to density and intensity of development for nursing homes, and is internally inconsistent with the plan. As such, he contends the amendment is arbitrary and capricious, and not fairly debatable. Although the issues in the case have been framed by petitioner in this manner, in simple terms his primary concern is that nursing homes, and specifically JNC, are incompatible with agricultural uses and do not belong in the Agricultural 2 land use category. The Plan Amendment Identification and adequacy of data and analysis When it forwarded Ordinance No. 95-07 to the DCA for review, the County did not specify in its transmittal letter what data and analyses it was relying on to support the amendment. In an earlier telephone conversation between the County planner and the DCA, however, the County indicated that it was relying on the existing data and analysis originally submitted with its comprehensive plan. The DCA established that this is not unusual and is an acceptable practice for smaller counties. Indeed, there is nothing in Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that the identification of the supporting data and analysis be conveyed to the DCA in writing. Jefferson County is a small, rural county with only one person in its planning department. For counties with limited technical staff, the DCA normally provides technical support, and it customarily reviews the plan and existing data and analysis to identify those portions of the documents which are relevant to, and support, a plan amendment. Thus, in accordance with its practice for smaller counties, the DCA did not require the County to make a complete assessment of the plan and point out various page and reference numbers, but instead it performed that task. There was no showing that petitioner, or any other member of the public, was prejudiced in any respect by the DCA doing this. Besides the existing plan data and analysis, the DCA also had in its files the map and list specifically identifying each public use existing in the County and its location, including all churches, day care facilities, and nursing homes. The map and list were available at the public hearings which culminated in the adoption of Ordinance 95-07, and identified JNC within the Agriculture 2 district. Petitioner, who was a long-time member of the County Planning Commission, attended those hearings. There is no evidence that he, or any other member of the public, was unable to participate in the amendment process in a meaningful way. In determining the text amendments to be in compliance, the DCA relied upon certain data in the plan, including the existing population survey, soil survey and soil suitability data; a table comparing population composition showing the population existing and the need for elderly housing; the silviculture map as a factor in determining site suitability; the land use map showing the general overview of all land use types in the County; an analysis of the uses in the different land use categories; and a map plat showing petitioner's property, the location of the JNC, the proximity of two mixed-use business/residential areas to the north and south, and the residential densities in the area. The DCA also considered policies in the traffic circulation and transportation elements of the plan, a table of existing traffic conditions, existing housing data, an inventory of group homes, and special housing needs within the County, including housing for the elderly. Finally, the DCA considered Housing Element Policy 5-3 and Objective The policy provides that the County shall establish nondiscriminatory standards and criteria addressing the location of group homes and foster care facilities as well as other special needs housing. The objective calls for adequate sites for group homes and facilities in residential areas or other appropriate areas of residential character. Petitioner's expert concedes that nothing prohibits the County from adopting an amendment which allows nursing homes in an agricultural district so long as adequate data and analysis are present, and appropriate nonresidential intensity standards are found in the plan. Given the foregoing data and analysis, it is found that petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment lacks adequate data and analysis. Compatibility of uses Petitioner has also contended that the plan amendment allows uses (nursing homes) which are incompatible with agricultural uses. In this regard, petitioner offered his lay opinion that nursing homes are incompatible with agriculture uses because in the event of a problem during normal agricultural operations, such as a shift in the wind direction during burning or crop spraying, bedridden nursing home patients cannot be easily transported out of harm's way. With appropriate site planning features, petitioner's expert agreed that nursing homes are not inherently incompatible with agricultural land uses. The Code contains such site design criteria which are designed to eliminate or minimize incompatibilities. For example, it contains provisions regarding setbacks, a site planning process, and screening and buffering requirements. The fact that petitioner's agricultural operation and JNC have coexisted for more than twenty years is some evidence that the uses are or can be compatible. The County's proposed amendment to allow adult care facilities, day care facilities and nursing homes in the Agriculture 2 land use category is not inconsistent with any other objective or policy, is found to be fairly debatable, and is therefore in compliance. Density and intensity standards The law (s.163.3177(6)(a), F.S.) requires that comprehensive plans contain density and intensity standards for each land use. Petitioner contends that, notwithstanding this statutory requirement, there are no standards in the amendment or the comprehensive plan for density or intensity of development of nursing homes in the Agriculture 2 land use category. It is noted that the Agriculture 2 land use district description in Policy 1-3 of the FLUE provides a residential density but does not contain an intensity standard. FLUE Objective 1 provides, however, that "(f)uture growth and development shall continue to be managed using the County Development Code," which was adopted in April 1981. That Code spells out densities and intensities for each area. The objective further directs that the regulations be revised to address issues identified in Section 163.3203, Florida Statutes, compatibility of uses, and incentives to upgrade infrastructure. In addition, FLUE Policy 6-2 provides that the development review and approval process in the Code be the vehicle for limiting densities and intensities of development consistent with the availability of infrastructure. This policy has already been determined to be "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Rule 9J-5.005(8)(j), Florida Administrative Code, authorizes a local government to include in its comprehensive plan documents adopted by reference but not incorporated verbatim into the plan. In this case, the County adopted in its Code specific land development regulations governing growth and development, including density and intensity standards. There was no evidence that the Code fails to meet the statutory requirement that densities and intensities be included in the plan. Indeed, as a general rule, comprehensive plans in Florida either specifically describe all of the particular uses allowed in each district, or they generally describe such uses and let the particular uses to be allowed be determined in land development regulations. Here, the County has opted for the second type. This being so, it is found that petitioner has failed to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan and plan amendment lack appropriate standards governing densities and intensities.
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 the County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 95-07 to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Vance W. Kidder, Esquire 149 Carr Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32312-9032 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David La Croix, Esquire 521 West Olympia Avenue Punta Gorda, Florida 33950-4851
The Issue The issue is whether to approve Petitioners' application for a beneficial use determination (BUD) on their property in Key Largo, Florida, and if approved, to determine the type of relief that is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners purchased their property in September 2006 for $60,000.00 (or at the peak of the Florida housing boom). The parcel is located at the corner of Meridian Avenue and Lycaloma Avenue, mile marker 94.5, on the Gulf of Mexico side of U.S. Highway 1 in Key Largo. It is also identified as Block 9, Lot 1, Section 3 of the Bay Haven Subdivision, an older, partially-developed subdivision comprised of four sections and several hundred lots. Since September 15, 1986, the subdivision, including Petitioners' lot, has been zoned Suburban Residential (SR), which allows only one residential unit per two acres. No challenge to that action was taken by any person, and no contention has been made that the County failed to follow the established procedure for adopting its LDRs. A challenge to the validity of the LDRs is now barred by the statute of limitations.1 See § 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. The Bay Haven Subdivision is located in South Key Largo and was first platted after World War II. Building permits for all existing homes in the subdivision were applied for before the zoning change became effective in September 1986. Due to the SR restrictions, around 250 lots remain vacant at this time, including 99 in Section 3 where Petitioners' lot is located. Many of these vacant lots have been deeded by their owners to the County for conservation purposes in exchange for points that can be used with a Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)2 allocation to develop other property in the County. Petitioners' corner lot lies at the intersection of two streets and has an irregular shape with a large radius at the intersection. It is bordered on two sides by single-family homes, measures 8,276 square feet, or around 0.19 acres, and is somewhat larger than the typical subdivision lot size of 5,000 square feet. Mr. Beauchamp, who resides in Wisconsin, testified that he purchased the property with the expectation of building a home when he retired as an air traffic controller. Before purchasing the property, he assumed that it was zoned Improved Subdivision (IS) because this was the zoning incorrectly shown on the multiple listing service sheet provided by his realtor. Neither Mr. Beauchamp nor his realtor was familiar with County zoning classifications or permissible uses for the parcel.3 Sometime in 2006 they visited a County office to secure further information. Mr. Beauchamp says they spoke with two unidentified "planners," who told them that a single-family home could be built on the property. However, nothing was confirmed in writing, and there is no record of the meeting. Other than this meeting, neither Mr. Beauchamp nor his realtor took any other steps to verify the zoning on the property and/or any development restrictions that might apply. Based solely on the oral advice given by these two unnamed County employees, the Beauchamps purchased the lot. According to Petitioners' expert, Robert Smith, before purchasing a vacant lot in the Keys, normal due diligence would require a prospective purchaser to arrange a pre-application conference with Planning Department staff and secure a written Letter of Understanding confirming the rights of the property owner. See § 110-3, M.C.C. However, Petitioners (and their realtor) did not complete appropriate due diligence; they simply checked with an unidentified County employee and without any other assurance purchased the property.4 In May 2012, Petitioners' agent, Randy Wall, a builder and former Planning Commissioner but not an attorney, met with a representative of the County Building Department to begin the process of securing approval to build a single-family residence on the property. Mr. Wall was advised that the zoning on the property was SR, which allows only one dwelling unit per two acres. This was confirmed in an email dated July 13, 2012, from the Assistant Director of Planning, which stated as follows: The parcel has a zoning designation of SR which requires Two (2) acres per residential unit. As noted by planning staff, this parcel does not have sufficient land area for the zoning and associated density. At the meeting, Mr. Wall also inquired about the possibility of changing the zoning on the property from SR to IS (which would allow construction of a single-family home), but decided not to pursue that option because he recognized the poor prospects of securing a zoning change for a single lot in a large subdivision, when scores of other lots were subject to the same restriction. He assumed, probably correctly, that this might invite a spot zoning challenge. Other than having a discussion with County representatives, Mr. Wall did nothing more. He did not file an application for a residential dwelling unit allocation under the County's ROGO process, or any other formal application for relief, such as a change in the zoning district or land use designation, a variance, or an exception. Believing that the County staff would "fix the problem" because the County had made "a mistake" in reclassifying the entire subdivision as SR, Mr. Wall prepared and filed a BUD application, which was eventually deemed to be complete on September 27, 2013. The BUD process is intended "to provide a means to resolve a landowner's claim that a [LDR] or comprehensive plan policy has had an unconstitutional effect on property in a nonjudicial forum." § 102-103(a), M.C.C. An applicant for a BUD must include a statement "describing the [LDR], comprehensive plan policy, or other final action of the county, which the applicant believes necessitates relief under this division." § 102-105(b)(5), M.C.C. The application at issue simply stated that "the adoption of the land use designation of SR for the subdivision of Bay Haven constituted a compensable taking." The application did not refer to any comprehensive plan policy or final action taken by the County. As relief, the application requested that the County take one of the two following actions: (a) change the Future Land Use Map and zoning designations to allow a residence to be built on the lot; or (b) notwithstanding the SR zoning, issue a permit for development. The BUD process requires applicants to state whether they are alleging a facial or as-applied regulatory taking as the basis for administrative relief. See § 102-104, M.C.C. Unless a landowner asserts that a LDR or comprehensive plan provision, on its face, has caused a taking of his property, relief is permitted only after "the landowner has received a final decision on development approval applications from the county, including building permit allocation system allocations, appeals, administrative relief pursuant to section 138-54, and other available relief, exceptions, or variances." Id. Mr. Wall did not formally apply for any type of development approval and received no final decision, as contemplated by the Code. However, Mr. Wall testified that he "understood" the County was waiving that requirement in this instance. He also stated in the application that "Joe Haberman contracted [sic] the Beauchamps and informed them that staff had deemed this phase unnecessary and to move directly to submitting a [BUD] application." Other than this assertion, there is no evidence to confirm this understanding, and the County's Principal Planner testified that a waiver had not been granted. She also confirmed that no development approval application had been filed, and no final decision had been made, both required by the Code in order to seek relief under an "as applied" theory. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, as plainly stated in the application, Petitioners' basis for relief is that the LDR on its face constitutes a taking of their property.5 Besides a single-family home, which is impermissible here due to size limitations of the lot, two other uses are permitted as of right in the SR district: community parks and beekeeping. See § 130-94, M.C.C. Also, a property owner may apply for a minor conditional use, subject to approval by the Planning Director. Permissible minor conditional uses include public or private community tennis courts and swimming pools; public buildings and uses; parks and community uses; institutional uses; and churches, synagogues, and houses of worship. Id. However, Mr. Beauchamp testified that he is not interested in any of these uses since he believes most, if not all, would be offensive to a residential neighborhood or simply impractical due to the size of his lot. The property can also be sold to the owners of adjacent Lot 11 to be used as a side yard, its use before being purchased by Petitioners. Finally, the Principal Planner testified that there are transferable development rights (TDRs) on the property, whose value at this time is unknown. See § 130-160, M.C.C. Therefore, the Beauchamps are not deprived of all economically beneficial use of their property. Cf. § 102-110(c), M.C.C. ("[t]he highest, common, or expected use, is not intended as an appropriate remedy, unless expressly required by applicable statute or case law"). There was no evidence from a property appraiser on the fair market value of the parcel, as encumbered by the regulation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners deny Petitioners' application for relief under the BUD Ordinance. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2014, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether Polk County's small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Ordinance No. 03-03 on January 22, 2003, as later amended by Ordinance No. 03-19 on March 15, 2003, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Berry is the owner of a tract of land located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Eagle Lake Loop Road (County Road 540-A) and Pollard Road in Section 16, Township 29, Range 26 in the eastern part of unincorporated Polk County, Florida. The property lies south of the City of Winter Haven, east-southeast of the City of Eagle Lake, less than a mile south of Lake Eloise (on which Cypress Gardens is located), and west of U.S. Highway 27. Because Berry owns property within the County, and submitted oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the challenged amendment, it has standing to participate in this action. On July 19, 2002, Berry filed an application with the County Planning Department seeking to change the land use on 9.99 acres (or just below the threshold of 10.0 acres for a small scale amendment) from RL-1 to Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC) to include approximately 4.95 acres of various neighborhood specialty shops such as a grocery store, drug store, convenience store, and dry cleaners, with the remaining acreage used as a mini-warehouse self-storage facility. In September 2002, Berry amended its application by seeking to change 3.93 acres from RL-1 to CC and 6.06 acres from RL-1 to BPC-1. The application was assigned Case File No. CPA2003S- 02. Under the County's review process, the application is first reviewed by the County Development Review Committee (Committee), then by the County Planning Commission (CPC), which either accepts or rejects the Committee's recommendation, and finally by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), which either adopts the amendment, adopts the amendment as amended by the Board, or rejects the amendment. After conducting a preliminary review of the application, on September 16, 2002, the Committee conducted a public hearing and voted to recommend approval. The matter was then transmitted to the CPC, which conducted a meeting on October 9, 2002, and recommended that the Board approve the amendment. On January 22, 2003, by a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted CPA2003S-02 changing the designation on the FLUM of the County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) as proposed by Berry. This was confirmed by the County's adoption of Ordinance No. 03-03. On February 21, 2003, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the Berry amendment. The matter was again placed on the Board's agenda on March 19, 2003, after the County discovered that Ordinance No. 03-03 had inadvertently changed the land use on the entire parcel to CC rather a mix of CC and BPC-1. In addition, there were minor errors in the legal description of both the 3.93 and 6.06-acre parcels. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 03-19 was enacted to correct those errors. A second Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings (with essentially the same allegations, but also adding an allegation that the same property had been improperly subject to two small scale amendments within a 12- month period) was filed by Petitioners on March 19, 2003, challenging the action taken in Ordinance No. 03-19. At the outset of the final hearing, Petitioners voluntarily dismissed two allegations contained in their Petition. In their Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioners have further narrowed the issues by addressing only the following allegations: that the property which is the subject of this proceeding exceeds 10.0 acres in size and therefore cannot qualify as a small scale amendment; and that the amendment violates Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policies 2.102-A1, 2.113-B-3, 2.113-B-4, 2.110-C3, and 2.113-B-1 and is thus internally inconsistent with the Plan. These issues will be discussed separately below. All other allegations contained in the second Petition and the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation are deemed to have been withdrawn or abandoned. Because the change in the FLUM was filed and approved as a small scale plan amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003),1 a compliance review of the amendment was not made by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. Standing of Petitioners Durham is a realtor/developer who owns property within 250 feet of Berry's property and resides at 10 Lake Eloise Lane, Southeast, Winter Haven, Florida. He made oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment. As such, he qualifies as an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and has standing to bring this action. CPPI began as an association in November 2002 and was later incorporated in February 2003. Presently, it has around 100 members, all of whom reside in the County. According to its chairperson, its purpose is to "help educate and inform residents of Polk County . . . towards growth matters that may affect their daily lives." The organization "encourages donations" from its members; it was scheduled to have conducted its first annual meeting on January 10, 2004; and members prepared and circulated petitions opposing the amendment to residents of the area in December 2002 and January 2003. At least one member of CPPI made written and oral comments on its behalf to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment in March 2003. There is no evidence, however, that CPPI (as opposed to its individual members) owns property or owns or operates a business within the County. Therefore, it lacks standing to file a petition. The land and surrounding uses Berry owns a triangle-shaped parcel of land (the parent parcel) totaling around 14 acres which fronts on Eagle Lake Loop Road (a 24-foot wide urban collector road) to the north, Pollard Road (a local road) to the east, and a CSX railroad track, with right-of-way, on its western side. (Pollard Road dead ends at Eagle Lake Loop Road, and another collector road, Eloise Loop Road, continues to the north from the intersection). Pollard Road provides access to eight nearby single-family homes, which lie south of the Berry property and front on Pollard Road, and eventually terminates at the City of Winter Haven's Sewage Treatment Plant (an institutional use), which lies slightly more than a mile south of the site. To the west of the site directly across the railroad tracks and fronting on Eagle Lake Loop Road is additional property owned by Berry and on which were once located the original Berry corporate offices. The Berry office buildings are now used, at least partially, by other tenants. Although the land across the railroad tracks is classified as Residential Suburban (RS), the property can be used for offices since the buildings were constructed, and office use began, prior to the adoption of the Plan. Directly across Pollard Road to the east is a vacant 10-acre tract of land owned by the Baptist Ridge Association, which intends to construct a church on the property. Berry's property is now classified as RL-1, a land use classification which "is characterized by single-family dwelling units, duplex units, and small-scale multi-family units." Since at least the 1950s, however, or long before the County adopted its Plan, the property has been used primarily for agriculture purposes (citrus groves); therefore, Berry is grandfathered to continue this non-conforming use on its property. Presently, the entire tract of land is undeveloped and largely covered by an orange grove, which Berry describes as "past maturation and is declining." Citrus trucks and trailers have been parked on the extreme northwestern corner of the parent parcel and are used in conjunction with the citrus operation. Except for the former Berry offices, a nearby beauty salon operating out of a house, and a convenience store about three-quarters of a mile away, which all began operation before the Plan was adopted and are grandfathered as non- conforming uses, and the City of Winter Haven's large tract of institutional land to the south, all of the property within slightly less than a one-mile radius of the Berry property is classified in various residential land use categories with only residential uses. The Amendment As noted above, Berry has owned the subject property for many years. In 1987, Berry (then under the name of Jack M. Berry, Sr.) made application with the County for a zoning change on the property from Rural Conservation (RC) to Commercial (C-3) to allow typical commercial uses. The application was ultimately denied by the County on the ground, among others, that the zoning district being proposed was inconsistent with the Plan, "given the residential development pattern in the area." At least partly on the theory that the area has changed substantially in the last 15 years, Berry has filed (and the County has approved) an application seeking to change the land use on the property to commercial uses. Berry has carved out of the parent parcel two smaller parcels totaling 9.99 acres in size and seeks to change the land use on the northern parcel (3.93 acres) to CC and the land use on the southern parcel (6.06 acres) to BPC-1. The remaining land in the parent parcel, which consists of a 0.43-acre triangle-shaped parcel on the northwestern corner of the parent parcel and now used by citrus trucks, and a vacant 2.74-acre triangle-shaped parcel on the southern end, will remain R-1. (However, all parties agree that if the amendment is approved, these remaining parcels will be unsuitable for residential development.) In addition, strips of land ranging from 22 to 28 feet in width which front on Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road will be dedicated to the County for right-of-way and have not been included in the 9.99-acre amendment. Presumably, the proposed change is being done in this manner so that the total acreage is less than 10.0 acres, which qualifies the application to be processed as a small scale development amendment rather than a regular plan amendment and subject to DCA review and approval. If the change is approved, the northern part of the parcel (3.93 acres) will be changed to CC to develop convenience commercial uses. Under the Plan, the most typical tenant in this category is a convenience store, while other typical tenants include laundry, dry cleaning, barber, restaurant, gas station, and office uses. The southern (and larger) portion of the tract will be changed to BPC-1. The most typical tenant in this category is "[o]ne or more light- assembly plants, or warehouse facilities," which include a mini-warehouse storage facility. Other typical tenants described in the Plan are offices, distribution centers, research and development firms, and high-density residential, with proper buffering. (Berry says it intends to build a mini-warehouse facility on the southern parcel; however, any of the above described uses could be placed on the property if the change is approved.) Petitioners' Objections In broad terms, Petitioners have contended that the small scale amendment actually involves a use of more than 10 acres since the strips of land being dedicated as right-of-way to the County must be counted as a part of the land being amended. They also contend that the plan amendment violates five FLUE policies and is therefore internally inconsistent with the Plan. A small scale development amendment can only be adopted if "[t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." See § 163.3187(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. The parties have agreed that the legal description of the parcel subject to the change includes only 9.99 acres, or less than the 10-acre threshold. However, prior to the development of the site, Berry intends to dedicate to the County two strips of land, one fronting on Eagle Lake Loop Road (28 feet wide), and the other on Pollard Road (22 feet wide), for future right-of-way for some public purpose. Petitioners contend that the right-of-way constitutes essential infrastructure for the development and must be included as a part of the amendment. If this land is added to the amendment, the total acreage would obviously exceed 10.0 acres. The dedicated land is not "essential infrastructure" needed for the development activities on the land, since two roadways (Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road) already exist on the northern and eastern boundaries of the property, and they are sufficient in size to provide ingress to, and egress from, the property. Instead, the County will "bank" the land in the event some form of right-of-way activity is needed in the future. It is noted that Eagle Lake Loop Road was recently widened to 24 feet, and it is not anticipated that a further widening will occur for a number of years. There is nothing in the Plan which requires an applicant for an amendment to include all of its property in a proposed amendment, or prevents an applicant from leaving a residual piece of property out of the application. Therefore, Berry was not required to include in the amendment the right- of-way or the two smaller residual pieces of property that will remain R-1. Finally, assuming arguendo that Petitioners' contention is correct, that is, that an applicant must include right-of-way land dedicated to the local government in the total acreage calculation, Berry could still lawfully comply with the 10-acre threshold by simply reducing the other acreage being changed to CC or BPC by the amount of land being dedicated to the local government for right-of-way. Therefore, it is found that Berry has not improperly excluded from the amendment land necessary for essential infrastructure so as to violate Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioners. Policy 2.102-A1 requires compatibility between adjacent uses. More specifically, it provides that: Land shall be developed so that adjacent uses are compatible with each other, pursuant to the requirements of other Policies in this Future Land Use Element, so that one or more of the following provisions are accomplished: there have been provisions made which buffer incompatible uses from dissimilar uses; incompatible uses are made to be more compatible to each other through limiting the intensity and scale of the more intense use; uses are transitioned through a gradual scaling of different land use activities through the use of innovative development techniques such as a Planned Unit Development. Therefore, as the Plan is now written, so long as Berry develops the land in a manner which accomplishes at least one of the three "provisions" in paragraphs a - c of the policy, so as to make the adjacent uses compatible, the proposed land use change is permissible. As noted above, except for a few non-conforming uses adjacent to, or near the property, virtually all of the area around the Berry property is designated for residential use. The area to the north and northeast is developed with up-scale (with some homes ranging to as high as $1 million in value), low density, large lot, single-family residential subdivisions, including Harbour Estates, Cedar Cove, Cypress Cove, Gaines Cove, and Valhalla. To the east of the site are more subdivisions, including Eloise Place, Skidmore, Cypress Point, Lake Eloise Estates, Eloise Pointe Estates, a mobile home park, and Little Lake Estates. The lands to the south are primarily agriculture and in active citrus groves, with eight single-family homes on Pollard Road. Finally, a church will be built on the property directly across the street from the Berry property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road. The County Planning Director agrees that a convenience store (which is an authorized use on CC land), standing alone, is incompatible with adjacent single-family residences. Given this acknowledgement, and the fact that a non-binding, proposed site plan submitted by Berry with its application does not provide for any buffering between the commercial uses and the residential areas, Petitioners contend that none of the conditions required for compatibility in paragraphs a through c have been met, and thus the policy has been violated. The County has made clear, however, that when a final site plan is submitted, there must be "provisions [in the site plan] . . . which buffer incompatible uses from dissimilar uses," as required by the policy. Assuming that this is done at the site plan stage, at least one of the three provisions will be accomplished, thereby satisfying the compatibility requirement. This being so, the plan amendment does not violate the policy and in this respect is not internally inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioners next contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy 2.110-C3, which contains locational criteria for CC property. One such criterion requires that "Convenience Centers shall be located at the intersections of arterial and/or collector roads." Because the property is at a T-shaped intersection (as opposed to a traditional cross intersection with four directions for traffic to move off the site), Petitioners assert that the property is not located at an "intersection" within the meaning of the policy. Eagle Lake Loop Road, on which the northern boundary of the property fronts, is designated as an urban collector road. That road forms an intersection with Pollard Road (a local road) and Eloise Loop Road (also an urban collector road), which meets Eagle Lake Loop Road from the north at the intersection, and then makes a 90 degree turn to the east. (When Eagle Lake Loop Road continues to the east beyond the intersection, it turns into Eloise Loop Road, and later into Thompson Nursery Road, until it eventually intersects with U.S. Highway 17.) There is no dispute that the two collector roads (Eagle Loop Lake Road and Eloise Loop Road) form a T intersection, rather than a traditional cross intersection. For many years, however, the County has considered a T intersection and a cross intersection to be the same in terms of satisfying Plan requirements. Indeed, at the present time, at least four other CC designated properties within the County are located at T intersections. The County's interpretation of the policy is consistent with sound planning principles, is reasonable and logical, and is more persuasive than the contrary view offered by Petitioners. Accordingly, it is found that the amendment does not conflict with Policy 2.110- C3. Petitioners also contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy 2.113-B-3, which provides that "Business-Park Centers shall be located with consideration being given to regional transportation issues, and should be located at the intersections of arterial roads, and preferably on a fixed-route mass-transit line." (Emphasis added.) The use of the word "should" (rather than "shall") is intended to state a preference, but not an absolute requirement, that BPC lands be located at the intersections of arterial roads. According to the County's Planning Director, this is because "most cases that come [before the County] don't meet the ideal situation" of satisfying every requirement, and the County has used this permissive language to give itself some degree of flexibility in handling cases that do not meet every Plan requirement. Therefore, even though it is preferable that BPC land be located at the intersection of arterial roads, this requirement is not mandatory, and the County has the flexibility to approve a BPC land use change at property not sited at the intersection of arterial roads. In contrast to the permissive language described above, Policy 2.113-B-4 provides that development within a Business-Park Center shall conform to certain development criteria, including one that Business-Park Centers shall have frontage on, or direct access to, an arterial roadway, or a frontage road or service drive which directly serves an arterial roadway. Business-Park Centers shall incorporate the use of frontage roads or shared ingress/egress facilities wherever practical. In this case, the closest arterial roadway to Berry's property is State Road 17 to the west, which is four miles away, while State Road 60, another arterial roadway, is approximately six miles to the south. These arterial roads must be accessed, at least at the beginning of the trip, by Eagle Lake Loop Road, a two-lane, 24-foot wide urban collector that runs through predominately residential neighborhoods with some homes having fences within a foot or two from the road. The County interprets the requirement that BPC land have "direct access to an arterial road" to be satisfied if the property fronts on a collector road, which then provides access to an arterial road. Under the County's interpretation, the requirement is met since Eagle Lake Loop Road provides access (albeit 4 to 6 miles away) to State Roads 17 and 60. The County says it has consistently interpreted this provision in this manner for at least ten years, and has approved other applications for changes to BPC when those parcels were located on urban collector roads. (The distance between these other BPC parcels and the arterial roads is not of record, however.) While Policy 2.113-B-1 provides that Business-Park Centers are "not intended to accommodate major commercial or other high-traffic producing facilities," they "are intended to promote employment opportunities within the region by allowing for the establishment of office parks, research and development parks, areas for light-industrial facilities, distribution centers, and mixed-use employment parks." The same policy provides that they must have a usable area of 10 acres or more, have a service-area radius of 20 miles or more, be supported by a population of 150,000 or more people, and have a gross leasable area of 500,000 to 2,000,000 square feet. Given this description of their purpose and characteristics, and the wide range of commercial activities that are allowed on Business-Park Center lands, it is not surprising that Policy 2.113-B-3 provides that BPC lands should be located "at the intersections of arterial roads, and preferably on a fixed-route mass-transit line," while Policy 2.113-B-4 requires that they "have direct frontage on, or direct access to, an arterial roadway, or a frontage road or service drive which directly serves on an arterial roadway." When reading these provisions as a whole, it is unreasonable to conclude, as the County does, that "direct access" contemplates a drive of over 4 miles, partly on a narrow two- lane road, in order to reach an arterial road. Accordingly, on this issue, Petitioners' evidence is the most persuasive, and it is found that the plan amendment conflicts with Policy 2.113-B-4 and in this respect is internally inconsistent with the Plan. Policy 2.110-C3 sets forth the following location criteria for Convenience Centers: LOCATION CRITERIA Convenience Centers shall be located at the intersections of arterial and/or collector roads. There shall be the following traveling distance, on public roads, between the center of Convenience Center and the center of any other Convenience Center, or other higher- level Activity Center, Linear Commercial Corridor, or Commercial Enclave providing for the same convenience shopping needs: One (1) mile within the UDA and UGA Two (2) miles within the SDA and UEA This required separation may be reduced if: The higher-level Activity Center, Linear Commercial Corridor or Commercial Enclave within the required distance separation is over 80 percent developed; or the proposed Convenience Center market- area radius, minimum population support is over 5,000 people. Petitioners contend that this policy has been violated in two respects: the Berry property is not located at the intersection of arterial roads; and there is an existing convenience center located within 0.8 mile of the Barry property, and Berry cannot qualify for a reduction in the required separation, as described in paragraphs a and b. For the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 30-32, it is found that the Berry property is located at the intersection of two collector roads (Eagle Lake Loop Road and Eloise Loop Road) and that a T intersection satisfies the requirements of the policy. As to the second contention, the Berry property is located within an UGA (Urban Growth Area), and an existing convenience store is located at the intersection of Rifle Range Road and Eagle Lake Loop Road, or less than a mile west of Berry's property. The land use on the property on which the store sits was recently changed (in December 2003) to BPC, which does not allow a convenience store. However, the store is a non-conforming use, having been located at that site before the Plan was adopted. The locational requirement in Policy 2.110-C-3 that CC lands within the UGA be located at least a mile apart is not the least bit vague or ambiguous: CC designated lands (and not individual convenience stores, as Petitioners suggest) must be separated by at least a mile, unless one of the two criteria for reducing this separation is met. Because there is no CC land within a one-mile radius of the Berry land, the policy has not been violated. Policy 2.113-B-1 sets forth the following relevant characteristic for Business-Park Centers: General characteristics of Business-Park Centers are: Usable Area 10 acres or more There is no dispute that the useable area for the BPC land is only 6.06 acres, or approximately 60 percent of the required acreage. Petitioners contend that the amendment violates the foregoing policy because the useable area on Barry's property is much less than "10 acres or more." While the former County Planning Director conceded that the 10-acre usable area requirement is "mandatory," he justified the amendment on the ground that the 6.06 acres "approximates" 10 acres, and thus satisfies the policy. In the same vein, the current County Planning Director asserted that if Berry was proposing a stand-alone BPC, it would have been required to have 10 usable acres. In this case, though, he pointed out that the Berry property will be used for a nonresidential mixed use (BPC and CC) totaling almost 10 acres, and therefore Berry has satisfied the requirement. The Planning Director admitted, however, that nothing in the Plan specifically allows this type of exception. He justified the County's action on the theory that the Plan "doesn't anticipate every situation that comes in," and "interpretations have to be made of the comprehensive plan and how it's applied." The requirement that Business-Park Centers have a usable area of 10 or more acres is clear and unambiguous, was characterized as being "mandatory," and is not subject to any exceptions in the Plan. This being so, the County's interpretation is found to be unreasonable and contrary to the plain language in the policy, and in this respect the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with the Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Polk County by Ordinance No. 03-03, as amended by Ordinance No. 03-19, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2004, 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 24th day of February, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The Resource Recovery Facility The purpose of the Applicants' proposed resource recovery facility (RRF), a solid waste-fired electrical power plant, is to dispose of municipal solid waste and recover energy. This "waste to energy" facility will initially dispose of up to 2,200 tons of refuse each day, and generate up to 55.5 megawatts of electrical power. The ultimate disposal capacity of the proposed facility is 3,300 tons of refuse each day, and a generating capacity of 83.25 megawatts. The proposed RRF complex will include an administrative building, scalehouse/weigh station, receiving and handling building, furnace boilers, turbine generators, ash disposal area, and electrical substation. The site development plans for the project contemplate that solid waste will be delivered by truck to the enclosed refuse receiving and handling building. All waste will be stored and processed inside the main facility. The Site The site for the proposed RRF is an undeveloped 25-acre parcel of land situated on the south side of Northwest 45th Street (Hilton Road), midway between the Florida Turnpike and Powerline Road; an unincorporated area of Broward County. The uses surrounding the site are predominantly industrial. On the south side of Hilton Road, between the Florida Turnpike, which lies to the west, and Powerline Road, which lies to the east, are welding shops, engine repair shops, and automobile salvage yards. Located north of Hilton Road is an industrial zoned area which includes an asphalt batching plant. Immediately south and east of the project site is a newly permitted landfill area which will function as an expansion of the existing landfill located immediately south and west of the site's boundaries. Consistency of the site with local land use plans and zoning ordinances Broward County has adopted a Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to Chapter 163 Florida Statutes, which establishes guidelines and policies to promote orderly and balanced economic, social, physical, environmental and fiscal development of the area. Pertinent to this proceeding are the Broward bounty Land Use Plan-map and the Unincorporated Area Land Use Plan (the land use plan element of the comprehensive plan), and Broward County's zoning ordinances. The proposed site is designated industrial under the Broward County Land Use Plan-map and the Unincorporated Area Land Use Plan. The proposed RRF is a utility for solid waste disposal and, as such, an allowable use under the industrial designation of both plans, and satisfies the goals, policies, and objectives of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. On April 22, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners of Broward County approved the rezoning of the site to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Special Complex District, and approved the RRF conceptual site plan. The proposed RRF is a Planned Special Complex under Broward County's PUD zoning ordinances and, as such, a permitted non-residential use. 1/ The Department of Community Affairs, Department of Environmental Regulation, and South Florida Water Management District concur that the proposed RRF is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. The Public Service Commission did not participate in this land use portion of the power plant siting process. Notice of the land use hearing was published in the Fort Lauderdale News/Sun-Sentinel on April 21, 1986, and in the Florida Administrative Weekly on April 18, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order granting certification for the location, construction and operation of the proposed facility, subject to the conditions of the certification attached to this Recommended Order as Appendix II. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of January 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January 1987.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Ft. Myers' comprehensive plan, as amended, is not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the prehearing stipulation, as amended during the final hearing.
Findings Of Fact Background The City of Ft. Myers, (Ft. Myers) adopted its comprehensive plan on February 13, 1989. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issued a Notice of Intent to find the plan not in compliance. Among other things, DCA alleged that the plan improperly omitted the Mid-Point Bridge and was inadequate in terms of intergovernmental coordination, at least with regard to the bridge. The City of Cape Coral (Cape Coral) and Lee County filed petitions to intervene. The petitions challenged the Ft. Myers plan based on its omission of the Mid-Point Bridge. DCA and Ft. Myers subsequently reached a settlement. On August 20, 1990, Ft. Myers adopted plan amendments pursuant to the settlement agreement. The plan, as amended, will be referred to as the Plan. DCA issued a Notice of Intent to find the plan amendments in compliance, but Lee County and Cape Coral, finding the plan amendments unsatisfactory, continued to prosecute their challenge to the Plan. Ft. Myers and Cape Coral are two of the three municipalities located in Lee County. /2 The two cities are divided by the Caloosahatchee River, which forms the western end of the Okeechobee Waterway. This waterway links the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Okeechobee, via the Caloosahatchee River, and Lake Okeechobee to the Atlantic Ocean. In the eastern part of Lee County, the Caloosahatchee River runs from east to west. In this area, the river is spanned by the State Road 31 Bridge and, further downstream, the Interstate 75 bridge. In the vicinity of Interstate 75, about two miles northeast of the city limits of Ft. Myers, the river widens, makes a slow turn, and takes a northeast-to-southwest course. Except for a railroad bridge about one mile downstream from the Interstate 75 bridge, the next bridge is the Edison Bridge, which is about 5 1/2 miles downstream from the Interstate 75 bridge. The Edison Bridge serves old U.S. 41. The southern landfall of this bridge runs into the northern end of the central business district of Ft. Myers. The Edison Bridge, which is presently two lanes, is planned to be widened to six lanes in the near future. About 1/2 mile downstream of the Edison Bridge is the Caloosahatchee Bridge, which serves new U.S. 41. The southern landfall of the Caloosahatchee Bridge, which is sometimes called the 41 Bridge, also runs into the central business district of Ft. Myers. The Caloosahatchee Bridge is four lanes. About seven miles downstream from the Caloosahatchee Bridge is the Cape Coral Bridge, which is the last bridge before the mouth of the river. The Cape Coral Bridge was recently expanded to four lanes. The proposed Mid-Point Bridge would be located 3.4 miles upstream from the Cape Coral Bridge and 3.8 miles downstream from the Caloosahatchee Bridge. At this point, the river runs more in a north-to-south direction. The bridge would connect central Cape Coral with south Ft. Myers. The Mid-Point Bridge project would include an east-west road corridor on both sides of the river. The corridor would connect Everest Parkway on the Cape Coral or west side of the river with Colonial Boulevard on the Ft. Myers or east side of the river. Everest Parkway is presently only about 12,000 feet long. The corridor would connect Everest Parkway with Miracle Parkway to the west, turn north at Malatcha Pass (the western boundary of Cape Coral), and extend to New Burnt Store Road. Everest Parkway and most of Miracle Parkway are four-lane divided collectors for which Cape Coral has jurisdiction. Colonial Boulevard is an arterial consisting of six lanes from McGregor Boulevard east to U.S. 41 and four lanes from U.S. 41 east to Interstate 75. The State had jurisdiction over all of Colonial Boulevard, but the County now has jurisdiction over the segment between McGregor Boulevard and U.S. 41. The west terminus of Colonial at McGregor Boulevard is about one- quarter mile east of the river. About 2000 feet east of McGregor is Summerlin Road. The next major intersection is U.S. 41, which is about 4000 feet east of Summerlin and less than 1.2 miles east of McGregor Boulevard. The Edison Mall, which is a major regional shopping mall, is less than one-half mile north of this intersection on the east side of U.S. 41. The next major intersection on Colonial is Metro Parkway, which is 1.3 miles east of U.S. 41. A little over 3.1 miles east of Metro Parkway is Interstate 75 where an interchange exists. From west to east, the major north-south roads are McGregor Boulevard, for which capacity improvements are constrained by historic and scenic factors; U.S. 41, which crosses the Caloosahatchee Bridge; Fowler Street and Evans Avenue, which are a one-way pair between the Edison Bridge and Colonial; Metro Parkway, which is proposed to be extended north to cross the proposed Metro Bridge; and Interstate 75, which is considerably east of the downtown area. Cape Coral is a relatively new community whose predominant land uses are residential. The relevant road network in Cape Coral consists of two major east-west roads: Pine Island Road, which is about four miles north of Everest, and Cape Coral Parkway, which is about three miles south of Everest. The major north-south roads are, from east to west, Del Prado Boulevard (at which point Everest presently ends), Country Club Boulevard, and Santa Barbara Boulevard. In contrast to Cape Coral, Ft. Myers has been more or less continuously occupied since the construction of a fort by the same name in 1850 between the Second and Third Seminole Wars. In 1887, Thomas A. Edison built his home alongside the Caloosahatchee River between the central business district and what is now Colonial Boulevard. Edison's home is located on McGregor Boulevard, which is attractively lined by Royal Palm trees. Aided by the arrival of Henry Plant's Coast Railroad in 1904 (and presumably a bridge to go with it), Ft. Myers began to grow rapidly in the early 1900's. The Colonial Boulevard area was not developed until the Florida land boom in the 1920's. Although the structures of historical interest are north of Colonial Boulevard, seven sextant structures on Rio Vista Way were constructed during the 1920's and 1930's and exemplify the prevailing Mediterranean revival architectural style. Running toward the river, Rio Vista Way intersects McGregor Boulevard about 250-500 feet of north of the western end of Colonial Boulevard. Data and Analysis February, 1989, Data and Analysis At the time of the adoption of the plan, Ft. Myers prepared a 45-page volume entitled "Traffic Circulation Data and Analysis." The document was dated August, 1988, and revised February, 1989. This document will be referred to as the 1989 Data and Analysis. The 1989 Data and Analysis reviews the city's current situation with respect to transportation facilities, especially roads. Table 1 of the document is a chart of daily traffic volumes based on Florida Department of Transportation traffic estimates issued April 10, 1987 Table 1 projects the peak hour level of services for various road segments for 2010. According to Table 1, by 2010, all of U.S. 41 is projected to be at level of service F, except for a segment south of downtown that is projected to deteriorate only to level of service D. All of Colonial Boulevard is projected to be at level of service F, except for the short segment between McGregor Boulevard and Summerlin Road, which is projected to deteriorate only to level of service C. McGregor Boulevard and Fowler Street are projected to be level of service F, except for the segment of Fowler Street beginning at the river, which is projected to be level of service E. Among the road segments already exceeding level of service standards are Colonial Boulevard west of U.S. 41 (level of service E) and McGregor Boulevard (level of service F). The 1989 Data and Analysis notes that the "intensified urbanization of Fort Myers will continue, and congestion problems will worsen." 1989 Data and Analysis, page 7. The 1989 Data and Analysis summarizes the "three major areas of major capacity deficiencies" as follows: Firstly, Fort Myers' downtown is the economic hub of Lee County and development attracts approximately 38,800 daily trip ends. [Fort Myers Downtown Plan, July 1986.] Second, the Edison Mall area which due to the major regional shopping mall is a main attractor of traffic congestions. Finally, McGregor Boulevard, the renowned historic and scenic highway, has capacity constraints. Id. at page 9. Map B in the 1989 Data and Analysis depicts future roadways and classifications. In addition to the existing Interstate 75, railroad, Edison, and Caloosahatchee bridges, the map shows the Metro Bridge. This bridge, which will be located just over one mile upstream from the Edison Bridge, will allow Metro Parkway to cross the river and intersect with Interstate 75 in north Lee County. According to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), Metro Parkway presently extends from south of Colonial Boulevard to about two miles north of Colonial. Map B depicts Metro Parkway as continuing north until it meets the proposed landfall of the southern end of the proposed Metro Bridge. The proposed alignment of Metro Parkway between its present northern terminus and the proposed bridge takes it through economically distressed areas east of the railroad tracks and central, downtown area. Map F in the 1989 Data and Analysis depicts graphically travel desires lines for 1980 and 2010. The travel desires map shows the general direction and approximate volume of trips between 13 centroids for 1980 and 2010. The centroids aggregate up to 396 travel analysis zones. The 1989 Data and Analysis explains that the travel desires map "was produced as part of the MPO 2010 Needs plan update . . .." 1989 Data and Analysis, page 19. The 1980 travel desires line signifying the greatest number of trips runs in at northeast-southwest direction between south Ft. Myers near the river to north Ft. Myers a couple of miles inland. Other major 1980 travel desire lines cross the river in the vicinity of the Caloosahatchee, Edison, and proposed Metro Bridges cross the river between the center of Cape Coral and north Ft. Myers and connect north Ft. Myers to a point well east of Interstate 75 in the area of Lehigh Acres. The projected travel desires lines signifying the most travel in 2010 are the above-described line between south and north Ft. Myers and a line between south Ft. Myers and a point about six miles due south. The latter travel line depicts considerably less traffic in 1980. Compared to the two most significant 2010 travel lines, the travel lines crossing the river are projected to increase at a lesser rate. Table 3 in the 1989 Data and Analysis contains 1987 Traffic Counts. The table, which is derived from Lee County data, projects when various road segments will deteriorate to seasonal level of service E. Table 3 projects that Colonial Boulevard between Summerlin Road and U.S. 41 and Colonial east of Metro Parkway will deteriorate to peak season level of service E by 1988 and 1992, respectively. McGregor was already at an average level of service of E by 1987. Segments of Metro Parkway south and north of Colonial are projected to reach level of service E by 1991 and 1989, respectively. Also, U.S. 41 at the river is projected to deteriorate to level of service E by 1992. Other relevant segments are projected to be at seasonal level of service D or better. Map G in the 1989 Data and Analysis graphically depicts 1980 and 2010 levels of population and employment by area. In general, Map G shows that, in 1980 and 2010, Cape Coral experienced and is projected to continue to experience considerably greater population than employment opportunities. North and south Ft. Myers' figures show a much better balance between population and jobs. Addressing Map B in, the 1989 data and Analysis, which depicts future roadways, the 1989 Data and Analysis states: The City's Major Thoroughfare Plan (Map H[)] /4 has been developed to coordinate with the Metropolitan Planning Organization, State and County plans to the greatest extent possible. The most significant deviations from these plans are the terminus of the Evans/Fowler one-way pair and the exclusion of a "mid- point bridge." The proposal by other agency plans of a "mid-point bridge," at its current proposed location, conflicts overwhelmingly with other goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Conflicts with Land Use, Historic, and Community Appearance elements and internal conflicts with the Traffic Circulation element precludes the City from supporting the proposed bridge alignment. The present and future land use pat1terns have been coordinated to the greatest extent feasible with the Major Thoroughfare Plan. 1989 Data and Analysis, page 36. The 1989 Data and Analysis does not explain how the Major Thoroughfare Plan ``coordinates'' with the plans of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations' State, and County plans. Maps A and B of the 1989 Data and Analysis depict, respectively, present and future roads. Tables in the 1989 Data and Analysis following the Major Thoroughfare Plan--2010 list transportation projects included in the list of one organization or entity but excluded from that of another. Mentioning the Mid-Point Bridge and approaches, Table 12 states "The City of Fort Myers is adamantly opposed to this project on the basis of it being inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan." The 1989 Data and Analysis concludes with a discussion of "issues and opportunities." This discussion mentions the maintenance or provision of "adequate road capacity for future traffic needs" and the preservation and protection of the "quality of residential areas, major activity centers, and recreation and environmental resources." Nothing in the 1989 Data and Analysis expressly incorporates by reference other sources of data or analysis in support of the plan's treatment of the Mid-Point Bridge or any approach. Setember, 1990, Data and Analysis An updated version of the 1989 Data and Analysis was issued. The new version bears the date, "August 1988," but also states that it was "updated September 1990." This document will be referred to as the 1990 Data and Analysis. Table I in the 1990 Data and Analysis is based on the same Florida Department of Transportation estimates issued April 10, 1987, on which Table 1 in the 1989 data and Analysis was based. The above-noted segments are all projected to reach the same level of service, except that all segments of U.S. 41 are projected to reach level of service F by 2010. Other differences between the 1989 Data and Analysis and 1990 Data and Analysis appear fairly minor. /6 Table IV updates the 1987 Traffic Counts in the 1989 Data and Analysis with 1988 Traffic Counts, which are, also from Lee County. The differences as to when relevant road segments are projected to deteriorate to peak season level oil service E are as follows: Colonial Boulevard east of Metro Parkway, which is now projected to reach level of service E in 1993 instead of 1992; Metro Parkway north and south of Colonial, which are no longer "projected" to deteriorate to level of service E in 1988; and Colonial Boulevard just west of U.S. 41, which is now projected not to reach level of service E within the applicable timeframe instead of reaching it in 1988. There is no difference in the discussions in the 1989 Data and Analysis and 1990 Data and Analysis concerning the differences between the road network portrayed by the Major Thoroughfare Plan--2010 and the road networks portrayed by the plans of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, State, /7 and County. The conflict concerning the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor remains unresolved. Nothing in the 1990 Data and Analysis expressly incorporates by reference other sources of data or analysis in support of the plan's treatment of the Mid-Point Bridge or any approach. The MPO Plans and Environmental Fact Statement Other sources of data and analysis existing in February, 1989, pertain to the Mid-Point Bridge and transportation planning issues. Much of these data nd analysis are associated with the work of the Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and of Lee County and its consultants in the preparation of an environmental impact statement for the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor. When adopting the Plan, Ft. Myers representatives were aware of the data and analysis used or prepared by the MPO and the data and analysis used to prepared by Lee County and its consultants in connection with the environmental impact statement. Required by federal law, a metropolitan planning organization coordinates transportation planning in areas governed by more than one local jurisdiction to ensure that federal and state transportation funds are spent effectively. The MPO consists of 12 voting members: five Lee County Commissioners, the Mayor and two City Council members of Ft. Myers, the Mayor and two City Council members of Cape Coral, and the Mayor or a City Council member of Sanibel. The MPO is also served by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which consists largely of planning and engineering employees of each of the member jurisdictions. The TAC analyzes data and presents to the MPO for consideration. The MPO prepared its initial transportation plan in 1974. The MPO first included the Mid-Point Bridge in its 1978 transportation plan. The MPO later dropped the Mid-Point Bridge project, but reinstated it in 1983. The Mid-Point Bridge remained in the MPO's transportation plans until March, 1991. At an early stage, Lee County was opposed to the bridge, but later reversed its position. The positions of Cape Coral and Ft. Myers appear to have remained constant. In 1987, the MPO began to run computer simulations of various transportation improvements. These modeling runs, or assignments, were integral to the preparation of the MPO 2010 Needs Plan (Needs Plan) and MPO 2010 Financially Feasible Plan (Financially Feasible Plan). Although some text is associated with these plans, they generally consist of two maps of road networks with indications as to the number of lanes and type of facility (e.g., freeway or collector). The Needs Plan depicts the system needed "to accommodate projected travel demand efficiently and conveniently at acceptable levels of service, but unconstrained by cost considerations." Financially Feasible Plan. Based upon cost-benefit analyses, the Financially Feasible Plan prioritizes the facilities shown in the Needs Plan. It is arguable whether the Financially Feasible Plan depicts road improvements that are, in fact, financially feasible. The plan concedes that the MPO has proposed improvements whose cost nearly doubles projected available revenues: The estimated $993 million cost of the Financially Feasible Plan, while $442 million less than that of the 2010 Needs Plan, still exceeds projected financial resources from traditional or existing Sources by -some $313 million. In order to pay for the implementation of the Financially Feasible Plan, a number of options for raising additional revenue available under current Florida law have been identified. Financially Feasible Plan. Although a number of the revenue options involve Ft. Myers, such as through the use of impact fees or local option gas taxes and infrastructure sales taxes, the proposed Mid-Point Bridge and corridor would not Ft. Myers to contribute directly to its cost. The record does not address whether the commitment of Lee County to the project prevents the County from sharing in other transportation expenses otherwise borne to a greater extent by Ft. Myers. Lee County intends to pay for the Mid-Point Bridge and the corridor between Del Prado-Boulevard and Interstate 75. The Lee County schedule of capital improvements, which are contained in the Lee County plan, includes the $168.4 million cost of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor from Del Prado to Interstate 75. The capital improvement schedule identifies the revenue source as toll revenue bond proceeds. Cape Coral intends to pay for the corridor west of Del Prado Boulevard. The Cape Coral schedule of capital improvements includes $17.8 million for the design and construction of the east-west expressway from Del Prado to Santa Barbara and includes another $6.9 million for related right-of- way acquisition. The Cape Coral plan, as amended August 27, 1990, identifies impact fees and gas taxes as sources for the needed revenue, although later amendments identify other sources as well. In running computer simulations, the MPO used the Florida Standard Model to process socioeconomic data inputs and project levels of service for various network alternatives. The TAC validated the modeling by comparing projections to current travel conditions. The MPO or TAC approved the model after reviewing the validation results. After approving the model, the MPO and TAC unanimously approved the socioeconomic data in December, 1986. In addition to the specified transportation network, the data inputs include such socioeconomic data as projected populations, numbers of housing units by type, pp categories by type, and school enrollments. Generally, each TAC member supplied the socioeconomic data for the jurisdiction represented by that member. Decisions concerning the evaluation of data were by majority vote. The TAC and its outside consultant, Wilbur Smith and Associates, selected alternatives to test, although it appears that the TAC had considerable discretion in `the choice of alternatives. The socioeconomic data were correlated to applicable land uses, which were derived from land use plans then in effect for the various jurisdictions. None of these land use plans contained the comprehensive revisions required by the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (the Act). By running traffic simulation models, Wilbur Smith and Associates determined the relationship of population to employment for 1980 and projected the relationship to 2010. This work was reflected in Map G of the 1989 Data and Analysis and 1990 Data and Analysis. Wilbur Smith and Associates then simulated the travel projected to occur in the area and the routes to accommodate such travel. This work eventually was incorporated into the travel desires map, which, is Map F of the 1989 Data and Analysis and 1990 Data and Analysis. The modeling process is iterative. The first network model led was the existing and committed road network, as of February, 1987. This system, as expected, was grossly inadequate to handle projected growth through 2010. The existing and committed network consisted of, the following committed projects: the Edison Bridge six-laning, the cape Coral Bridge four-laning, an extension of Colonial Avenue, and multi-laning of State Road 80. The next network modelled was the MPO 2000 Long Range Transportation Plan. The predecessor to the 2010 Needs Plan, the 2000 Long Range Transportation Plan, which included the Mid-Point Bridge, provided an ample road network. A total of 15 assignments were run prior to the preparation and adoption of the Needs Plan. The computer modelling represents the first time that the MPO undertook such work on its own or with an outside consultant. By the latter half of 1987, the TAC and Wilbur Smith and Associates had prepared Assignment D, which included much of what was eventually included in the Needs Plan. Assignment D became a base against which other alternatives were tested. At the request of Ft. Myers, the TAC and Wilbur Smith and Associates ran an assignment without the Mid-Point Bridge. This assignment included the Iona Cove Bridge expanded to four lanes and served by a freeway. /8 As ultimately adopted in the Needs Plan, the Iona Cove Bridge and Southern Corridor would consist of a two-lane bridge downstream from the Cape Coral Bridge and about 2 1/2 miles upstream from the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River. On the Cape Coral side, the Southern Corridor would connect indirectly to the Cape Coral Parkway well west of the Cape Coral Bridge. On the Ft. Myers side, the Southern Corridor would be a new four-lane expressway in south Lee County that, from west to east, would intersect Metro Parkway and then Interstate 75. As a two-lane expressway, the Southern Corridor would turn north, passing south of the regional airport, and teirminate at Lehigh Acres in east Lee County. The simulation without the Mid-Point Bridge was Assignment G. Due to faulty data inputs, 9 possibly concerning one or more developments of regional impact in south Lee County, the MPO reran the requested alternative as Assignment J. Assignment J is the only valid assignment excluding the Mid-Point Bridge except for the initial run of the base network. Table A-I of Technical Report 3, which was prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates, compares projected traffic volumes on various road segments based on Assignment D and Assignment J. In Assignment D, the Iona Cove Bridge would be a two-lane facility with expressway approaches, rather than freeway approaches. Treating the Edison, Caloosahatchee, and Metro Bridges as a single corridor with a capacity of 138,000 trips per day, Table A-I projects that these bridges would handle, under Assignment D, 142,864 trips per bay and, under Assignment J, 153,605 trips per day. The respective volume to capacity ratios are 1.04 and 1.11. The Mid-Point Bridge in Assignment D would have a capacity of 76,000 trips per day and would carry 36,542 for a volume to capacity ratio of 0.48. The Cape Coral Bridge, with a capacity of 33,600, is projected to serve 34,565 trips per day under Assignment D and 43,778 trips per day under Assignment J. The respective volume to capacity ratios are 1.03 and 1.30. Table A-I considers a group of three north-south roads in Ft. Myers, including U.S. 41, in three segments as they travel south from the river. The range of volume to capacity ratios, under Assignment D, from 0.76 to 1.00 and, under Assignment J, from 0.84 to 1.06. Table A-I reports the results for 18 other segments in Cape Coral or Ft. Myers. All but four of these segments are below a volume to capacity ratio of 0.95 under Assignment D. With Assignment J, eight segments exceed 1.0 and two more exceed 0.95. The MPO adopted the Needs Plan on January 21, 1988. After running 14 more assignments, the MPO adopted the Financially Feasible Plan on November 17, 1988. The more elaborate Needs Plan contains a four-lane Metro Bridge with Metro Parkway as, a divided six-lane arterial south of the bridge and a four-lane expressway to U.S. 41 north of the bridge. The Caloosahatchee Bridge remains four lanes, as would be the proposed Mid-Point Bridge. To the west, Everest Parkway is a four-lane freeway to Del Prado Boulevard, then Everest turns into a four-lane expressway as it is extended west to join the existing Miracle Parkway. As the new expressway turns north toward New Burnt Store Road, it is reduced from four to two lanes. To the east of the Mid-Point Bridge, the Needs Plan converts Colonial Boulevard to a four-lane freeway with a pair of one-way service roads and elevated interchanges at Summerlin Road, U.S. 41, and Metro Parkway. The one-way service roads continue east to the vicinity of Interstate 75, but Colonial becomes a four-lane expressway east of Metro. The Financially Feasible Plan retains the four- lane Metro Bridge, but reduces the capacity of the adjoining corridor to the north. Mid-Point Bridge remains four lanes, but, on the Cape Coral side, the expressway is reduced from four lanes to two lanes at Santa Barbara Boulevard rather than at New Burnt Store Road. To the east of the Mid-Point Bridge, Colonial remains unchanged from the Needs Plan. The Financially Feasible Plan eliminates the Iona Cove Bridge and the eastern half of the Southern Corridor. The southern half of the expressway is shown, but is reduced to two lanes and ends west of Interstate 75. Another important source of data and analysis relating to the Mid- Point Bridge and approaches is a draft environmental impact statement prepared by Lee County for the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor. The Draft EIS considers the proposed Mid-Point Bridge in the context of two alternatives: "no action" and the construction of the Iona Cove Bridge and Southern Corridor. Exhibit 7 of the Draft EIS /10 portrays the Colonial corridor east of the Mid-Point Bridge. Consistent with the MPO Needs Plan's depiction of elevated interchanges at Summerlin, U.S. 41, and Metro Parkway, Exhibit 7 also shows overpasses at McGregor, Fowler, Evans, and the railroad track. By the summer of 1987, Lee County had retained Greiner, Inc. as a consultant to assist in the preparation of the Draft EIS. Cape Coral, which joined Lee County in proposing the project, hired Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. to assist in projecting transportation planning impacts west of Del Prado Boulevard. The Coast Guard, which served as the lease agency, approved the final environmental impact statement in September, 1990 (EIS). Greiner retained Wilbur Smith and Associates as a subconsultant to perform traffic modeling for roads east of Del Prado, and Kimley Horn performed modeling for Cape Coral for roads west of Del Prado. Either Griner or Wilbur Smith and Associates prepared Exhibit 5 /11 in the Draft EIS. Exhibit 5 identifies various existing and proposed river crossings, supplies actual 1986 traffic volumes, and projects traffic volumes for 2010 if no action were taken, if the Mid-Point Bridge were constructed, and if the Iona Cove Bridge and Southern Corridor were built. For 2010 projections, Exhibit 5 presumed that the Edison Bridge would be six lanes, Caloosahatchee Bridge would be four lanes, Cape Coral Bridge would be four lanes, and Metro Bridge would be added. For 1986, Exhibit 5 shows the Edison Bridge as handling 19,700 trips daily for a level of service of E, the Caloosahatchee Bridge as handling 45,800 trips daily for a level of service of D, and the Cape Coral Bridge as handling 45,400 trips daily for a level of service F. If no action were taken, Exhibit 5 projects that, by 2010, average daily trips and levels of service will be: Edison Bridge 59,400 and C; Caloosahatchee Bridge 59,500 and E; and Cape Coral Bridge (which was widened after 1986) 65,950 and If the Mid-Point Bridge were built and the Iona Cove Bridge were not, Exhibit 5 projects that, by 2010, average daily trips and levels of service will be: Edison Bridge 53,140 and B; Caloosahatchee Bridge 52,400 and D; Mid-Point Bridge 47,400 and C; and Cape Coral Bridge 41,870 and C. If the Iona Cove Bridge were built and the Mid-Point Bridge were not, Exhibit 5 projects that, by 2010, average daily trips and levels of service will be: Edison Bridge 56,427 and C; Caloosahatchee Bridge 56,250 and D; Cape Coral Bridge 45,740 and D; and Iona Cove Bridge 34,600 and B. Composite Exhibit 4 of the Draft EIS /12 projects average annual daily traffic for over 100 road links /13 mostly on the Ft. Myers side of the river and bounded on the east by Interstate 75 and the south by the Southern Corridor. The projections address alternatives of no-action, the Mid-Point Bridge, and the Iona Cove Bridge. Twenty of the Ft. Myers links most directly affected the addition or deletion of the Mid-Point Bridge yield 537,398 trips under the no-action alternative, 614,280 trips under the Mid-Point Bridge alternative, and 522,425 trips under the Iona Cove Bridge alternative. /14 With the Mid-Point Bridge, the new elevated freeway is projected to receive about one-third and two-thirds more traffic than Colonial presently experiences just west of Metro Parkway and just west of U.S. 41, respectively. With the Mid-Point Bridge, the projected number of trips on these two links are, respectively, 40,900 and 52,700. Just west of Summerlin, the traffic volume on Colonial increases from 6400 to 43,300 trips. Even if the three Colonial links are excluded from the 20 links, the total volume remains greatest under the Mid- Point Bridge and corridor alternative, which is projected to have 477,380 trips. For the remaining 17 links, the no-action alternative generates 469,038 trips and the Iona Cove Bridge and Southern Corridor alternative generates 455,345 trips. Analyzing the same data, Transportation Planner and Engineer Marty Wells, who is an employee of Gorove-Slade, testified on behalf of Ft. Myers that he examined the links identified by the Draft EIS that are in the City limits. These links yield the following volumes under the three alternatives: no action--1.84 million trips; Mid-Point Bridge and corridor-- 2.1 million trips; and Iona Cove Bridge and Southen Corridor-- 1.8 million trips. May 15 Transcript, pages 29 et seq. Using existing data, Mr. Wells also calculated the capacities for these links. Based on the volumes in the preceding paragraph, the overall volume-to-capacity ratios for Ft. Myers' links are as follows for the three alternatives: no action--0.60; Mid-Point Bridge and corridor--0.68; and Iona Cove Bridge and Southern Corridor--0.59. In other words, the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor, if built, would mean that overall traffic would absorb 68% of the capacity of Ft. Myers links most affected by the proposed project. The no-action alternative, on the other hand, would mean that overall traffic would absorb only 60% of the capacity of the same links. Table 415 of the Draft EIS reports other variables among the three alternatives. The first is that total daily river crossings in 2010 are greatest if the Mid-Point Bridge is built. The Mid-Point Bridge alternative generates 196,110 river crossings daily. The Iona Cove Bridge alternative generates 193,020 daily river crossings, and the no-action alternative generates only 186,090 daily river crossings. Under total vehicle hours of operation, Table 4 projects for 2010 the following figures: no-action alternative-- 656,902 hours; Mid-Point Bridge alternative--638,433 hours; and Iona Cove Bridge alternative--660,483 hours. Total vehicle miles are projected as follows: no-action alternative--14,466,600; Mid-Point Bridge alternative--14,437,100; and Iona Cove Bridge alternative--15,013,456. Table 5 of the EIS compares the Mid-Point and Iona Cove alternatives. These data were available by February, 1989. The Mid-Point Bridge and corridor would require 8.8 miles of corridor and 1.5 miles of bridge over the river, reduce vehicle miles traveled from the no-action alternative, by 30,000 daily, bypass wetlands, cost about $170 million, and require the relocation of 100-350 residences, 2' 6-56 businesses, and 1-4 nonprofit operations. The Iona Cove Bridge' and Southern Corridor would require 19.3 miles of corridor and 2.4 miles of bridge over the river, increase vehicle miles traveled from the no-action alternative by 550,000 daily, require the removal of 10-30 acres of wetlands, cost about $266 million, and require the relocation of 317-361 residences and 10 businesses. Table 5 of the EIS concludes that the Mid-Point Bridge would result in "more efficient distribution of traffic across combined bridges," and the Iona Cove Bridge would result in "[s]omewhat less efficient distribution of traffic across combined bridges." Table 5 reports that the "Mid-Point Bridge alternative "[c]omplies with existing land use plan; supports existing business communities," and the Iona Cove Bridge alternative would be "[non-compliant with land use plan; bypasses existing business communities." The Draft EIS concludes that the Iona Cove Bridge alternative is not a "reasonable or feasible" alternative to the Mid-Point Bridge alternative. The, EIS later cautions, however, that the Iona Cove Bridge alternative may have a role in the "very long term" transportation network. After rejecting the Iona Cove Bridge alternative, the Draft EIS reports that the "`No Action' Alternative is the base caste against which the [Mid Point Bridge project) is compared in order to determine the benefits and impacts of the project." The EIS reveals more of the analysis undertaken by the Coast Guard in reaching its latter conclusion that the no- action alternative "is not a reasonable alternative." EIS, page 171. To the extent that any data are implicit in such analysis, the data were available in February 1989. Offering a somewhat `expanded version of a discussion of community impact contained in the Draft EIS, the EIS notes that the State of Florida has designated as an "historic highway" McGregor Boulevard from U.S. 41 to College Parkway, which leads to the Cape Coral Bridge. The EIS acknowledges that Lee County and Ft. Myers have ordinances similar to state law with one key difference. The County ordinance specifically allows construction of an overpass for the Mid-Point Bridge corridor, and the City ordinance specifically prohibits such crossings. The EIS observes that litigation is pending over the controversy concerning the McGregor overpass, which would require the removal of about seven Royal Palms along McGregor according to the EIS. EIS, page 2-41. In a similar vein, the EIS reports that the Colonial corridor would mean, due in large part to the existing Colonial arterial, little community- disruption from "proximity" effects, such as "air and noise pollution, visual impacts, access changes, and other considerations." EIS, page 2-37. The EIS anticipates that 75 acres would be required for additional right-of-way along Colonial Boulevard. Id. at page; 2-38. The EIS considers in some detail the impact of noise pollution. The corridor would result in noise levels in excess of those set for residential use and would affect 26 dwelling units along the Colonial corridor. EIS, page 4-56 and Tables 35 and 36. Sound barriers are not technically feasible for the road surface between the river and McGregor and Summerlin and U.S. 41. EIS, page 4-57. For the remainder, cost barriers are implicitly deemed cost ineffective. The EIS envisions a 288'-330' right-of-way along Colonial Boulevard. The right-of-way would be within about 150' of Rio Vista Way. The corridor would be elevated 22'-24'. Turning to the Cape Coral side of the project, the EIS states: It is envisioned that a direct east-west roadway corridor [on the Cape Coral side of the river would enhance future residential development in the area. EIS, page 4-2. The EIS generally fails to address any need for the development in Cape Coral of commercial, industrial, recreational, or institutional uses. The EIS contains detailed comments from Ft. Myers' counsel with an appendix containing, among other things, comments from Ft. Myers' transportation consultant, Gorove-Slade Associates, Inc. Ft. Myers' counsel submitted these comments to the Coast Guard on September 22, 1989, and the EIS also contains the Coast Guard's undated responses. One suggestion of the Gorove-Slade representative is that reversible lanes on the existing bridges could accommodate the present and future demand. The Gorove-Slade letter suggests that reversible lanes are feasible as long as the directional imbalance on a bridge is "normally 2:1 to 3:1." The Gorove-Slade letter asserts that the imbalance is 67/33, which is of course within the above-stated range. Rejecting the suggestion of reversible lanes, the Coast Guard first erroneously concludes that the 67/33 split is not greater than 2:1. Then the Coast Guard states that the more recent directional imbalance is 58/42. The source of the Coast Guard's data is undisclosed. However, the evidence is abundant that the cross-river traffic is at least 2:1 toward Ft. Myers on weekday mornings and 2:1 toward Cape Coral on weekday afternoons. Even Lee County's witness, Ronald Talone, who was formerly employed in the Lee County Planning Department, testified to a 67/33 split based on data that Lee County had collected./ 16 The Coast Guard response also relies upon "potential shifts in land use patterns [in connection with) land use plans, which were the basis for [the Draft EIS] analysis. The results show an overwhelming need for the Midpoint Bridge Corridor." EIS, page 151. The basis for this statement apparently is the work of Lee County's consultant, who replicated future land uses under the settlement agreement between DCA and Lee County. However, this work was "unofficial" and offered only "initial results." EIS, page 159. The EIS notes that the settlement between Lee County and DCA required the county to reduce densities in outlying areas, such as those served by the Southern Corridor proposed by Ft. Myers. The reductions reportedly were as much as 10,000 percent, "further reducing the travel production/attraction base in those areas." EIS, page 160. The consultant also considered the plans of "cities in the region." EIS, page 146. However, it is unlikely that the consultant considered the plans adopted pursuant to the Act. It is difficult to determine the extent to which any traffic modeling in this case was informed by the future land use designations contained in the plans of Lee County, Cape Coral, and Ft. Myers under the Act. If not done, it is impossible to determine the impact of changed future land uses, which could result in large changes in the distributions of new residents. /17 However, later modeling--presumably incorporating changed future land uses--reportedly did not generate significantly different traffic volumes, at least for the various river crossings. Such later modeling includes that performed by Gorove- Slade for Ft. Myers. Focusing directly on land use planning concerns, the Coast Guard explains one of the reasons why it did not oppose the Mid-Point Bridge proposed by Lee County and Cape Coral: The concept of intentionally prohibiting construction of a bridge to force development on one side of a river is inappropriate and contrary to urban development concepts. In this instance, the no-bridge alternative would not stimulate development, given the interdependent nature of the Lee County economy. EIS, page 151. Lee County did not attempt to tell the city governments to change their Future Land Use elements, as the Fort Myers comments suggest that Cape Coral be instructed to do. * * * Alternative land use planning is not the purview of the transportation planner and is outside the scope of the project to plan this single bridge crossing. Instead, a project such as this is required to accept the adopted land use plans and the projected travel demand based on them. EIS, pages 169 and 171. Alluding to the land-use planning responsibilities placed upon local governments by the Act, the Coast Guard notes: Since the publication of the [Draft EIS], an important event has taken place in regard to this specific issue, rendering [a fatteners'] comment obsolete. The top state land planning agency, the Department of Community Affairs, found the Fort Myers' Comprehensive Plan to be non-compliant with state land planning guidelines because it prohibited the Midpoint Bridge, which is include in the plans of the county, the region, /18 and the City of Cape Coral. Administrative hearing procedures were scheduled to settle the issue but, instead of defending its opposition to the bridge, the city elected to remove the wording obstructing the project from the Comprehensive Plan. Instead, the city agreed to enter binding arbitration on the issue. Id. at page 153. Specifically addressing urban sprawl, the Coast Guard response states: Lee County Future Land Use plans since 1984 have aimed at containing urban sprawl through encouraging compact development patterns. The 1984 Lee Plan was based upon an urban service area concept, which focused future growth on the existing urbanized areas and their environs through a combination of land use categories, density allocations, infrastructure policies, and environmental protection standards. The 1989 Lee Plan continued to stress the importance of existing and permitted urban areas as the focal points for more intensive future growth. The major existing and permitted urban areas in Lee County, in terms of size, are clearly Cape Coral, Fort Myers (including its Urban Reserve area for future growth), and Lehigh Acres. . . . Both the 1984 and 1989 Lee Plans recognized these three major urban areas as givens, where preexisting investments and governmental approvals dictated the need for public services and infrastructure. Together, they constitute a tier of urban areas extending across the northern central part of the county, which is served by the east-west alignment of the Midpoint Bridge Corridor as extended to connect with Lee Boulevard in Lehigh Acres, as shown on the [Financially Feasible Plan]. The logic of connecting the population concentrations of Fort Myers and Cape Coral, the two largest urban areas in the County, with a primary east-west route is clear; with the extension to Lee Boulevard in Lehigh Acres, the logic of the Midpoint Bridge is even stronger. EIS, page 168. Summarizing its findings as to the planning decisions made by Lee County, the EIS concludes: The 1989 Lee Plan builds upon the 1984 Lee Plan. It was adopted as a result of the mandatory process of participation and review. It contains a responsible strategy for managing the large and rapid growth of the county. It sets forth numerous policies for providing the infrastructure necessary to support future populations, for projecting the sensitive natural environment, for paying for future public facilities, for maintaining a reasonable and compact, future land use pattern, and for buildings the necessary transportation network to allow its citizens to move efficiently between their homes, work, recreation, and shopping destinations. It is not a utopian document based upon unsubstantiated opinions, but a practical guide to development based upon the best available data and information. Following the amendments from the Stipulated Agreement, [the 1989 Lee Plan) will be fully consistent with Florida law and an even more effective guide for future development, in terms of reducing sprawl, protecting the environment, maintaining desirable land use patterns, and providing orderly expansion of roads and infrastructure. EIS, pages 169-70. Other Sources of Data and Analysis The Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (Regional Plan) contains land use analysis. Prepared no later than May 21, 1987, when the current version of the Regional Plan was adopted, the land use analysis was in existence at the time of the adoption of the Plan. In its analysis of the regional issue of Balanced and Planned Development under Land Use, the Regional Plan notes: The growth that has occurred [during the recent period of rapid growth that the region has experienced] can also", be considered "imbalanced." This imbalance is of two natures: inadequate development of certain common aspects of urban areas and inadequate distribution of certain types of urban areas. A lack of manufacturing is sometimes considered an indication of the urban inadequacies. More commonly, the problem is described as a lack of suitable jobs within industrial, office, education, and research facilities. The uneven distribution of urban uses is best (but not solely) depicted by an aerial view of the Region's major subdivisions, entire townships devoted to residential uses. Such areas have only limited commercial uses, few of the necessary public use site's, and high demand for transportation improvements for access to other areas. This lack of diversity is the result of private sector planning, namely large development projects, and traditional zoning techniques which discourage the use of planned unit developments by making them special exceptions and by segregating uses into separate zoning categories instead of using a performance zoning approach. Regional Plan, page 16-2. Another source of data and analysis is the Cape Coral comprehensive plan. Both the operative provisions and data and analysis provide a potential source of data and analysis in support of the Ft. Myers Plan. Adopted on February 13, 1989, the Cape Coral plan was in existence when the Ft. Myers plan was adopted. Amended August 27, 1990, the Cape Coral plan amendments were likely available, given noticed and public participation requirements, when Ft. Myers amended, its plan one week earlier. Cape Coral's Transportation Data and Analysis discloses that the city's strategy through 2000 is to direct future growth into the Infill and Transition areas. The Infill Area is located in Cape Coral's southeast quadrant, which has historically served as the growth center from which new growth emanated. The eastern two miles off Everest Parkway run through the Infill Area, dividing its northern third from its southern two-thirds. The Transition Areas is a band of land north and west of the Infill Area. Although Everest Parkway presently ends at the west limit of the Infill Area, the southern end of the Transition Area encompasses about 1 1/3 miles of the proposed Everest Parkway extension. Cape Coral's Transportation Data and Analysis rejects the MPO data concerning population projections for Cape Coral. The differences are significant. Rejecting the MPO projection as "lack[ing] any credibility, and . . . of no value as a planning tool," Cape Coral projects that its population would reach 100,000 persons by 2000, not 2010. Transportation Data and Analysis, pages 6-7. Cape Coral also contests other important socioeconomic data on which the MPO models rely, such as where Cape Coral residents actually reside or will reside. The MPO study "projected" that about 70% of-the population "lives" in the Infill and Transition Areas. The Cape Coral existing land use map provides that at least 90% of the population lives in these two areas. Cape Coral's Transportation Data and Analysis notes that the present location of commercial/office and other employment activities in Cape Coral is generally along the most heavily traveled roads, especially the Del Prado Boulevard, Cape Coral Parkway, and the Downtown Business District. This "strip commercial development" has engendered traffic congestion along these critical arterials. Without its own data or analysis as to employment trends, Cape Coral adopts the MPO data and analysis concerning, employment trends. This includes a projection that total employment within Cape Coral will increase from an estimated 8000 persons in 1980 to over 27,000 persons, presumably by 2000. Also, the ratio of Cape Coral residents to jobs in Cape Coral is expected to decrease from 4.2:1 in 1980 to 3.7:1 in 2000. The data and analysis add: "If the City commercial acreage estimates are realized, however, an even more favorable ratio would result." Transportation Data and Analysis, page 9. In any event, "Employment growth is expected to increase twice as fast as residential growth." Id. at page 8. Cape Coral's Transportation Data and Analysis acknowledges a clear directional flow or modal split of cross- river traffic: Until [the Cape Coral Bridge) is widened to four lanes (scheduled by the County for 1989), mile long traffic queues will continue to exist on the Cape Coral side of the bridge during the morning peak period and on the Fort Myers side during the afternoon peak. Transportation Data and Analysis, page 20. Through 2000, the destination of tries will remain largely outside the City of Cape Coral. Lacking "high intensity employment centers, airports or other facilities that attract County residents [to Cape Coral], the prime reason for travel into Cape Coral by nonresidents is to provide services, such as construction. Transportation Data and Analysis, page B-2. But this factor is relatively insignificant, as the data and analysis predict that, by 2000, there will be twice the number of trips to points outside the city than to points within the city. Transportation Data and Analysis, page 44. In the meantime, however, intensive growth will outstrip the capacity of Cape Coral's internal parkway system, id. at page 49, and Cape Coral's strategy in "road programming has been to the major roads into the two new proposed County Bridges". Id. at page 60. The Cape Coral plan contains operative provisions that, to some extent, address the historic absence of employment and regional shopping opportunities in the city. These provisions generally involve the attempt to deal with vacant, platted land and promote a mixture of uses in the city. /19 The Lee County plan was most recently amended on September 17, 1990. Based on the above mentioned notice and participation requirements, it is likely that all provisions were in existence when Ft. Myers adopted its amendments on August 20, 1990. The Lee County plan contains a number of provisions encouraging the development and redevelopment of mixed uses. /20 Lee County's traffic circulation element policy 21.1.1 adopts the Financially Feasible Plan with five minor changes. /21 Policy 21.1.3 is for the county's current Thoroughfare Alignment Project to reexamine the transportation model used to generate the MPO plans. Concerning the Mid-Point Bridge and associated corridor, the Lee County traffic circulation element states in relevant part: GOAL 24: MAJOR INTRA-COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS. To provide for efficient intra- county vehicular traffic by planning an integrated system of transportation corridors, possibly of limited access design, that connect urban centers within the county. OBJECTIVE 24.1 MID-POINT CORRIDOR. Create a new east-west transportation corridor, possibly of limited access design, across central Lee Counts in order to alleviate existing congestion of traffic crossing the Caloosahatchee River. POLICY 24.1.1: The county will continue the planning, feasibility determination, and environmental impact assessment for the Mid-Point Bridge. POLICY 24.1.2: The construction of this east-west transportation corridor will be coordinated through the Metropolitan Planning Organization to ensure system-wide continuity. POLICY 24.1.3: Due to the public need to provide this critically important corridor so as to solve roadway deficiencies affecting most of Lee County, and due to the admitted impossibility of devising any alignment, which would not generate at least some negative impacts, it is declared as the policy of Lee County that once the best alignment is selected this policy shall preempt any other perceived conflicting portion of the Lee Plan and such conflicts, real or perceived, shall not be construed so as to require or justify blocking the construction of this facility. POLICY 24.1.4: Because of the high priority Lee County placed on the planning and construction of this transportation corridor, permitting efforts shall be initiated by the year 1989, if feasible, and construction shall begin, if possible, by the year 1993. * * * The Lee County intergovernmental coordination element provides, in relevant part: GOAL 28: INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION. Lee County shall participate in and share the leadership of all necessary and desirable programs in coordinating the transportation planning and improvements of routes within or affecting Lee County. OBJECTIVE 28.1: PLANNING. Lee County will continue to plan cooperatively with its municipalities, surrounding counties, and FDOT. POLICY 28.1.1: The county will participate in the MPO and Regional Planning Council planning processes for system-wide facility needs. POLICY 28.1.2: The County will use informal mediation whenever possible to resolve disputes before other formalized processes are pursued. * * * Various other sources of data and analysis were in existence when the Plan was adopted. As Colonial proceeds east of McGregor, the prevailing and planned land uses are predominantly commercial, and the existing commercial uses are dependent upon direct access to Colonial Boulevard. The addition of an elevated freeway or expressway would tend to reduce business for some of these roadsides commercial uses due to, among other factors, the presence of one-way service roads in place of two-way traffic, less on-site parking, and less visibility from the road. However, the record establishes no more than a temporary reduction in commercial property values. It is unclear whether, in the longer term, commercial uses, especially the older ones along the western part of Colonial, would be impaired by a freeway. The record does not preclude the possibility that the corridor could lead to commercial revitalization, especially at the Summerlin, U.S. 41, and Metro Parkway interchanges. The existing and planned land uses on both sides of McGregor north and south of Colonial are low density residential. The record establishes that the elevated freeway would, through noise and visual impact, have a negative impact upon these and possibly other residential areas. However, the record does not establish the extent of such an impact. The record does not establish that the freeway would impair access between points within the affected area. Presently, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists must cross Colonial, which is an at-grade six-lane arterial west of U.S. 41. Accessibility with the Mid-Point Bridge corridor would depend upon a variety of factors, such as the design of the service roads and three interchanges, the sign of the other overpasses, the traffic on the service roads, and the traffic on the north- south roads in the vicinity of the corridor. Provisions of Ft. Myers Plan Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) Objective 1 is "To meet the transportation needs of the incorporated area through a balanced system of roadway, rail, air, boating, public transportation, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities." TCE Objective 2 is, "To maintain or provide adequate road capacity to meet present and anticipated future traffic needs." TCE Policy 2.4 is: "New roadway corridors will be provided when justified by needs where feasible, and when exiting corridors cannot meet the need. TCE Policy 2.6 is: "The City will obtain traffic counts and intersection studies to determine current service levels." Standard 2.6.3 mentions capacity constraints on McGregor Boulevard and all roads in the downtown area; for those, the peak hour, peak season acceptable level of service is "Maintain and improve." The downtown area is limited to the immediate vicinity of the Caloosahatchee and Edison Bridges. TCE Objective 5 is: "To preserve the integrity and quality of residential areas, major activity centers, and recreational and environmental resources." TCE Policy 5.1 is: "Proposed transportation improvements will be coordinated with existing land uses and the Future Land Use Map." TCE Action 5.1.1 is: "Changes to the Future Functional Classification Map (Map F) that would change proposed rights-of-way requirements, will be developed in accord with adjacent land uses as well as bin accord with the City's overall needs." TCE Action 5.1.2, which was amended at least to add the language concerning the Mid-Point Bridge, states: No new transportation corridors or improvements will be permitted which could preclude those indicated on the Major Thoroughfare Map (Map G)--unless, with respect to the Mid-Point Bridge and elevated limited access expressway system proposed by Lee County and Cape Coral, the result of the binding conflict resolution process described in the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is that the Bridge should be constructed. Any proposed amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan must be consistent with all Traffic Circulation policies as well as other Comprehensive Plan Elements. TCE Policy 5.2 is: "Any transportation improvements proposed for McGregor Boulevard shall consider its qualities as a special historic and scenic corridor." Action 5.2.1 provides that, except under certain conditions, there shall be no new street connections, road connections, road intersection, or the widening of any existing, intersections and no overpasses or underpasses, made either with, under, or over McGregor Boulevard or any alteration of the physical dimensions, appearance, or location of this corridor . . . However, new street connections, road connections, road intersections, or widening of any existing intersections and overpasses or underpasses may be made either with, under, or over McGregor Boulevard or alteration of the physical dimensions, appearance, or location of this corridor with respect to the Mid-Point Bridge and elevated limited access expressway system proposed by Lee County and Cape Coral, if the result of the binding conflict resolution process described in the Goals, Policies and Objectives of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is that the Bridge should be constructed. At least the language following the ellipses is the result of a plan amendment. TCE Policy 5.3 is: "Transportation improvements proposed in or near residential arenas will contain appropriate mitigation measures." TCE Objective 6 is: "To obtain the cooperation and active participation of all responsible governments in the coordinated implementation of the metropolitan transportation plan." TCE Policy 6.1 is: "All proposed major transportation improvements, including all improvements which extend beyond the limits of the City, will be coordinated with the other affected jurisdictions prior to City approval of the improvement." TCE Action 6.1.1 is: "The City will participate in the committees of the Metropolitan Planning Organization to ensure that this policy is met." TCE Policy 6.2 is: "The City will actively participate in the development and review of transportation improvements proposed by other jurisdictions." TCE Action 6.2.1 is: "The City will participate in the County's Planning Technical Advisory Committee to ensure that this policy is met." Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) Goal 2, which, together with its objectives and policy, was added by amendment, states in its entirety: It is the goal of the City of Fort Myers to resolve the conflict with Lee County. and the City of Cape Coral concerning the Mid-point Bridge through ban independent, objective, equitable, efficient and binding process as an alternative to the litigation in Lee County vs. City of Fort Myer, Circuit Court Case No. 88-5598 CA-RWP pending in the 20th Judicial Circuit for Lee County, that will ensure that all relevant factors and concerns are fairly and objectively evaluated. Objective 1. In order to achieve the City's goal of resolving the conflict over the proposed Mid-Point Bridge, it is the objective of the City of Fort Myers to abate the pending litigation between the County and the City in regard to the Mid-Point Bridge and to enter into a binding conflict resolution process that will provide a balanced determination of the need for and appropriateness of the proposed Mid-Point Bridge in terms of the following factors: county-wide transportation needs; the comparative effectiveness and cost benefit of reasonable alternative transportation solutions; social, cultural economic and environmental impacts on the City of Fort Myers and Lee County; and long-term financial feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Policy 1.1 It is the policy of the City of Fort Myers in regard to the conflict over the proposed Mid-Point Bridge to submit the conflict to a conflict resolution process that contains the, following elements: An objective, independent decision maker who has substantive, and/or technical familiarity with land use and transportation issues; A fair and reasonable opportunity for all affected persons including the City of Fort Myers to submit substantive information in regard to the merits of the proposed Mid- Point Bridge; A resolution of the conflict and the merits of the proposed Mid-Point Bridge based on the following principles: the proposed Mid-Point Bridge should not be constructed if it can be reasonably demonstrated that implementation of the comprehensive plans of Lee County, the City of Fort Myers and the City of Cape Coral will result in a shift in land use patterns, transportation management systems, or increased modal splits that will reduce the projected number of rivers crossings so that there is no need for the proposed Mid-Point Bridge; the proposed Mid-Point Bridge should not be constructed if peak hour levels of service on existing and committee river crossings, with or without operational improvements such as reversible lanes, will provide an acceptable level of service; the proposed Mid-Point Bridge should not be constructed if there are reasonable alternatives that have the following characteristics: reduced or equal costs; equal or superior transportation capacity too serve county wide transportation needs; arid reduced social, cultural, economic or environmental impacts on the residents of the City of Fort Myers. For the purposes of this paragraph, reasonable alternatives Shall include, but not be limited to, river crossings at other locations, a county-wide beltway or circumferential road system and non-geometric improvements such as transportation management systems, reversible lanes and the like. 4) Any determination-of fact shall be based on a standard of preponderance of the evidence. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Objective 1 is: "Coordinate land development with the public and private provision of community services and facilities, soil suitability, and topography." FLUE Objective 2 is: "Protect distinct functional areas from intrusion and encroachment of incompatible uses." FLUE Objective 3 is: "Protect significant natural and historic resources from intrusion and encroachment of incompatible uses." FLUE Objective 4 is: "Ensure a balanced distribution and allocation of the various land uses in newly developing areas." FLUE Objective 5 is: "Revitalize declining areas through rehabilitation, redevelopment, and infill strategies as appropriate." Map C, which accompanies the FLUE, designates the following corridors as part of the "corridor improvement strategy": U.S. 41 on both sides of Colonial, Evans Avenue north of Colonial to the river, Fowler south from the river but only about halfway to Colonial, and three east-west routes including Palm Beach Boulevard, which runs along the river, from Interstate 75 to the proposed landfall of the Metro Bridge. Map C designates the following corridors as part of the "corridor conscious" development strategy. Less in need of redevelopment than those named in the preceding paragraph, the corridor conscious corridors include Colonial Boulevard, Winkler Avenue, Summerlin Road south of Colonial Boulevard, Metro Parkway north and south of Colonial and in the vicinity of the Metro Bridge, and Palmetto, Marsh and Ortiz Avenues on both sides of Colonial. FLUE Policy 5.2 is for the central business district to be "redeveloped as the pre-eminent regional center." Provisions of Regional Plan Goal 19, Regional Issue B, of the Regional Plan concerns transportation and growth management. Policy 1 is: All regional transportation systems should be designed, upgraded or maintained to enable roadways to operate at, or above, a service level acceptable to the agency with land use authority, with operational maintenance responsibility, and with the affected surrounding local government, when such standards incorporate the minimum standards set by the agency having operational, and maintenance responsibility for that public facility, unless designated a special transportation area by those agencies and governments. Policy 3.d. is that transportation improvements are to be "related to seasonal and area needs in order to minimize disruption of the existing road network during periods of highest use." Policy 6 is: "Transportation plans should preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the integrity of residential areas." Policy 9 is: `"Transportation investments should be directed in such a way so that they contribute to efficient urban development." Goal 20, Regional Issue A, of the Regional Plan addresses intergovernmental coordination. The policies suggest the improvement of intergovernmental coordination through the use of interlocal agreements, technical assistance, and solicitation of review and comments. Regional Issue D speaks in stronger terms, but only requires, by 1996, that "each jurisdiction will have enacted the appropriate administrative arrangement to ensure coordination occurs." Pursuant to this Issue, Policy D states: "Mediation of jurisdictional disputes should be pursued by local governments as a first alternative to judicial action." Goal 16 of the Regional Plan concerns land uses. Regional Issue A relates to balanced and planned development. The first policy is: "The plans of all jurisdictions should promote balanced and planned development." Policy 3.e. suggests that comprehensive plans "ensure existing urban areas are protected from the adverse impacts of future growth." Policy 3.i. suggests that plans "provide for effective intergovernmental coordination methods for siting public and private locally unpopular land uses." Policy 3.1. suggests that plans "provide for new central business districts, as needed by urban growth." Policy 9 states: Comprehensive plans and land development regulations should provide incentives to develop and redevelop land downtown including allowing mixed uses, higher densities, shared parking, and improved vehicular access. Regional Issue C, which concerns the problem of already-platted, vacant lands in the region, contains Policy 3, which states: "Additional urban uses and protection of threatened resources within existing platted areas should be pursed through reassembly or other techniques." Policy 8 adds: "Each local government should provide alternatives to traditional development of platted lands." The Regional Plan does not recommend the construction of the Mid- Point Bridge. Map IV-10 of the volume entitled, "Description of the Region," identifies the bridge and corridor as a regional roadway "not yet constructed." Neither the map nor the surrounding text suggests that the Regional Planning Council has determined that the bridge and corridor should be built. /22 Ultimate Findings of Fact Sorting Data and Analysis TCE Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, and the implementing actions thereunder, prohibit the construction of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor unless this alternative is selected pursuant to the binding arbitration described in ICE Goal 2. Lee County is unwilling to agree to the conditions set forth in ICE Goal 2. The refusal is justified because, for reasons set forth below, the offer to arbitrate contains an unreasonable condition. The Plan's treatment of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor can be characterized as an intentional omission of these improvements from any road network for the city, and the Plan's offer to arbitrate, in effect, leaves the resolution of the Mid-Point Bridge dispute to the courts or voters. However, Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor from the Plan is not supported by data and analysis. The data and analysis contained in the 1989 Data and Analysis and 1990 Data and Analysis are sparse in terms of support for the omission or inclusion of the bridge and corridor. Ft. Myers failed to incorporate into its data and analysis, verbatim or by reference, the best "available existing data, which were those generated by Lee County bin preparing the EIS, especially Composite Exhibit 4 of the EIS. However, the 1989 Data and Analysis and 1990 Data and Analysis contain analysis in support of the omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor. The analysis consists mostly of consideration of the effect of the proposed project on various provisions of the Plan and the conclusion that the project would be inconsistent with these provisions. The Ft. Myers' planning strategy emphasizes more than the preservation of the historic and aesthetic values of McGregor Boulevard and nearby Rio Vista Way. The analysis justifies the omission of the ride and corridor by at least implicitly construing the Plan as part of an urban containment strategy that, if successful, benefits the region by promoting existing, close-in commercial uses and promoting the attractiveness of Ft. Myers as a place to live. This analysis finds some support in the data concerning the noise and visual impact of the corridor upon nearby residential areas. The most important sources of data and analysis in support of the omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor are the Draft EIS and EIS, especially Composite Exhibit 4. Although Ft. Myers was aware of these data, it failed to include and analyze them, in the 1989 Data and Analysis or 1990 Data and Analysis. The most likely explanation for this omission is that the exclusion of the bridge and corridor was a foregone conclusion at the beginning of the planning process, and, until plan litigation became imminent Ft. Myers felt no need to explicate its opposition to the project. However, for reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law, the sources of data and analysis available to support the plan are not limited to those identified or even actually relied upon by Ft. Myers in the plan-adoption process. The data and analysis contained in the Draft EIS and EIS support the exclusion of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor because this project would tap, to some degree, latent travel demand and would result, to , a significant extent, in more traffic on Ft. Myers' roads. The corridor would also displace, at least in the short term, viable commercial uses whose proximity to downtown Ft. Myers and nearby residential areas is useful in maintaining a mixture of uses in Ft. Myers. The data and analysis do not, however, address the possibility of renewed commercial development along the corridor. It is therefore impossible to determine if the data and analysis suggesting the possible displacement of existing commercial uses are offset by data and analysis indicative of a possible revitalization of aging commercial uses. In short, data and analysis exist to support a decision by Ft. Myers to omit the bridge and corridor, and data and analysis also exist to support a decision by Ft. Myers to include the bridge and corridor, had it wished to do so. Little, if any, data and analysis exist that comprehensively net the benefits of the Mid-Point Bridge alternative against the benefits of the no-action or Iona Cove Bridge alternative. In large part, the conflict is between transportation and land use strategies whose competing sets of underlying data and analysis have not been evaluated in a process designed to identify the superior data and analysis from an appropriately broad perspective. In such a proceeding, no deference could be given to the planning preference of any individual local government. This is the first shortcoming of the EIS process in which due deference to the prerogative of local governments in local land use planning provided a procedural advantage to the proponents of the project, Lee County and Cape Coral. In any event, the conclusions of the EIS are supported by its data and analysis to the extent that the Coast Guard concludes that the decision of Lee County and Cape Coral to build the bridge is reasonable. The conclusions of the EIS that the other alternatives, especially the no-action, are unreasonable from a regional perspective, if even relevant to the present case involving only Ft. Myers' Plan, are based predominantly upon transportation considerations. These conclusions clearly are not based upon a comprehensive, objective, and informed review of comprehensive land use strategies, of which transportation strategies are a part. To the extent that the EIS concludes that the no-action alternative is an unreasonable land use strategy, such a conclusion is unsupported even by the data and analysis contained in the EIS. To some extent, Lee County and especially Cape Coral, although responsible for preparing nearly all of the relevant data in this case, have not sufficiently focused their data and analysis so as to justify a finding that the Plan's omission of the bridge and corridor is not supported by the data and analysis. The Lee County and Cape Coral data and analysis supporting the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor justify a transportation strategy linking more efficiently the bedroom communities to the east and west with each other and to shopping and jobs. By contrast, the omission of the bridge and corridor is based on more comprehensive land use planning considerations. Data and analysis supporting the exclusion of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor address an overall land use strategy, to which transportation planning is properly subordinated. To some extent, the differing emphases reflect that Ft. Myers is a more established community than the fast- growing Cape Coral and Lee County. To some extent, the increased emphasis upon overall land use planning by Ft. Myers, as opposed to the focus upon transportation planning by Cape Coral in particular, may reflect varying planning philosophies. Cape Coral has suffered from the lack of an effective land use strategy to overcome the burdens of urban sprawl, which has engendered a monolithic land use dominated by low-density residential. The Cape Coral plan and data and analysis point to some improvement dealing with this problem. But to meet the burden of showing that the Ft. Myers strategy, which excludes the bridge and corridor, is supported by data and analysis, Cape Coral must offer data and analysis more effectively addressing land use planning issues, rather than merely transportation planning issues. Cape Coral cannot meet its burden in this case by presenting data and analysis supporting a transportation strategy of linking its internal parkways to bridges and building more bridges. Although such data and analysis may support Cape Coral's planning solutions, they are not so compelling as to displace the data and analysis presently supporting Ft. Myers' land use strategy of preserving a viable mixture of uses. The support for Ft. Myers' land use strategy excluding the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor is not overwhelming in terms of data and analysis. The increased traffic on city roads, noise pollution, and the visual impact support the decision. Other factors, such as impaired physical accessibility, commercial decline, and the extent of the negative impact upon residential integrity, do not so clearly support the decision. Even if present conditions clearly were to support the decision to exclude the bridge and corridor, changing conditions could later deprive Ft. Myers' decision of support from the data and analysis. New developments, such as Omni Park, could leave Colonial and nearby collectors, as well as McGregor, choked in traffic during nonpeak season, nonpeak hours. The decline of commercial uses along the western part of Colonial may in time require revitalization through redevelopment If so, imaginative planning solutions may :,"identify corridor-connected uses whose scale and type promote, rather than threaten, Ft. Myers' status as a viable mixed-use center. If sufficiently compelling under then-existing conditions, such solutions may even compel a bridge and corridor. But the data and analysis do not portray these conditions presently. Internal Consistency Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that TCE Action 5.2.1 is inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1. TCE Action 5.2.1 prohibits the construction of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor unless this alternative is selected pursuant to the binding arbitration described in ICE Goal 2. FLUE Objective 1 is, to coordinate land development with the adequate provision of facilities, which include roads. FLUE Objective 1 and its policy cluster require adequate levels of service for facilities (presumably for which concurrency is required), the availability of land for public facilities, development patterns that maximize, the use of existing public facilities, and coordination with Lee County and the Florida Department of Transportation regarding tide intensity of land uses and their location relative to collectors and arterials. There is nothing inherently contradictory between TCE Action 5.2.1 and FLUE objective 1. FLUE Objective 1 does not require the construction of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor, just as it does not require that downtown segments of U.S. 41 or Fowler be widened to 12 lanes if there is sufficient traffic demand. FLUE Objective 1 does not requiring reducing the planning exercise to promising invariably to widening existing roads or building new roads in urban areas upon the identification of traffic congestion. Taking a wider view, FLUE Goal 1 is to ensure the achievement of acceptable "general patterns and relationships (distribution, allocation, and intensity) of all land uses" in the city. The record does not establish that the omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor is inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1. Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that TCE Objective 5, Policy 5.1, Actions 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, Policy 5.2, Action 5.2.1, ICE Goal 2, Objective 2, and Policy 1.1, on the one hand, are inconsistent with TCE Objective 6, Policy 6.1, Auction 6.1.1, Policy 6.2, and Action 6.2.1, on the other hand. TCE Objective 5, Policy 5.1, Actions 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, Policy 5.2, Action 5.2.1, ICE Goal 2, Objective 2, and Policy 1.1 will bet referred to as Modified TCE Objective 5. Modified TCE Objective 5 prohibits the construction of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor unless this alternative is selected pursuant tot the binding arbitration described in ICE Goal 2. ICE Goal 2, Objective 2, arc Policy 1.1 set the conditions of such arbitration. With one exception, these conditions are reasonable. The goal to obtain a fair, objective, and binding resolution of the bridge dispute outside of court is salutary. The objective is also reasonable, assuming that the reference to the socioeconomic and environmental, impacts on Ft. Myers and Lee County includes Cape Coral. Policy 1.1 establishes specific conditions. The first calls for an objective, disinterested decision-maker with expertise in land use and transportation planning. The second condition ensures that all parties have a chance to be heard. The fourth condition provides that the standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence. These conditions are obviously reasonable. The substantive guidelines for the decision-maker are set forth in ICE Policy 1.1(3). The first guideline prohibits the bridge if the land use plans of Cape Coral, Ft. Myers, and Lee County can be implemented so as to reduce the number of river crossings by shifting land use patterns, introducing or expanding transportation management systems, or increasing modal splits. The second guideline prohibits the bridge if existing and committed river crossings will provide an acceptable level of service regardless of operational improvements such as reversible lanes. In general, these conditions are reasonable. The effectiveness of transportation management systems and operational improvements, especially reversible lanes, should be considered as relatively inexpensive alternatives to the construction of a new bridge and corridor. Changing land use patterns presumably requires each local government to address through comprehensive planning any deficiencies that it may suffer in terms of a lack of mixed land uses. The guideline does not specify the extent to which a local government must remediate a lack of mixed uses. For example, it might be effective but prohibitively costly for Cape Coral to solve its mixed land use problems by purchasing and reassembling vacant and developed platted land suitable for commercial or industrial development. The reasonableness of the guideline of changing land use patterns depends upon its interpretation. The third guideline, prohibits the construction of the Mid-Point Bridge if "reasonable" alternatives exist at reduced or equal costs, with equal or superior transportation capacity to serve County-wide transportation needs, and with reduced socioeconomic and environmental impacts on Ft. Myers residents. The factors of reduced or equal costs and equal or superior transportation capacity are reasonable and address regional concerns. The guideline focusing on the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of Ft. Myers' residents exclusively undermines the viability of ICE goal 2 and Ft. Myers' putative "offer" to submit to binding arbitration. Just as it is reasonable for Ft. Myers to concern itself exclusively with the socioeconomic and environmental welfare of itself and its residents, so it is reasonable for Lee County and Cape Coral to concern themselves with the socioeconomic and environmental welfare of themselves and their residents. This guideline is unreasonable and effectively relegates the parties to whatever judicial or political solutions that may be available. Notwithstanding the failure of the offer to arbitrate, Modified Objective 5 is not inconsistent with TCE Objective 6 and its policies and actions. The latter provisions do not preclude the judicial option for this longstanding dispute. TCE Objective 6 is to obtain the cooperation of all governmental entities in the implementation of MPO plan. Except for TCE Policy 6.1, the policy and actions under this objective require merely participation in transportation planning processes. The arbitration process described in Modified TCE Objective 5 does not preclude participation in transportation planning processes; Modified TCE objective 5 merely identifies one approach to resolving disputes not resolved by normal transportation planning processes. Policy 6.1 requires the "coordination" of "major transportation improvements" with other affected governmental entities. The simple resolution of this issue is that the policy requires coordination only of projects that Ft. Myers proposes to undertake, not of projects sponsored by other entities that Ft. Myers proposes to ignore or resist. Even if the omission of a project sponsored by others triggers the coordination requirement of Policy 6.1, Modified TCE Objective 5 is not inconsistent with such a requirement. Coordination does not require the successful achievement of a consensus for each transportation project that each local government or regional entity may propose. "Coordinate" means: To place in the same order, class, or rank. To arrange in the proper relative position. To harmonize in an action or effort. American Heritage Dictionary. In this case, Ft. Myers participated in the normal transportation planning processes. Consensus was reached as to a considerable number of road projects, although the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor are extremely large projects in the County. "Coordinate" does not mean "approve," and Ft. Myers is not required by TCE Policy 6.1 to obtain the approval of all other governmental entities for projects proposed by Ft. Myers or to give its approval for projects proposed by any or even all of the others. The facts of this case do not reveal a series of disputes involving numerous proposed road projects. The three local governments have not had systemwide impasse that defeats their ability to design and implement a coordinated transportation network. Although the Mid-Point project is of considerable magnitude, the Major Thoroughfare Plan--2010 does not prevent the transportation plans of Lee County and Cape Coral from working. The size of a project proposed by a majority of area local governments does not alone compel a lone opponent to capitulate to attain intergovernmental coordination. Neither does the inclusion of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor in the financially Feasible Plan compel Ft. Myers to accede to the project or risk inconsistency with the intergovernmental coordination provisions of its Plan. The MPO's data and analysis support its adoption of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor. But the purpose of the MPO is not to restate the positions of its constituent members and, even if they are supported by data and analysis, thereby compel dissenters to conform their plans to the plans of the majority. The MPO has served a valuable purpose in this case by collecting and disseminating important data and providing the parties with a forum in which to exchange their data and analysis; inform and, if necessary, revise their positions; and, if possible, form a consensus. Like Lee County and Cape Coral, Ft. Myers participated in this process in good faith and thereby engaged in intergovernmental coordination. The unreasonableness of requiring local governments invariably to conform their plans to those of the MPO is illustrated by another factor in this case. The Financially Feasible Plan describes a road network that is financially feasible only if existing available revenues are nearly doubled. The present facts do not support a construction of intergovernmental coordination that mandates strict compliance with a Financially Feasible Plan that requires local governments to raise additional revenues. Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that Modified TCE Objective 5 is inconsistent with TCE Objective 1. TCE Objective 1 is to meet the city's transportation needs through a "balanced system" of road, rail, air, boat, bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation. For the reasons set forth above, the preclusion of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor does not preclude the attainment of such a balanced system. Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that Modified TCE Objective 5 is inconsistent with TCE Objective 2, Policies 2.4 and 2.6, and Standard 2.6.3. TCE Objective 2 is to "maintain or provide adequate road capacity to meet present and anticipated future needs." Policy 2.4 is to construct new roadway corridors when existing corridors cannot meet the need. Policy 2.6 is for the city to "pursue acceptable level of service standards for its roadways, and coordinate the standards with Lee County and the Florida Department of Transportation." Standard 2.6.3 acknowledges constraints on capacity improvements for McGregor and the central business district and adopts a peak season, peak hour level of service for these roads of "maintain and improve." The record fails to establish that the omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor is inconsistent with these provisions. The evidence shows that traffic would actually increase on city roads with the Mid-Point Bridge. Consistency with Regional Plan Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the TCE, in omitting the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor, is not consistent with the Regional Plan. The record fails to establish that the omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor is inconsistent with the Regional Plan considered as a whole. The Plan's treatment of the bridge and corridor is consistent with provisions in the Regional Plan regarding balanced land uses and intergovernmental coordination. Consistency with Other Minimum Criteria For the reasons set forth above, Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove by, a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan is not consistent with the criterion of, "to the maximum extent feasible as determined by the local government," analysis compatible with the plans of the Florida Department of Transportation and MPO, as well as the criteria of analysis of projecting levels of service for roads based on the FLUM, the need for new roads, and the adopted level of service standards and plans of the Florida Department of Transportation and MPO. Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that TCE Policies 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, with their implementing actions, in omitting the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor, are not consistent with the criteria of an objective coordinating transportation planning with the metropolitan planning organization and a future traffic circulation map showing the location of arterial and limited access facilities. The issue of coordination has already been addressed. The Major Thoroughfare Plan--2010 is consistent with the latter criterion. Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the FLUE or TCE Action 5.2.1 is not consistent with the criterion of discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. The strategy of urban containment is not limited to planning for undeveloped or underdeveloped areas. The maintenance of existing mixed-use centers also assists in deterring urban sprawl. By preserving and enhancing close-in residential areas, some of the pressure toward urban sprawl may be alleviated. The omission of the Mid-Point Bridge and corridor may be viewed as part of a reasonable planning strategy designed to promote the mixture of uses presently characterizing the city. For the reasons set forth above, Lee County and Cape Coral have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the ICE is not consistent with the criteria of establishing principles and guidelines to be used in attaining coordination with the plans of adjacent municipalities and the county, ensuring coordination in setting level of service standards for public facilities with any governmental entity with operational or maintenance responsibility for such facility, and resolving conflicts with other local governments through the Regional Planning Council's informal mediation process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the Ft. Myers plan, as amended, is in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. ENTERED this 7 day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7 of January, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Panama City's small scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 on February 8, 2005, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Creekstone is a limited liability corporation and presumed to be the owner of a 3.212-acre tract of land at 305 East Beach Drive, Panama City.3 (The record does not show when or if Creekstone actually purchased the property; when the application for a land use change on the property was filed with the City, Creekstone was a contract purchaser. In its Proposed Recommended Order, however, the City states that Creekstone "recently acquired" the property.) The property lies at the northwest edge of a residential area known as The Cove and is just south of the central business district of the City. The Cove is separated from the business district by a small waterbody known as Massalina Bayou (Bayou), which is spanned by the Tarpon Bridge (Bridge) at one of the Bayou's most narrow points. The 225-foot Bridge provides the most direct and easiest access between the two areas of the City. For many years, and beginning before the City adopted its Plan, Tibbetts Boat Works, Inc. (Tibbets) occupied the site and was engaged in the boat repair business, consisting of hull repair, engine maintenance, other mechanical services, and boat bottom painting, a legal but nonconforming use under the City's land development code. Photographs of the area suggest that the business is no longer active, presumably because the property has been sold. On or about December 8, 2004, SFB Investment Company, LLLP (SFB), who then owned the property but had a contract to sell it to Creekstone, filed an application with the City Planning Board seeking a change in the land use and zoning on the property. At the Planning Board meeting on January 10, 2005, the staff noted that the proposed change would "allow an encroachment of commercial into a predominately residential area" and recommended denial of the application on the ground that the change "is inconsistent with the LDR and the Comp Plan."4 By a 3-1 vote, the City Planning Board rejected the staff recommendation and recommended that the application be approved. On February 8, 2005, by a 4-1 vote, the City accepted the recommendation of the City Planning Board and adopted Ordinance No. 2055.1, which amended the FLUM by reclassifying the land use designation on the property from MU to GC for the purpose of allowing the owner to "develop [a] multi-family project on [the] property." (Simultaneously with that change, the City also changed the zoning on the property from Mixed Use- 3 to General Commercial-2, which allows a wide range of activities, including residential, professional office and services, low-intensity commercial, public/institutional/ utilities, and high-intensity commercial.) The MU land use classification "is intended to provide areas for medium to high density residential development and low intensity commercial development," allows a density of "not more than twenty (20) dwelling units per acre," and an intensity of "[n]o more than 75% lot coverage as determined by the size of the lot compared to the amount of impervious roof and driveway/ parking lot surface." On the other hand, the GC district is "intended to provide areas for high intensity commercial development, including retail sales and services, wholesale sales, shopping centers, office complexes, and other similar land uses." There are no density restrictions, but intensity is limited to "[n]o more than 90% lot coverage." Thus, while the two land uses are similar in some respects, the highest and best use on the property will now be "high intensity commercial development," such as shopping centers and office complexes, a much more intensive use than is presently permitted under the MU land use category. To address this concern, witness Harper indicated that SFB has filed a restrictive covenant on the property which includes a shoreline buffer, as well as use, height, and setback restrictions. At the Planning Board meeting on January 10, 2005, however, the staff stated "that a covenant would not be enforceable." Under the existing land use (MU), the owner can construct up to 64 residential units on the property. That number is derived by multiplying the size of the property (3.212 acres) times the allowed density (20 units per acre). However, the current zoning on the property (which is apparently tied to the MU land use category) prohibits the construction of buildings which exceed 65 feet in height. Because of this height restriction, which limits the number of residential units that can be constructed on the property, the owner has requested a change in the land use (and zoning) so that it can develop a multi-family residential condominium project (nine stories in height) with approximately 77 units. On March 10, 2005, Mr. Cooper filed his Petition challenging the small-scale amendment. He later filed an Amended Petition on April 21, 2005. Mr. Cooper resides and owns property one-half block south of the subject property (in an area designated as a special historical zone of the City) and submitted objections to the amendment during the adoption process. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to file this challenge. Joint Exhibit 9 reflects that Creekstone is a "contract purchaser" of the subject property. It also reflects that it appeared through counsel at the adoption hearing on February 8, 2005, and offered comments in support of the plan amendment. As such, Creekstone is an affected person and has standing to participate in this case. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Mr. Cooper (through his former counsel) identified numerous issues, many of which were not raised in his Amended Petition. At hearing, however, he contended only that the GC land use is incompatible with the character of the surrounding area, and that the amendment is internally inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.4.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan. All of the objectives and policies relate to the compatibility issue. In all other respects, Petitioner agrees that the plan amendment is in compliance. Because the City's action involves a small scale (as opposed to a large scale) development plan amendment, the Department of Community Affairs did not formally review the plan amendment for compliance. See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. The Subject Property West Beach Drive runs in a northwest-southeast direction through the downtown business portion of the City until a few blocks north of the Bridge, where it changes to East Beach Drive. The roadway continues south across the Bridge and in a southerly direction along the eastern edge of St. Andrews Bay, a much larger waterbody which lies between the City and Panama City Beach. Approximately one-half mile south of the Bridge, East Beach Drive takes a 90-degree turn to the east. Most, if not all, of the peninsula south of the Bayou and Bridge and continuing until East Beach Drive turns to the east is known as The Cove, a part of which has been designated by the City as a historic special treatment zone because of its historical significance. The predominate character of The Cove is older, single-family homes. As noted above, the Bayou separates The Cove from the central business district and serves as a natural barrier between the two areas. The property is an odd-shaped parcel which sits just east of the southern terminus of the Bridge and fronts on the Bayou. (The central business district lies directly across the Bayou to the north and northwest, is classified as General Commercial or Public/Institutional, and includes a wide array of offices, government buildings, restaurants, and other commercial and public uses.) The western side of the property faces East Beach Drive. Immediately across East Beach Drive to the west (and facing St. Andrews Bay) is the Cove Harbor Condominium, a nine-story, multi-family residential condominium which was apparently constructed under MU standards, which apply to that parcel. Immediately to the east of the property is a single- family residence and then a two-story townhouse complex. The southern boundary of the property (which appears to run approximately 325 feet or so) faces East Second Court, a local road which begins on East Beach Drive and runs eastward until Watson Bayou (perhaps a mile or so away). Although a map of the historical district was not introduced into evidence by the parties, the northern and western reaches of the special treatment zone appear to begin just east of the intersection of East Second Court and East Beach Drive since the homes at 114 and 122 East Second Court are designated as having historical significance. See Respondent's Exhibit 4. These two homes appear to lie directly across the street from the southern boundary of Creekstone's property. Except for a two-story, multi-family structure (Cedar Cove Townhouses) which sits across East Second Court facing the southwest corner of the subject property, the remainder of the southern boundary of Creekstone's property faces four single-family homes. Several other multi-family structures are scattered throughout the area to the south and east, while the remainder of the neighborhood extending for at least one-half mile to the south and all the way to Watson Bayou on the east is predominately single-family residences. Finally, a condominium is located about one-half mile south of the property on the waterfront where East Beach Drive makes a 90-degree turn to the east. Except for Tibbets' activities, there is no commercial encroachment (by non-conforming use or land use classification) in the immediate area south of the Bridge and Bayou. The current FLUM shows that, with three exceptions, the entire area south of the Bridge and the Bayou to the end of the peninsula, and extending east at least a mile to Watson Bayou, is either classified as Mixed Use or Residential Low Density. (Perhaps a mile or so to the southeast there is one parcel classified as Recreation, another as Public/Institutional (which is probably a school), and a smaller adjoining parcel classified as General Commercial.) Thus, if the change is approved, the subject property will be the only parcel south of the Bridge and Bayou (except for the above exceptions which lie around a mile away) which is classified as commercial; the remainder is either mixed use or residential. Over the years, Tibbets has been the subject of City code enforcement actions, investigations by City code enforcement personnel, and investigations by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). It has also caused chronic environmental problems in the area. On August 27, 2002, DEP and Tibbets executed a Consent Order to resolve certain violations. Also, on April 10, 2001, Mr. Paul L. Benfield, who apparently either owned Tibbets or was associated with it in some manner, entered into a Consent Order with DEP because of his unlawful filling of 0.114 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the site. It is fair to describe the subject property as blighted, unsightly, and in disrepair. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the business is no longer active. The parcel is fenced on three sides, and, besides an older structure which apparently housed Tibbets' office, the property contains a mixture of empty storage crates, pilings, and various pieces of equipment that were once used in the boat repair business. There are also several docks or small piers extending into the Bayou from the northwestern corner of the site. Finally, it appears that much of the eastern half of the parcel contains wetlands and is largely undeveloped. Although the staff report dated December 31, 2004, recommended denial of the application, noting that it would allow "an encroachment of commercial into a predominately residential area," it acknowledged that "[a]llowing this request can make a case for helping to rid this area of a problematic non- conforming use." See Joint Exhibit 6, page 2. Petitioner's Objections As narrowed at hearing, Mr. Cooper contends only that the plan amendment is not compatible with the character of the adjoining land in The Cove and is thus internally inconsistent with Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 and Policies 1.1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.4.1 of the FLUE. He also relies upon Policy 2.5.5(6)(e) of the City's Land Development Code. However, plan amendments do not have to be consistent with land development regulations in order to be in compliance. See § 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Objective 1.1 requires that the City maintain a FLUM "which coordinates future land uses with . . . [compatibility]5 of adjacent land uses." Policy 1.1.1, which furthers that objective, provides in part that the City will regulate land uses through the designation of land use districts on a FLUM, and that the "location and extent of development within the City" should be "consistent with . . . compatibility of adjacent land uses." Under this objective and policy, then, land use districts on the FLUM should be located in a manner which assures compatibility with adjacent land uses. Objective 1.4 provides that the City shall "maintain procedures for the elimination or reduction of land uses inconsistent with the character of the City and the future land uses designated in the Plan." In furtherance of that objective, Policy 1.4.1 requires that the City "restrict proposed development which is inconsistent with the character of the community." Taken literally, the objective encourages the City to reduce or eliminate land uses that are inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area or other land use districts. In the same fashion, the policy requires that the City prohibit development that is not consistent with the character of the adjoining area. Finally, among other things, Policy 1.2.1 requires that the City "administer land development regulations for implementation of the Comprehensive Plan" in such a manner as to "ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses." (The City has adopted such regulations for this purpose.) Because the implementation of land development regulations is not in issue, the provision does not appear to be relevant. According to the City's Director of Public Works, The Cove, or at least that part which lies in the area around Creekstone's property, is considered to be a part of the central business district since the two areas are "contiguous," and therefore the extension of the commercial land use district across the Bayou would be consistent with the character of the immediate area. The same view was also expressed by witness Grey. However, the two areas are physically separated by a waterbody (the Bayou) and are connected only by a 225-foot bridge which spans the Bayou at one of its most narrow points. At the same time, the land uses in the two areas are distinctly different: the business district contains a wide array of commercial and public/institutional uses while the predominate character of The Cove is single-family residential, with a scattering of multi-family residential dwellings such as townhouses and a condominium. The fact that the City interprets its GC district (presumably through its zoning regulations) as allowing certain residential uses does not change this dichotomy in character. Therefore, it is inappropriate to consider The Cove and the central business district as being contiguous, or to base a finding of compatibility on the fact that commercial uses are now found across the Bayou in the business district. The commercial land use classification has never been extended into the residential neighborhood south of the Bayou. If the change becomes effective, the new land use would be incompatible with the Residential Low Density and Mixed Use land uses which now make up the entire neighborhood. It would also be incompatible with the historic special treatment zone, which lies directly across the street from Creekstone's property. Finally, the creation of a commercial district in this area of The Cove would change the character of the neighborhood, and it is fair to infer that, even if SFB's covenant is enforceable, it would still lead to, and justify, the reclassification of other nearby parcels into commercial uses. Given these considerations, the proposed land use is internally inconsistent with the City's objective and policy that there be "[compatibility] of adjacent land uses," see Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.1.1, and Plan provisions encouraging the elimination of land uses and associated development which are inconsistent with the "character of the community." See Objective 1.4 and Policy 1.4.1. The minutes of the two meetings which culminated in the adoption of Ordinance No. 2055.1 reflect that the City's (and Planning Board's) principal rationale for the reclassification of the property was to eliminate an unsightly nonconforming use (boat repair business) which occupied the site. While it is true that the City's Plan encourages the revitalization and redevelopment of blighted areas, and provides that developers should be given "flexibility" when seeking to revitalize blighted areas, see Objectives 1.3 and 1.15 of the FLUE, there is no evidence that these objectives are intended to override (and trump) the provisions of the Plan which require that adjacent land uses be compatible with one another and preserve the character of the neighborhood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2005, 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 19th day of August, 2005.
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
