Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b) (1) (C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. ‘THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA 11-GM-126 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished as indicated to each of the persons listed below on this day of , 2011. \s Paula Ford Agency Clerk By U.S. Mail The Honorable David M. Maloney Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 By Electronic Mail Brad E. Kelsky, Esquire 10189 Cleary Boulevard Plantation, Florida 33324 bradkelsky@kelskylaw.com Cari L. Roth, Esquire Suzanne Van Wyk, Esquire Bryant Miller & Olive P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 croth@bmolaw.com svanwyk@bmolaw.com Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Fowler White Boggs, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1240 lshelley@fowlerwhite.com kbrodeen@fowlerwhite.com Derek Rooney, Esquire Charlotte County Attorney's Office 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948 Derek .Rooney@charlottefl.com Robert H. Berntsson, Esquire FINAL ORDER NO. DCA 11-GM-126 McKinley, Ittersagen, Gunderson & Berntsson, P.A. 18401 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948 rberntsson@bigwlaw.com Lynette Norr Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Lynette.Norr@dca.state.fl.us
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.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a small scale amendment to the Cooper City comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, is "in compliance."
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, The Sunshine Ranches Homeowners Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Homeowners Association ") is a not-for-profit corporation. The Homeowners Association has members who reside within the residential area known as Sunshine Ranches, located in Broward County. The address of the principal office of the Homeowners Association is 12400 Flamingo Road, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. (Stipulated Facts). The Homeowners Association was formed on or about December 4, 1968. The Homeowners Association is involved in working for the betterment of residents and land owners within Sunshine Ranches to secure political, social, and economic improvement within Sunshine Ranches. Petitioner, Charles F. Seip, resides at 4661 Southwest 128th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Seip lives two blocks west of the parcel of property which is the subject of this proceeding. Mr. Seip has lived at his current location for 26.5 years. (Stipulated Facts). Petitioner, Anthony E. Coulson, resides at 4710 Southwest 126th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Coulson lives approximately four blocks from the subject property. (Stipulated Facts). Petitioner, Jeffrey Price, resides at 5001 Southwest 126th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Price lives approximately four blocks west of the subject property. (Stipulated Facts). Each Petitioner submitted oral and written objections to the City of Cooper City during the review and adoption proceedings conducted by the City of Cooper City on the adoption of the comprehensive plan amendment which is the subject of this proceeding. Petitioners submitted objections to the Cooper City Planning and Zoning Board and the City of Cooper City Commission. The parties stipulated that Petitioners are "affected persons." Respondent, the City of Cooper City (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipality of the State of Florida. The City is located in Broward County, Florida. The City is a "local government" as defined in Section 163.3164(13), Florida Statutes. The City's address is 9090 Southwest 50th Place, Cooper City, Broward County, Florida. (Stipulated Facts). Intervenor, George H. Lange, Trustee, is the representative of a trust that owns the property which is the subject of the amendment at issue in this proceeding. The Amendment. By Ordinance Number 96-10-3, the City adopted an amendment, L.L.U.P.A. 96-S-1 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan Amendment") to the Cooper City Land Use Plan. (Stipulated Facts). The Plan Amendment was adopted on October 22, 1996. (Stipulated Facts). Also adopted with the Plan Amendment was a Development Agreement establishing conditions for the development of the property which is the subject of the Plan Amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The Plan Amendment was also identified as Ordinance Number PS96-15 in some notices published by the City. (Stipulated Facts). The Plan Amendment changes the land use designation of approximately 8.45 acres of land from "Estate Residential" to "Commercial" for the eastern 3.82 acres and to "Community Facility" for the western 4 acres. (Stipulated Facts). The Plan Amendment is a "small scale amendment" pursuant to Section 163.3187(1(c), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Plan Amendment was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs. (Stipulated Facts). The petition challenging the Plan Amendment was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of October 22, 1996, the date the Plan Amendment was adopted. (Stipulated Facts). The City and Its Comprehensive Plan. The City is a relatively small municipality located in southwestern Broward County. Geographically, the City consists of approximately six-and-a-quarter square miles. The City is located directly to the east of Sunshine Ranches. The City and Sunshine Ranches are bounded on the north and south by the same roads: Griffin Road and Orange Road in the north; and Sheridan Street in the South. The western boundary of the City either abuts Sunshine Ranches or is separated by Flamingo Road. The City is bounded on the north by the Town of Davie. It is bounded on the south by Pembroke Pines. The City adopted the Cooper City Comprehensive Plan in 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). It consists of Volumes I, II, and III. Volume I contains the text of the Plan. Volumes II and III contain the data and analysis for the Plan. Pursuant to a Compliance Agreement entered into between the City and the Department of Community Affairs, the Plan was found to be "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The City was required to submit an Evaluation and Appraisal Report to the Department of Community Affairs on or before March 11, 1996. At the time of the formal hearing of this case, the City had prepared a draft of its Evaluation and Appraisal Report. See Respondent's and Intervenor's Exhibit 5. The draft of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report had not, however, been filed with the Department of Community Affairs. Sunshine Ranches. Sunshine Ranches is an unincorporated area of Broward County. It is generally bounded by the following roads: On the north by Orange Road and Griffin Road; On the south by Sheridan Street; On the west by Volunteer Road (148th Avenue); and On the east by Flamingo Road. Griffin Road abuts the entire length of the northern boundary of Sunshine Ranches. Orange Road is located immediately to the north of Griffin Road. The two roads are separated by a canal which runs the entire length of the northern boundary of Sunshine Ranches. The area to the north of Orange Road and Griffin Road is largely undeveloped. Flamingo Road on the eastern boundary of Sunshine Ranches is a six-lane road with a wide right-of-way. There is also a canal that runs the length of Flamingo Road. The canal separates Flamingo Road from Sunshine Ranches and other parcels of property located west of Flamingo Road. The right- of-way and canal are approximately 270 feet wide. The roads along the north, south, and west of Sunshine Ranches are contiguous with Sunshine Ranches' boundaries. On the east, Flamingo road is contiguous with most of Sunshine Ranches' eastern boundary. There are, however, several parcels of property located west of Flamingo Road which are a part of the City. Sunshine Ranches consists of approximately four square miles of land, or approximately 2,500 acres. Sunshine Ranches is a rural community with a significant number of small and large horse farms. There are also large homesites, the majority of which are five acres or larger. Many homesites have barns on them. A substantial number of homes in Sunshine Acres have animals, such as horses, chickens, and cows. Most of the roads in Sunshine Ranches are dirt roads. There are no sidewalks or traffic lights. There are a few fire hydrants in Sunshine Ranches. Most areas, however, are served by fire wells. There is a volunteer fire department consisting of two vehicles. The vehicles are leased from Broward County. Sunshine Ranches is a unique community in Broward County, both in terms of the size of lots and its rural, equestrian and agricultural character. There are signs at each entrance road into Sunshine Ranches that include the following: "Welcome to Sunshine Ranches: A Rural Estate Community." Most commercial enterprises within Sunshine Ranches are involved in equestrian-related activities. These activities consist of providing boarding facilities, riding schools, and horse training facilities. There is also a plant nursery located in Sunshine Ranches. Horses owned by non-residents of Sunshine Ranches are boarded at facilities in Sunshine Ranches. Non-residents also ride horses at facilities located in Sunshine Ranches. The land use designations for Sunshine Ranches consist of the following: "Rural Ranches," which allows one residential unit per two and one-half acres; and "Rural Estate," which allows one residential unit per one acre. The designation of Sunshine Ranches as Rural Ranches and Rural Estate was accomplished by an amendment to the Broward County comprehensive plan. It was the first area in Broward County to receive these designations. The designations resulted from a study conducted by Broward County to identify, preserve, and protect rural lands from urban encroachment. Property designated Rural Ranches may be used for "Community Facilities" also. Community Facilities include schools, fire stations, churches, etc. Churches require five- acre lots. There are several parcels located along Flamingo Road in Sunshine Ranches which are used by Churches. There are also schools located within Sunshine Ranches. Approximately 90% of Sunshine Ranches is designated Rural Ranches. Approximately 10% of Sunshine Ranches is designated Rural Estate. The portion of Sunshine Ranches designated Rural Estate is located along Giffin Road. Commercial Activities Around Sunshine Ranches. There are only a few commercial sites located near the boundaries of Sunshine Ranches. One is located on the western boundary of Sunshine Ranches at Volunteer Road and Griffin Road. This site is located on the side of Volunteer Road opposite to Sunshine Ranches. The site is, therefore, separated from Sunshine Ranches by the road and a canal. The largest amount of commercial property in the vicinity of Sunshine Ranches is located near the eastern boundary of Sunshine Ranches and Flamingo Road. At the corner of Flamingo Road and Giffin Road, immediately across Flamingo Road from the Subject Property, is Wal-Mart Shopping Center. Abutting Flamingo Road is the parking lot for the shopping center. The shopping center is located to the east of the parking lot. The shopping center is currently separated from Sunshine Ranches by approximately 700 feet of parking lot, the six-lanes of Flamingo Road, the canal located on the west side of Flamingo Road and the Subject Property. Immediately to the south of the Wal-Mart parcel are properties designated "Low 5" and "Low-Medium 10." Both designations allow residential uses. Flamingo Road and the canal on the western side of Flamingo Road act as a buffer between the existing commercial activities on Flamingo Road and Sunshine Ranches. Flamingo Road has historically acted as a dividing line between commercial activities and Sunshine Ranches. Commercial activities have been limited to the eastern side of Flamingo Road. On the west side of Flamingo Road there are several parcels of land which have been annexed as part of the City. None of these parcels are currently approved for commercial uses, however. They are all currently designated for residential ("Estate Residential") or Community Facilities. Most remain undeveloped. The Estate Residential designation allows use of the property for Community Facilities. Immediately to the south of the Subject Property is a 16-acres parcel designated Estate Residential. The largest parcel of property in the City located on the western side of Flamingo Road has been developed under the name of County Glen. There are no commercial sites within County Glen. Steps were taken in developing County Glen to minimize the impact of its higher density on Sunshine Ranches. These steps included restricting the number of traffic lights within the development and a limitation on density of the lots directly abutting Sunshine Ranches to one residential unit per acre. Although County Glen is more urban than Sunshine Ranches, steps were taken to buffer Sunshine Ranches from the impact of the development, consistent with development allowed west of Flamingo Road. The Need for Commercial Property in the City. Volume II of the Plan contains an analysis of the amount of commercial acreage within the City necessary to support the residents of the City. The analysis indicates that the City has one of the lowest ratios of commercial to residential acreage in Broward County. The ratio of commercial property to residential property was 7.2 percent. Although this ratio is lower than the ratio for Broward County, the City and the Department of Community Affairs agreed that the Plan, including the amount of acreage designated for commercial use, was "in compliance." The City has not amended its Plan to change this ratio. The City has adopted two Plan amendments reducing the amount of acreage in the City designated "Commercial" under the Plan. One amendment involved approximately 14.4 acres. The evidence failed to prove the size of the other parcel. Currently, there are a number of parcels of land designated Commercial under the Plan which are vacant. One is known as the Transflorida Bank Plaza. It is located to the east of the Subject Property at the corner of Griffin Road and 100th Avenue. The property was formerly a Winn Dixie Supermarket. Part of the property is still used for commercial uses. Another vacant commercial parcel is located on Pine Island Road across from David Poenick Community Center. This parcel is 6.5 acres. The City has approved use of this property for a 55,000 square-foot Albertson's. Another vacant commercial parcel is located on Stirling Road across from the Cooper City High School. On the east side of Flamingo Road, between Stirling Road and Giffin Road, there is a shopping center known as Countryside Shops. There are vacant parcels to the south and north of this property which could be used for commercial purposes. Finally, there are other vacant commercial parcels located in the central part of the City. The location of commercial property is an important factor in determining whether the property will actually be used. Therefore, the fact that there are vacant commercial properties located in the City fails to prove that there is not a need for the total amount of property designated Commercial under the Plan. Overall, the City has reduced the amount of property designated Commercial under the Plan. The amount of land being classified as Commercial pursuant to the Plan Amendment will not increase the amount of property originally designated Commercial pursuant to the Plan. The "Industrial" land use designation under the Plan allows some uses which may be considered commercial. This was true when the Plan was found to be in compliance, however, and the amount of land designated Commercial was still approved. The evidence failed to prove that the amount of property designated Commercial, including the portion of the property being designated Commercial pursuant to the Plan Amendment, is not supported by the data and analysis that supported the amount of commercial property found to be in compliance under the Plan when it was adopted. In light of the fact that the City has not submitted its Evaluation and Appraisal Report to the Department of Community Affairs for review as required by Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the amount of property designated Commercial in the originally approved Plan should not be relied upon to support the Plan Amendment. While the draft of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report prepared by the City indicates a need for additional commercial acreage in the City, the Department of Community Affairs has not reviewed the report. Nor has the City amended the Plan "based on the recommendations contained in the adopted evaluation and appraisal report " Section 163.3191 (4), Florida Statutes. The Subject Property and the Impact of the Plan Amendment. The Subject Property is currently classified as "Estate Residential" in the Plan. This classification allows the use of the Subject Property for residential purposes. The Subject Property is located at the southwestern corner of Flamingo Road and Griffin Road. It is located on the west of Flamingo Road. The Subject Property abuts the northeastern corner of Sunshine Ranches. Under the Plan Amendment, the eastern approximately four acres of the Subject Property will be designated Commercial (hereinafter referred to as the "Commercial Property"). This will be the first property on the west side of Flamingo Road designated for commercial uses. The Commercial Property will be separated from Sunshine Ranches by the remaining 3.82 acres of the Subject Property. This portion of the Subject Property will be designated Community Facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "Community Facilities Property"). The Subject Property abuts an area of Sunshine Ranches which consists of Rural Estate property. This designation makes up approximately 10 percent of the property in Sunshine Ranches. The Plan Amendment allows stormwater facilities required for the Commercial Property and the Community Facilities Property to be located on the Community Facilities Property. I. Compatibility of Land Classifications with Surrounding Classifications; The Impact of the Plan Amendment on Sunshine Ranches. Policy 1.1.3 of the Plan provides that the compatibility of a proposed land use with existing land uses is a primary consideration in determining whether a land use should be allowed. Residential and commercial land uses are not inherently compatible. Despite this fact, residential and commercial land uses often abut each other. Where this occurs, steps can be taken to minimize the negative impact of the commercial use of property on the residential use of adjoining property. Flamingo Road and the adjacent canal provide a good boundary and buffer between rural Sunshine Ranches and the urbanized area of the City. The Plan recognizes this fact by requiring that the City conduct a study of the application of an urban growth boundary line for areas of the City located west of Flamingo Road. Regardless of the size of the Commercial Property, the designation of the Commercial Property for commercial uses would be the first commercially authorized use of property west of Flamingo Road or inside any of the other boundary roads of Sunshine Ranches. Comparing the uses allowed on the Commercial Property with the uses of property in Sunshine Ranches, it is evident that the uses are not compatible. This conclusion, however, does not necessarily mean that the City's approval of the Commercial Property for commercial uses is not "in compliance." Although the uses allowed on the Commercial Property and in Sunshine Ranches are incompatible, there are steps which can be taken to minimize the negative impacts which occur when commercial activities approach residential activities. One of those steps was taken when the City approved the Plan Amendment with the Community Facilities Property located between the Commercial Property and Sunshine Ranches. The Community Facilities Property, in conjunction with other measures, can be an effective buffer between the Commercial Property and Sunshine Ranches. The Development Agreement adopted by the City was adopted, in part, to address compatibility concerns. The Development Agreement eliminates various uses of the Commercial Property which would otherwise be allowed by the City's zoning for commercial parcels. The Development Agreement also provides that the Community Facilities Property will be dedicated to community facilities uses once the development of the Commercial Property is approved. The Development Agreement also includes certain development standards and requirements intended to reduce the impact on Sunshine Ranches due to incompatibility, such as requiring berms and landscaping to buffer the Subject Property from Sunshine Ranches. Horse trails along the Subject Property are to be included in the development. Land development regulations will require that steps be taken in the development of the Subject Property to reduce the negative impact on adjoining property, including Sunshine Ranches. The designation of the Commercial Property for commercial uses could, however, have a "domino affect" on other property located west of Flamingo Road. Once one parcel is approved, it will be difficult for the City not to approve similarly situated parcels. The Plan Amendment will increase the expectation of others who own property west of Flamingo Road that the land- use designation of their property can be changed to Commercial. The evidence, however, failed to prove that there are other parcels of property located west of Flamingo Road which are sufficiently similar to the Subject Property that they would be allowed to be used for commercial purposes. The evidence also failed to prove that any parcels of property located west of Flamingo Road which may be considered in the future for commercial uses cannot have conditions imposed on their use for commercial purposes which will adequately protect Sunshine Ranches from an incompatible use. The Plan Amendment could also negatively impact the ability to use adjoining property for residential purposes. In particular, the sixteen-acre parcel located immediately to the south of the Subject Property will more difficult to develop as residential if the Plan Amendment is approved. The evidence failed to prove, however, that with effective buffering adjoining property cannot be used for residential purposes. The evidence failed to prove that, with proper measures to reduce the impacts of the development on the Subject Property on Sunshine Ranches, the development of the Subject Property allowed by the Plan Amendment would necessarily be incompatible with Sunshine Ranches. The evidence failed to prove that the uses allowed for the Community Facilities Property are incompatible with the uses allowed in Sunshine Ranches. The Availability of Infrastructure. The evidence failed to prove that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance due to the lack of available vehicle trips on roads that would be impacted by development of the Subject Property. This issue, which involves the question of whether development of the Subject Property is consistent with relevant transportation levels of service, is one that should be considered at the time a development order is sought. It is not an issue for consideration in determining whether a land use designation amendment is in compliance. The same conclusion applies to other services such as sewer and water, which currently are available for the Subject Property. Urban Sprawl, the State and Regional Plan, Internal Inconsistency, and Inconsistency with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. The evidence failed to support allegations concerning urban sprawl, the state and regional plans, internal inconsistencies, and inconsistencies with the Broward County comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Administration Commission finding the Plan Amendment is invalid because it was adopted in violation of Section 163.3187(6), Florida Statutes, and is not "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 23rd day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Grosso, General Counsel Scott SznitRen, Certified Law Intern ENVIRONEMENTAL and LAW USE LAW CENTER, INC. Civil Law Clinic Shepard Broad Law Center Nova Southeastern Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Alan Ruf, City Attorney City of Cooper City 9090 Southwest 50th Place Cooper City, Florida 33328 Richard G. Coker, Jr., Esquire BRADY and CORER 1318 Southeast 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Administration Commission Growth Management and Strategic Planning 2105 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Gregory Smith, Esquire Administration Commission 209 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCY CLERK, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL - CALDWELL BUILDING, 107 EAST MADISON STREET, MSC 110, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-4128, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. Final Order No. DEO11-0004 MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Economic Opportunity, and that true and correc copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this Wai" of October 2011. riam Snipes, Agency Clerk DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By U.S. Mail: Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. Max Lohman, Esquire Corbett and White, P.A. 1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207 Lantana, Florida 33462 Brian Joslyn, Esquire Boose, Casey, Cikin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O'Connell Northbridge Center, 19th Floor 515 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4626 By Hand Delivery: David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable D. R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Final Order No. DEO11-0004 Bobet and White, GF. A ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207 fe ‘y . Sertune, Keeridde BEY JOHN CORBETT TELEPHONE (561) 586-7116 TRELA J. WHITE TELECOPIER (561) 586-9611 BRADLEY W. BIGGS** KEITH W, DAVIS* R. MAX LOHMAN * Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law ABIGAIL FORRESTER JORANDBY * State Certified County and Circuit Court Mediator JENNIFER GARDNER ASHTON September 7, 2011 RECEIVED Via U.S. Mail William A. Buzzett SEP 12 201 Secretary Department of Community Affairs Olfice of Secretary 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Depraswens of Community Atala Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Re: Final Order Entered In Case No. 10-10373 (The Cenacle Convent of Palm Beach County, Inc. Petitioner v. Town of Lantana, Respondent; Patrick F. Smith and Mark O’Donnell, Intervenors). Dear Mr. Buzzett: T represent the Town of Lantana, Florida (the “Town”). I am in receipt of the Department of Community Affairs’ (the “Department”) Final Order dated August 25, 2011 regarding the above-mentioned case. A copy of the Final Order is attached to this letter for your review. The Final Order provides that the Town’s Ordinance No. O-13-2010 is “in compliance” with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Final Order appears to have been entered in error given that the Town Council reconsidered Ordinance No. 0-13-2010 and subsequently denied its adoption before it became effective pursuant to Section 163.3187(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Once the Ordinance was denied adoption, it no longer needed to be reviewed by the Department. The Department was notified of the Town Council’s decision in this regard through the Cenacle Convent of Palm Beach County, Inc.’s (“Cenacle”) Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss its DOAH case with prejudice. The Department was served with a copy of this Motion. The Motion discusses the Town Council’s decision to deny adoption of the Ordinance, which made Cenacle’s challenge moot. I have attached copies of both the Moticn and the Administrative Law Judge’s April 15, 2011 Order Closing File to this letter for your review. To provide you with more specific details regarding the Town Council’s actions, please note that on October 28, 2010, the Town Council passed Ordinance No. O-13-2010 amending the Town’s Comprehensive Plan to change the Cenacle Property’s (the “Property”) future land use designation from Commercial Low Density (C-1) to Residential Medium (R-3). September 7, 2011 Page 2 On November 23, 2010, Cenacle filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the compliance of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as adopted by Ordinance No. 0-13-2010, on the basis that the Amendment was not in compliance with applicable law. The Cenacle’s filing of the Petition prevented Ordinance No. O-13- 2010 from becoming effective during the pendency of the DOAH proceeding. During the March 28, 2011 Town Council meeting, the Town Council voted to reconsider Ordinance No, O-13-2010 at its next regularly scheduled council meeting. The Town provided proper public notice that Ordinance No. O-13-2010 would be reconsidered during its next regularly scheduled Town Council meeting of April 11, 2011. During the April 11, 2011 Town Couricil meeting, the Town Council held a public hearing during which public comment was heard from members of the public wishing to speak. After closing the public portion of the hearing and following Town Council discussion, a motion to deny Ordinance No. O-13-2010 was made and seconded. The Town Council subsequently voted on the motion to deny Ordinance No. O-13-2010, the motion passed and the Ordinance was rejected. See Ordinance O-13-2010, a copy of which is attached to Cenacle’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. The “nay” votes indicated on the Ordinance represent the votes in favor of the motion to deny. Once Ordinance No. 0-13-2010 failed to pass, three things occurred. First, the previous land use designation of Cl-Commercial Low Density, which had been assigned to the subject property through the adoption of Ordinance No. 0-02-2009 on April 27, 2009, remained intact and continues to be in effect and applicable to the Property. Second, the basis for Cenacle’s DOAH Petition became moot. As a result, Cenacle moved to voluntarily dismiss the case and the Administrative Law Judge closed the file. Third, there was no need for your agency to conduct a review of Ordinance No. 0-13-2010 or issue a Final Order. For these reasons, the Town respectfully requests that your agency rescind the Final Order issued on August 25, 2011. On a final note, during my review of this case file I discovered that the Town never received a copy of the Final Order acknowledging the compliance of Ordinance No. O- 02-2009, which was adopted by the Town Council on April 27, 2009. If a Final Order has been entered, please forward me a copy at your earliest convenience. Please contact me with any questions or concerns regarding the above and thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Tow? Attorney for the Town of Lantana September 7, 2011 Page 3 cc: Alfred J. Malefatto, Esq., Attorney for Petitioner Brian Joslyn, Esq., Attorney for Intervenors Michael Bornstein, Town Manager for the Town of Lantana David Thatcher, Development Services Director for the Town of Lantana Y:\docs\Lantana\Letters & Memosiltr-william buzzett department community affairs re final order cenacle.doc
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendments adopted by the City of St. Pete Beach (City) by Ordinance No. 2008-15 on August 26, 2008, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City is a municipality in southwestern Pinellas County. Following an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process, the City adopted its current Plan in 1998 (also known as the 2010 Plan), which has been found to be in compliance. Since 2007, municipalities within Pinellas County have participated in the Pilot Program for adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. The statutory process is described in Section 163.32465, Florida Statutes. Under the Pilot Program, municipalities have "reduced state oversight of local comprehensive planning," and plan amendments may be enacted in "an alternative, expedited plan amendment adoption and review process." Id. Although the City must send a transmittal package to the Department (and other designated agencies and entities) for its preliminary review, the Department does not issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report or a notice of intent. Instead, the Department "may provide comments regarding the amendment or amendments to the local government." Id. It may also initiate an administrative proceeding to challenge whether such amendments are in compliance, but it chose not to do so here. The amendments in dispute were adopted under the Pilot Program. Petitioner is a resident of, and owns property in, the City, and he submitted oral and written comments and objections concerning the proposed amendments. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. The parties have stipulated that Lorraine Huhn and Deborah Nicklaus reside and own property within the City, and that both individuals submitted comments to the City during the transmittal public hearing on June 16, 2008, and/or the adoption public hearing on August 26, 2008. Therefore, they are affected persons and have standing to participate. According to the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, SOLV is a Florida non-profit corporation with a principal address of 6370 Gulf Boulevard, St. Pete Beach, Florida. The parties have also stipulated that SOLV operates a business within the City. Whether it submitted comments to the City between the transmittal hearing on June 24, 2008, and the adoption hearing on August 26, 2008, is in dispute. SOLV's President, Lorraine Huhn, presented comments at the City's adoption hearing on August 26, 2008. See Petitioner's Exhibit 15, pages 63-64. During her brief oral presentation to the City Commission in support of the amendments, she did not state that she was speaking on behalf of SOLV, and at no time did she refer to that organization. However, on August 2, 2008, Ms. Huhn sent an email on behalf of SOLV to the City Clerk, which arguably can be interpreted as written support for the Ordinance being challenged. See Intervenors' Exhibit 9. Also, an email authored by the City Manager on August 1, 2008, indicates that SOLV representatives met with City representatives on July 31, 2008, to discuss the proposed amendments. See Intervenors' Exhibit 10. Since these written and oral comments were submitted between the transmittal and adoption hearings, SOLV meets the definition of an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. Background By way of background, the City was initially incorporated in 1957 as St. Petersburg Beach by consolidating the towns of Pass-a-Grille, Don CeSar, Belle Vista, St. Petersburg Beach, and certain unincorporated areas of Pinellas County. It occupies a six-mile long barrier island (known as Long Key), which lies between the Gulf of Mexico and Boca Ciega Bay, with a maximum width of three-quarters of a mile and an area of approximately 2.25 square miles or 1,286.14 acres. The name was shortened to St. Pete Beach in 1994 to lessen the confusion with the City of St. Petersburg, which lies to the east. The City has about 4.5 miles of beaches and is very densely populated. Most of the City has been developed with only 13.40 acres, or around one percent of the land, vacant and undeveloped. The entire City is within the flood plain, and much of the City is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The current population is around 10,000. To place the current dispute in proper perspective, a history of events that began in 2002 is necessary. With the assistance of a consulting firm, beginning in April 2002 the City initiated redevelopment planning efforts for various areas within the City including Corey Avenue/Blind Pass Road, Pass-a- Grille, Gulf Boulevard, and residential neighborhoods. The intention of this effort was to define the starting point for subsequent master planning efforts by the City. A Final Report (also known as the Visioning Statement or Plan) was issued by the consulting firm in July 2002. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. This was followed by a master planning process by another consulting firm, which was intended, among other things, to develop a strategy for dealing with the redevelopment of older and outdated properties within the resort area of the City (along the Gulf of Mexico), rather than having them converted into residential condominiums because of existing regulatory restrictions. The final Master Plan was presented to the City Commission in August 2003. See Respondent's Exhibit 3. In response to the Master Plan, on June 28, 2005, the City enacted Ordinance 2004-24, known as the City's Community Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan), which implemented many of the recommendations in the Master Plan. See Respondent's Exhibit 8. Among other things, the Redevelopment Plan created a new land use category, the Community Redevelopment District, which included two sub-districts, the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District, depicted on Map 10 of Exhibit 8, and the Downtown Redevelopment District, depicted on Map 11 of the same exhibit. The amendment was intended to establish standards for redevelopment in the so-called "resort" area of the City, which runs north-south along Gulf Boulevard adjacent to the beach on the western side of Long Key, while the same thing was intended for the core downtown area. Although Petitioner is correct that Ordinance No. 2008-15 differs from Ordinance No. 2004-24 in some respects, there are many similarities between the two, including the creation of the two Redevelopment Districts, additional character districts within the two main Districts, and the maps of the Districts. Also, both Ordinances have many of the same Goals, Objectives, and Policies, and both include unnumbered narrative text setting out allowable uses as density and intensity standards. On August 19, 2005, Petitioner and a non-profit association filed a challenge to Ordinance No. 2004-24 under Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. See Citizens for Responsible Growth and William C. Pyle v. Department of Community Affairs and City of St. Pete Beach, DOAH Case No. 05- 3159GM. The challengers later voluntarily dismissed their petition, the case was closed on October 17, 2005, and the Department found the amendments to be in compliance. Under the City's Charter, however, citizens may petition to require reconsideration by the City Commission of any adopted ordinance and, if the City Commission fails to repeal an ordinance so reconsidered, to approve or reject it at a City election. See Petitioner's Exhibit 26; § 7.02, City Charter. (Ten percent of the qualified registered voters in the City must sign a petition in order to have an ordinance placed on the ballot for approval or disapproval.) Petitioners in DOAH Case No. 05-3159GM were instrumental, at least in part, in securing the necessary number of voters to sign a petition, and a majority of the registered voters in the City later voted to repeal the Ordinance in 2006. Pursuant to that vote, the City Commission repealed Ordinance No. 2004-24 and it never took effect. In 2008, six ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 2008-09 through 2008-14) were proposed as citizen initiatives. After the City refused to act on the six initiatives, SOLV and others filed suit against City officials seeking a vote on the six ordinances. See Save Our Little Village, Inc., et al. v. Commissioner Linda Chaney, et al., Case No. 08-2408-CI-8 (6th Circuit, Pinellas County). On March 31, 2008, the City adopted Resolution 2008-09 approving a Settlement Agreement in the law suit. See Joint Exhibit 1, Appendix C. The Settlement Agreement required the City to transmit and adopt the Ordinance being challenged here subject to various conditions and limitations, if the voters approved Ordinance No. 2008-10, which was a Petition by SOVL proposing an ordinance to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan. (The City is required by the Countywide Plan Rules to transmit the countywide plan map amendment to the Pinellas County Planning Council for its review in order to adopt the City plan amendment. This process is described in Petitioner's Exhibit 33.) Notably, the City's staff did not prepare the text or the accompanying supporting data for Ordinance No. 2008-15; rather, the text and all supporting data were prepared by SOLV. The voters approved Ordinance No. 2008-10 on June 3, 2008, which provided for the review and approval of the amendments being challenged here. Pursuant to the results of the referendum, on June 16, 2008, the City approved Ordinance Nos. 2008-15, 2008-24, and 2008-25. Only the first Ordinance is in issue here; the other two are not contested. As required by Section 163.32465(4)(a), Florida Statutes, the amendments were then transmitted to the Department, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Education, Department of State, Department of Transportation District Seven, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Pinellas County Planning Department for their review and comment, if any. Comments on the amendments were offered by the Department on August 1, 2008, and by the Department of Transportation, Department of Education, and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. On August 26, 2008, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2008-15. Petitioner's challenge was then timely filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 24, 2008. See § 163.32465(6)(a), Fla. Stat. ("[a]ny 'affected person' as defined in s. 163.3184(1)(a) may file a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings . . . within 30 days after the local government adopts the amendment"). The Ordinance Ordinance No. 2008-15 establishes a new land use category, the Community Redevelopment District, which includes the Downtown and Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment Districts comprised of eleven character districts, and implements that change by amending the FLUM and certain text provisions within the FLUE and HE. The two new Districts comprise approximately twenty percent of the total land area of the City, or around 248.25 acres. The amendments are found in Attachment A, consisting of 115 pages, which is attached to the Ordinance. Attachment A includes six maps found on page 40 (Map 1 - Community Redevelopment Districts Location); page 41 (Map 2 - Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment Character Districts); page 42 (Map 3 - Downtown Community Redevelopment District 1); page 110 (Map 10 - Future Land Use Map - Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District, Proposed Future Land Use); page 111 (Map 11 - Future Land Use Map - Downtown Redevelopment District, Proposed Future Land Use); and page 112 (Map 12 - Coastal High Hazard Area - Storm Surge for Category 1 (2007), St. Pete Beach, FL). Pages 1 through 6 are introductory material outlining the need for redevelopment. Pages 7 through 112 pertain to the Future Land Use Element, while pages 113 through 115 relate to the Housing Element. Because SOLV (rather than the City) prepared Attachment A, this is probably the reason why some parts of the lengthy Attachment A have been drafted in narrative style. Besides Attachment A, support documentation for the amendments is attached to the Ordinance and includes the legal notices published in a local newspaper; Citizen Courtesy Information Lists; Commission and Planning Board Agendas; excerpts from Division 31 of the City's Land Development Code; copies of various Ordinances; and a 127-page Special Area Plan submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority in support of the amendment that was necessary in order for the City to adopt the Ordinance. In addition, the data and analyses used for the adoption of Ordinance No. 2004-24 were relied upon to support the amendments, including the Visioning Plan and the Master Plan. Petitioner's Objections In paragraphs 9 through 25 of his Petition, which are in the section entitled "Disputed Issues of Material Fact And/or Mixed Disputes [sic] Issues of Fact and Law," Dr. Pyle contends that the amendments adopted by the Ordinance are not in compliance for numerous reasons. The parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation also states that "the Disputed Issues of Material Fact and/or Mixed Questions of Fact or Law set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing in this matter remain disputed issues for the purposes of the final hearing." In his Proposed Recommended Order, however, Petitioner states in a more concise fashion that the amendments are not in compliance because they: are not clearly based upon appropriate data, including data required for the FLUE; [are not] based upon and supported by an appropriate analysis of the best available data; did not demonstrate "need"; [are] inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan; [are] not "financially feasible"; [do] not meet format requirements; [do] not contain two planning periods; establish a mixed-use FLUM designation of CRD [Community Redevelopment District] that [does] not meet the statutory and rule requirements; [are] internally inconsistent; and [do] not meet the minimum procedural and notice requirements. These objections will be considered below, although not in the order listed above. Procedural Irregularities Petitioner contends that the City failed to follow certain notice requirements and therefore he was unduly prejudiced by these irregularities. Specifically, he claims that the notices published by the City in the St. Petersburg Times on June 8 and August 20, 2008, did not advise the public of all amendments, particularly one relating to the Resort Facilities Overlay District; did not include a map showing areas subject to the FLUM amendments in relation to major streets; did not advise that the City was amending the coastal construction control line (CCCL) definition in the Preservation land use category; and the actual changes being made "did not comport with the title of the adopted Ordinance." Copies of the published notices, albeit in very small and sometimes illegible print, are found in Joint Exhibit 2. Assuming all of these notice deficiencies are true, Petitioner did not establish that he was prejudiced by any irregularities. Besides being intimately involved in this controversy since its inception in 2002, the evidence shows that he attended both the transmittal and adoption hearings of Ordinance No. 2008-15; that he addressed the City Commission at both meetings; that he was provided copies of all pertinent documents; that through counsel he filed a Petition requesting a formal evidentiary hearing, which raises a litany of compliance issues; that he was allowed to conduct discovery; and that he was given an opportunity to fully litigate each issue in his Petition. The contention that he was prejudiced by procedural irregularities is hereby rejected. Planning Time Frames Petitioner alleges that the Plan, as amended, does not set forth either a short-term planning time frame for the five- year period following adoption, or a long-term planning timeframe for at least a ten-year period following adoption. He contends that this is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(4), which requires that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan shall include at least two planning periods: one for at least the first five year period subsequent to the plan's adoption and one for at least an overall 10-year period." See also § 163.3177(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. The existing Plan includes at least two planning periods, a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) covering the first five years after the adoption of the Plan in 1998, and the School Board's Five-Year Work Program for fiscal year 2007-08 through 2011-2012. Although the CIP was first adopted in 1998, the statutory deadline for all local governments to transmit an updated CIP was December 1, 2008, or after the amendment was adopted. Also, the existing Plan utilized a population estimate from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) to project population for the City for the upcoming ten-year period. Besides the above time frames, the new amendment contains two other planning time frames for implementation of the redevelopment incentives in the Plan. First, it contains a Residential Unit Reserve section for the new District, holding specific numbers of residential units in reserve in three of the character districts (Downtown Core Residential District, Commercial Corridor Blind Pass Road District, and Commercial Corridor Gulf Boulevard District) for the first five years after adoption of the plan amendments. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 106-107. This allows the City to evaluate the effectiveness of the redevelopment incentives in the amendment without releasing all residential density otherwise authorized. Second, the amendment contains a General Residential Unit Density Pool Reserve of 195 residential units in the Large Resort District which cannot be released in the first ten years after adoption of the amendment. See Joint Exhibit 2, page 108. Like the other provision, this planning tool allows the City to reevaluate the effectiveness of the redevelopment incentives in the amendment prior to authorizing additional density. Petitioner's own planner agreed that these time frames were part of the planning period for the proposed amendment. While Petitioner contends that the time periods are "minimum waiting periods not tied to any fixed time frame," it is reasonable to infer from the evidence that they will become operative once the Ordinance is implemented. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Plan, as amended, complies with the requirement for two planning time frames and is not inconsistent with either the rule or statute. Mixed-Use Categories Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c) encourages mixed use categories of land and provides that if they are used, "policies for the implementation of such mixed uses shall be included in the comprehensive plan, including the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, and the density and intensity of each use." Petitioner contends that FLUE Policy 2.1.1 establishes a new mixed use district (the Community Redevelopment District) but the Plan, as amended, does not contain the requirements set forth in the rule. The Community Redevelopment District is a mixed use land use category, as is each of the character districts included within the two sub-districts. The Plan identifies four character districts within the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District (Large Resort, Boutique Hotel/Condo, Activity Center, and Bayou Residential) and seven character districts within the Downtown Redevelopment District (Town Center Core, Town Center Corey Circle, Town Center Coquina West, Downtown Core Residential, Upham Beach Village, Commercial Corridor Blind Pass Road, and Commercial Corridor Gulf Boulevard). FLUE Policy 2.1.1 incorporates the development standards found in the "Community Redevelopment District" section of the FLUE for the two larger sub-districts and eleven smaller character districts. Therefore, it provides the policies required for the implementation of the new land use category. These policies govern the distribution, location, and extent of uses and densities and intensities of uses within the sub-districts. They also establish the boundaries, uses, densities, and intensities of use for the eleven character districts. The types of land uses allowed in each character district are clearly listed in a section of the text amendment corresponding to each character district titled "Permitted Uses and Standards." See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, pages 75, 79, 82, 84, 91, 93, 98, 100, 102, and 105. For example, in the Large Resort District, primary uses are hotel, motel, resort condominium, and medium density multi-family residential. Id. at page 75. The density and intensity standards for each type of use allowed within each character district are also listed in the same sections of the Attachment. For example, the maximum density of residential development in the Boutique Hotel/Condo District is eighteen units per acre. Id. at page 75. Finally, the policies for each character district provide objective criteria governing the actual mix of uses permitted on any redevelopment site within the Community Redevelopment District. The location of each allowable use will be distributed throughout each district. For example, the Downtown Redevelopment District creates a traditional downtown core area with traditional downtown core services surrounded by residential neighborhoods buffered from commercial intrusion. See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, page 36. On the other hand, the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District is a core resort and shopping destination for residents and visitors. Id. The Community Redevelopment District does not use a percentage distribution among the mix of uses since the City is essentially built out and already has a mix of uses within the newly-created districts. Therefore, the plan amendment accomplishes a distribution of mix of land through location of uses in multi- story buildings, rather than a percentage distribution of mix. By doing so, it satisfies the requirement of the rule. See, e.g., The University Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, et al., DOAH Case No. 92- 0691GM, 1993 Fla. ENV LEXIS 19 (DOAH Nov. 2, 1992, DCA Feb. 24, 2003). Therefore, it is found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with the rule. Preservation District The plan amendment is based upon the City's Visioning Plan and Master Plan. See Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 3. Neither document contains any recommendation that the City's Preservation Land Use District be revised in any way. In the existing 2010 Plan, the Preservation District is defined in FLUE Policy 1.1.1 as those beaches seaward of the CCCL, Fuller Island, and other environmentally significant natural resource areas. No development is allowed in the Preservation District except dune walkovers. Ordinance No. 2008-15 renumbers Policy 1.1.1 as 2.1.1 and makes a one-word change (underscored below) in the definition of the Preservation District so that it now reads as follows: Preservation (P), applied to the beaches seaward of the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line, Fuller Island and other environmentally significant natural resource areas; such designated areas shall not be developed except to provide beach access dune walkovers from adjacent developed properties under the provisions of the City's Beach Management Regulations. Petitioner argues that the effect of this change is to establish a new boundary line for the Preservation District (further seaward in some instances) and to no longer use the setback line previously used by the City, which was known as the Coastal Construction and Excavation Setback Line. He further contends that the City's setback line and the Florida (State) CCCL encompass different areas along the beach. In some cases, the City's setback line is more seaward than the State, and vice versa. Petitioner contends that the data and analysis for the 2010 Plan "implies" that the location of the Preservation land use category should be based upon the more restrictive of the City setback line or State CCCL, that is, whichever is less seaward. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the underlying reason for raising this claim is that an old Travelodge motel sits just south and east of Petitioner's condominium building and is scheduled to be redeveloped as a new high-rise condominium. Petitioner is concerned that if the State CCCL (rather than the City setback line) is used, it will allow the new building to be constructed closer to the Gulf of Mexico, presumably reducing his view and beach access. The City's witness Holly established that the City does not have a CCCL. Rather, it has an excavation and setback line. He further established that the City has consistently enforced the Preservation District geographically as the area seaward of the State CCCL. Also, the City's land development regulations implementing the existing Plan define the Preservation District as the property seaward of the State CCCL. The Countywide Plan also uses the State CCCL. The amendment is clarifying in nature and is intended to make the text in the City's Plan consistent with the Countywide Plan and existing enforcement practices. As explained by Mr. Holly, the City's setback line predates the establishment of the State CCCL, and functions much in the same manner as the State CCCL "in that it precludes structural development seaward of that line without specific application for approval of variance for those standards." See Transcript, page 415. Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this clarifying change in the definition of the Preservation District in FLUE Policy 2.1.1 is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Format of Plan Amendment Petitioner next contends that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(1), which contains general format requirements for comprehensive plans. For example, he points out that there are lengthy unnumbered narrative sections in Attachment A that apparently supplement the numbered sections, that the references to the land development regulations do not identify the specific land development regulation adopted by reference, that the series of maps are not labeled properly, and that the maps do not include north-south arrows or a scale. The amendment contains specific goals, objectives, and policies for the Community Redevelopment District. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 43-48. It also contains goals, objectives, and policies for the two redevelopment districts, numbered policies for each character district, as well as unnumbered text setting forth permitted uses and standards for each character district. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 67-70, 71-77, 78-80, 83-85, 86-90, 90-92, 92-94, 94-97, 97-98, 99-101, 101-103, and 104-106. The deposition testimony of Michael McDaniel, Chief of the Department's Office of Comprehensive Planning, established that while they are not typically used, the narrative sections of Attachment A are permissible to explain the goals, policies, and objectives. He further stated that nothing in the governing statutes or rules requires that all material adopted as part of a plan be labeled as, or be in the form of, a goal, policy, or objective, that many variations of format are found in plans adopted by local governments throughout the State, and that the Plan, as amended, is not inconsistent with any requirement. As to the makeup of the maps, Mr. McDaniel stated that while the Department prefers that maps be labeled as future land use maps, and that they contain the detail suggested by Petitioner, a failure to do so does not render the plan amendment not in compliance. Finally, he stated that the Department staff had no difficulty in understanding the maps or map series when they were reviewed by the Department in July 2008. Notably, the Department did not address any of these format issues when it prepared comments to the proposed amendment on August 1, 2008. Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the plan amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(1). Data and Analyses Petitioner alleges that the City failed to rely upon the best available data sources to support the amendment, that a proper analysis of the data was not made, and that the City did not react to the data in an appropriate way, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). Petitioner presented no expert testimony or other evidence supporting the claim that the plan amendment lacked supporting data and analysis. Although he introduced into evidence various documents on the theory that this information constituted better data than that used by the City, the evidence does not support this allegation. For example, various documents concerning hurricane evacuation times were submitted, including the Tampa Bay Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study Update 2006, the Pinellas County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS), and the 2008 Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 16, and Since the plan amendment does not increase density, however, it does not conflict with established hurricane evacuation times. Also, the City is not increasing population to be evacuated to other zones; therefore, the Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan is irrelevant. Finally, the amendment is not contrary to any mitigation strategies in the LMS. Population estimates for the year 2006 prepared by the BEBR were introduced by Petitioner, presumably for the purpose of showing that more current population data should have been used, rather than the 2000 Census data relied upon by the City. See Petitioner's Exhibit 21. However, there is no requirement that the City update its population estimates and projections each time it adopts an amendment. According to Mr. McDaniel, this is normally done every seven years at the time of the EAR. In any event, the BEBR estimates an increase in population in the City of only 48 persons during the six-year period from 2000 to 2006 (from 10,002 to 10,050). Petitioner also introduced a list of claims for flood losses within the last ten years in the City for the purpose of demonstrating that the City failed to consider the location of these properties in adopting the amendment. However, the evidence shows that redevelopment policies in the amendment would bring existing older structures up to National Flood Insurance Protection standards. A list of Licensed Dwelling Units was also introduced to show that the list relied upon by the City was incomplete and failed to include a motel in close proximity to Petitioner's condominium. Assuming that this is true, the error was minor and did not affect the overall validity of the City's data. The plan amendment is supported by the City's visioning project, economic analysis, master planning project, and evaluation of infrastructure capacity and availability of services. It is also supported by data submitted by SOLV to the County in support of the amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, which includes the Special Area Plan. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that there is relevant and appropriate data supporting the amendment, that the data was properly analyzed, and that the City reacted in an appropriate manner. Internal Inconsistency Petitioner further alleges that the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with Intergovernmental Element Policy 1.5.3, which requires that the City coordinate with the Pinellas County Emergency Management Department when adopting map amendments resulting in an increase in population within the CHHA. Under the existing definition of the CHHA in the 2010 Plan, the entire City is within the CHHA. The amendment implements a new definition, as required by Section 163.3178(2), Florida Statutes, which removes some parts of the City from the CHHA. Because the new amendment does not relate to either hurricane shelters or evacuation routes, and does not increase the residential density in the CHHA, compliance with the cited policy was not required. Petitioner further alleged that FLUE Policy 4.1.1 is internally inconsistent with Goals 2 and 3 of the Conservation and Coastal Element as well as the implementing objectives for those Goals. However, no testimony or other credible evidence was offered on this issue and the claim must fail. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Plan, as amended, in not internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions. Need Petitioner contends that the City did not prepare an analysis of need for future land uses authorized by the Ordinance, that it did not prepare an updated existing land use map series, that no tabular form of the approximate acreage and general range of density and intensity of each existing land use was prepared, and no population projections were presented, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a), (b), (c), and (g). Therefore, he argues that the plan amendment is not supported by a demonstration of need for the new land use category to accommodate the anticipated growth. The supporting documentation for the plan amendment demonstrates the need for redevelopment of the City's lodging establishments, the need for additional height for tourist lodging uses in order to prevent conversion of those uses to condominium uses, and the need for aesthetic and other design changes to the City's building facades, streetscapes, and public areas with the redevelopment area. See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, pages 1-3. The plan amendment does not propose new density to accommodate new populations. In fact, it reduces the overall residential density in the City, and the total amount of dwelling units, temporary lodging units, and non-residential (commercial) floor area ratio will also be reduced. Because the plan amendment does not increase the total amount of development, but is simply a plan for redevelopment of existing uses, there is no requirement that a need analysis be prepared. Financial Feasibility Petitioner also contends that the Plan, as amended, has not been shown to be financially feasible and does not include an updated five-year CIP. See § 163.3177(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. ("the comprehensive plan shall contain a capital improvements element [which] set[s] forth: . . . [a] schedule of capital improvements . . . "). The statutory requirement for a CIP applies to projects necessary to ensure that adopted levels of service (LOS) standards are achieved and maintained. It applies to all public facilities and services for which an LOS standard is adopted pursuant to Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes. This was confirmed by the testimony of Mr. McDaniel. The evidence shows that all relevant City infrastructure facilities are operating at or above the adopted LOS. Therefore, there are no deficiencies which need correction in order to implement the redevelopment plan. As further confirmed by Mr. McDaniel, if a plan has been found to be in compliance, and the local government proposes changes that do not create a need for capital improvements, the plan amendment does not need to include an amendment to its CIP. In this case, the amendment does not increase the total permissible amount of residential density or non-residential use within the Community Redevelopment District, and no additional infrastructure capacity is needed. Petitioner's expert identified certain infrastructure projects for which he contended an updated CIP is needed, such as sidewalks, street lighting, and bike lanes. While these types of projects are all integral to the proposed redevelopment plan, they are not subject to concurrency or the financial feasibility standard. Even if they were, Petitioner's expert agreed such improvements could be accomplished through private investment when permits for projects are issued. Because Petitioner failed to show that the plan amendment would require the construction of any new or expanded public facilities to provide additional capacity to serve the development, his contention that the plan is not financially feasible must necessarily fail. Other Contentions All other contentions not discussed herein have been considered and rejected because no evidence on the issues was presented or the more credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the contentions are without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-15 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the decision of the Board to approve Flexible Development Application FLD2019-01002 (Application) filed by Edgewater Valor cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the Board, or that the decision of the Board departed from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Edgewater Valor proposes to develop an 80-unit attached dwelling with 164 associated off-street parking spaces on 2.931 acres of property it owns. The property is located at 1026 Sunset Point Road and 1919 Edgewater Drive in Clearwater, Florida. The proposal consists of three buildings and a structured parking platform with a pool and deck on the west side of the parking platform. Sixty percent of the 164 parking spaces is garage parking, with the rest as exposed surface parking. Two of the buildings, both in the T district, are proposed at a height of 86 feet measured from base flood elevation. The third building, in the MDR district, is proposed at a height of 38 feet measured from base flood elevation. The buildings in the T district are set back 152 feet from the east property line. The building in the MDR district is set back 75 feet from the east property line. The proposal includes landscaping and setbacks that exceed the Board's requirements for approval. The Application requests Level Two approval of flexibility for a building height of 86 feet from base flood elevation in the T zoning district. A Level One approval allows a building height of up to 50 feet, and up to 100 feet as a Level Two approval. The Application also requests Level Two approval of flexibility for an attached dwelling use in the MDR zoning district. The attached dwelling has a building height of 38 feet from base flood elevation, where up to 40 feet is allowed as a Level Two approval and flexibility from lot width in the MDR zoning district. Edgewater Valor owns 2.437 acres of the property which is zoned T with an underlying Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use category of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The remaining 0.494 acres is zoned MDR with an underlying Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use category of Residential Medium (RM). The property to the north of the proposed development is zoned T and is currently developed as a Comfort Suites hotel. The property to the south is zoned Office (O), MDR, and Preservation (P). There is a vacant automobile service station adjacent to the proposed development to the southwest, and a multi-family development to the south across Sunset Point Road. The property to the east is zoned MDR and P with single-family detached dwellings and attached dwellings further east along Sunset Point Road. The property to the west is zoned Commercial (C) and P. EDNA's boundaries are Sunset Point Road north to Union Street, and Edgewater Drive east to Pinellas Trail. The neighborhood consists of 400 homes that are mostly single-family, single-story detached dwellings. The proposed development would be located in the southwest corner of the neighborhood at the intersection of Edgewater Drive and Sunnydale Drive. The Comfort Suites hotel is located directly across from the proposed development on the opposite corner of Sunnydale Drive and Edgewater Drive. Sunnydale Drive travels east away from Edgewater Drive and dead-ends as a cul-de-sac with mostly single- family detached dwellings.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this consolidated proceeding are (1) whether the Petitioners have demonstrated standing under section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2018), and (2) whether the Okeechobee Business District Comprehensive Plan Amendment (OBD Amendment) adopted on August 13, 2018, by the Respondent by Ordinance No. 4783-18 (Ordinance) is "in compliance" under section 163.3184(1)(b).
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Lakeview is a Delaware limited liability company, registered with the State of Florida. Lakeview owns Esperanté, a 20-story office tower at 222 Lakeview Avenue within the boundaries of the OBD. Lakeview submitted oral and written objections to the City during the process leading to adoption of the OBD Amendment. Lakeview's concerns included impact to views of the Intracoastal Waterway by potential development of a 25-story office tower to the east of Esperanté at the location referred to as the "church site," as well as increased traffic congestion on Lakeview Avenue. Lakeview is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Town is a Florida municipal corporation and a home rule charter municipality. The Town owns property within the City, including its public works facility in close proximity to the OBD. The Town submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the City during the adoption process for the OBD Amendment. The Town is an adjoining local government to the City. The Town was concerned that the OBD Amendment would produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure by increasing the cost of traffic signalization on Okeechobee Boulevard and Lakeview Avenue in the OBD. The Town is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and a home rule charter county. The County owns property within the jurisdiction of the City, including its convention center and parking garage, which are located on Okeechobee Boulevard in close proximity to the OBD. The County was concerned that the OBD Amendment would produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure in the form of increased cost for traffic signalization and other active traffic management measures on Okeechobee Boulevard and on increased cost of providing bus services. The County submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the City during the adoption process for the OBD Amendment. The County is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The City is a Florida municipal corporation located in the County and is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and plan amendments. The City adopted the OBD Amendment under the state expedited review process in section 163.3184(3). The City also owns a parcel within the OBD referred to throughout this proceeding as the "tent site." Background The OBD includes all the properties located between Okeechobee Boulevard, Lakeview Avenue, Rosemary Avenue, and Flagler Drive in the City's downtown. It is a five-block area with the church site as its easternmost parcel. The OBD is a new district within the area defined in the Downtown Master Plan (DMP) Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Comp Plan). The DMP Element is an optional element of the City Comp Plan that was adopted in 1995. The DMP's vision includes promoting a place of sustainable and efficient transportation systems that promote greater connectivity for pedestrians, cyclist, and transit riders. The OBD Amendment is a small component of the City's large and comprehensive strategy to encourage mode shift within the DMP area. The DMP currently sets forth 13 districts that are described in Policy 1.1.1 and whose boundaries are depicted on the Downtown District Map in the City Comp Plan. DMP Policy 3.1.1 directs the City to maintain the DMP Zoning Atlas showing the districts from DMP Policy 1.1.1, the planning areas and the subdistricts. The OBD is also located within the Downtown Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) established in Objective 2.3.5 of the Transportation Element in the City Comp Plan. The Downtown TCEA is also adopted in the County's Comprehensive Plan (County Comp Plan), and the TCEA boundaries are coterminous with the DMP area. The City entered into an agreement with the County and FDOT in 1998 regarding the TCEA. Adoption of the TCEA meant that the City, the County, and FDOT acknowledged that in order for desired development and redevelopment to occur in the City's downtown area, it would be difficult for certain roadways to continue to meet the adopted level of service standards. Thus, the City was exempted from meeting transportation concurrency requirements and traffic performance standards in the TCEA. A Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling System (FSUTMS) traffic analysis of the area that was done prior to adoption of the TCEA ultimately established the required residential and nonresidential development ratios described in Transportation Element Policy 2.3.5(h). The development ratios required the City to have both residential and nonresidential space in the downtown area. The City achieved the projection for residential units set forth in Transportation Element Policy 2.3.5(g), but has approximately five million square feet more of nonresidential space available to reach the stated projection for nonresidential space. The OBD Amendment On April 30, 2018, Gabe Klein, a consultant for the City, presented the Downtown Mobility Plan to the mayor and city commission. The workshop was open to the public and televised on the City's website. At this workshop, the Mayor initiated the process for pursuing the OBD Amendment. The City then timely sent its executive summary of the proposed OBD Amendment to the Interlocal Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC) Clearinghouse on May 3, 2018. On May 7, 2018, the Clearinghouse provided notice (IPARC Notice) of the OBD Amendment to the Town and the County under the terms of the Interlocal Agreement that established the IPARC. On May 21, 2018, by Resolution No. 134-18, the City Commission adopted the Downtown Mobility Plan, along with the Okeechobee Corridor Study, Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study, and the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. In addition to the IPARC Notice, the City provided notice to both the County and Lakeview by mail and published required notices in the newspaper. Counsel for Lakeview presented oral comments regarding the OBD Amendment at the City's Planning Board meeting on May 15, 2018; at the Downtown Action Committee (DAC) meeting on June 13, 2018; at the transmittal hearing on June 18, 2018; and at the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. County representatives made oral comments at the transmittal hearing on June 18, 2018, and the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. A Town representative made oral comments at the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. The Ordinance reflected the City's continuing policy of seeking to attract high-intensity office uses to consolidate the area as an economic center of downtown, with innovative high-rise buildings and an active pedestrian environment. The Ordinance further allowed for the creation of incentives to permit building heights to increase from five stories to 25 stories in the OBD 5 subdistrict without increasing the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.75. The Ordinance amended the City Comp Plan's DMP Element to identify the location, development capacity, and height allowed within the OBD. DMP Policy 1.1.1 was amended to create the OBD. DMP Policy 3.1.3 was amended to show maximum development capacity, subdistrict boundaries and incentive areas for the OBD. The text added to DMP Policy 1.1.1 stated: N. Okeechobee Business District: The Okeechobee corridor is the traditional business district of downtown, around which office buildings have historically located. The focus of the Okeechobee business district should be towards attracting high intensity office uses to consolidate the area as an economic center of downtown, with innovative high-rise buildings and an active pedestrian environment. The district shall function as a connection between the north and south portions of the City, with enhanced pedestrian crossings and a large percentage of public open spaces. Intensity and Density The OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. In fact, the OBD Amendment reduced the allowable development within the Okeechobee Corridor. The evidence established that the FAR of 2.75 on the church site remained the same with the OBD Amendment. Ms. Aponte is in charge of overseeing the development and implementation of the DMP. She testified that prior to adoption of the OBD Amendment, the FAR on the church site was 2.75 and that the church site property could have been developed to accommodate approximately 300,000 square feet of usable office space and provide parking on site. With the same FAR of 2.75 after adoption of the OBD Amendment, the church site's development capacity remained the same. Ms. Aponte also concluded that from a planning perspective, since the development capacity at the church site remained the same before and after the OBD Amendment, and the use did not change, there would not be additional traffic impacts. Mr. Greene explained that the OBD Amendment would actually reduce the development capacity on the tent site and that all other blocks in the OBD would retain the same development capacity as before the OBD Amendment. Since there was a reduction in the actual development capacity within the OBD, there was not an increase in intensity. Mr. Greene and/or his staff explained the reduction in development capacity in the OBD at all four public hearings and in many telephone conversations with staff from the County and the Town. The tent site is located within the City Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI) that holds certain development rights. Sites located within the DRI may use the DRI's development rights on a "first come, first serve" basis until they are exhausted. Reducing capacity on the tent site would allow another site within the DRI to use those development rights. This would shift development away from the Okeechobee Corridor in the OBD to another site within the DRI. The City proved that the OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. The City credibly established that the OBD Amendment reduced the allowable development within the OBD. Petitioners' Objections The Petitioners jointly presented their cases during the hearing. They argued that the OBD Amendment was not "in compliance" because it created internal inconsistencies within the City Comp Plan, it was not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, it was not properly coordinated with the neighboring local governments, it was not coordinated with the comprehensive plans of the Town and the County, and it was a de facto future land use plan amendment. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the major underlying premise of the Petitioners' challenge was that the OBD Amendment would allow more intense development and that the City had not evaluated potential impacts to traffic and parking. As found above, the City proved that the OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. Thus, the City did not need to evaluate the traffic impacts of the OBD. In addition, the City was exempted from meeting transportation concurrency requirements and traffic performance standards in the TCEA. Internal Consistency The Town and County identified elements in the City Comp Plan in order to argue internal inconsistency. Those were the Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Transportation Element. The Town and County also claimed the OBD Amendment was inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Lakeview claimed the OBD Amendment was inconsistent with the entire City Comp Plan generally, and specifically inconsistent with the vision of the DMP Element, DMP Policies 3.1.3, 1.1.1.H, and 1.1.1.M; Future Land Use Policy 1.1.7; Transportation Element Policy 2.3.1(a), Objective 2.3.4, Policies 2.3.5(a) and 2.3.5(h); and Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4, Policies 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, and 1.5.3. The Petitioners argued that "high-rise Class A" buildings must be built in the Quadrille Business District (QBD) described in DMP Policy 1.1.1.H. However, the DMP Element does not limit tall buildings to the QBD. For example, a maximum height of 30 stories is allowed in the Quadrille Garden District, 25 stories in the QBD, and 15 stories in the Transit Oriented District and Flagler Waterfront District. During the hearing, Mr. Greene narrated drone footage that showed high-rise buildings are located throughout the downtown area, including in and near the OBD in the Okeechobee Corridor. Two residential towers that are 32 stories in height are also located along the waterfront in the Flagler Waterfront District. The evidence supported the description in the OBD that "[t]he Okeechobee corridor is the traditional business district of downtown, around which office buildings have historically located." The evidence also established that the tallest buildings in the downtown are not located in the QBD. The City Comp Plan does not prohibit high-rise buildings in districts other than the QBD. Lakeview's witness, Ms. Ward, opined that creation of the OBD conflicted with the intention of the Flagler Waterfront District to preserve waterfront views and its function as a transition from more intense development in the urban core of downtown. The evidence showed that these intentions can be realized with creation of the OBD. The OBD's implementing regulations adopted at the same time as the OBD Amendment as changes to the DMP Urban Regulations required that any development be set back 400 feet from the Intracoastal Waterway and that open space be increased. This would maintain an open space promenade along Flagler Drive. The County argued that the OBD Amendment conflicted with Policy 1.2-m of its Transportation Element, which provides in part: "Based on the results of the traffic monitoring report, the City will pursue strategies including, but not limited to . . . develop a centrally-managed system of strategically located parking facilities." The same language is found in the Transportation Element of the City Comp Plan in Policy 2.3.5(a). Contrary to the County's argument, the OBD Amendment in no way prohibited or directed the location of centrally-managed parking garages. The OBD Amendment complemented the many strategies referenced in Policy 1.2-m and Policy 2.3.5(a) by promoting public transit services, encouraging transportation mode options, and implementing employer-based Transportation Demand Management (TDM) activities. The evidence established that parking requirements for any developments within the DMP, including the new OBD, complied with the provisions of DMP Element Objective 4.3 and the implementing DMP Urban Regulations. DMP Objective 4.3 states that "[t]he City shall develop strategies to manage the downtown parking supply and demand." Lakeview argued that Exhibit 3 to the Ordinance showed two Okeechobee Business subdistricts but did not list the other subdistricts that were created under the OBD, specifically OBD-12CP. Mr. Hansen explained that OBD-12CP is contained within the City Place DRI, which was amended by the adoption of a separate Ordinance No. 4782-18 and is not subject to review in a comprehensive plan challenge. At the hearing, the County and Town withdrew their claim relating to conflict with the Coastal Management Element. In an abundance of caution, the City presented evidence and established that the OBD is not in a coastal high hazard area. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (Treasure Coast) is the regional planning council that reviewed the City's OBD Amendment. Treasure Coast's review and comments were limited to any adverse effects on regional resources or facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, and any extra- jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of any affected local government within the region. Based on the City's staff report for the OBD Amendment, Treasure Coast found that the maximum development potential of property, as expressed by FAR, did not increase as a result of the creation of the OBD. Treasure Coast found no adverse effects on regional resources or facilities and no extra-jurisdictional impacts resulting from creation of the OBD. The Petitioners did not present any evidence that would establish the OBD Amendment was not consistent with the requirements of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the OBD Amendment conflicted with the policies, goals, and objectives of the City Comp Plan or the County Comp Plan. Data and Analysis The City Commission adopted the Downtown Mobility Plan (Mobility Plan), along with the Okeechobee Corridor Study, Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study and the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. The various studies that make up the Mobility Plan included data relating to mode shift, walkability, mobility, circulation on Okeechobee Boulevard, economic growth in the downtown, and TDM initiatives. The Mobility Plan created a vision of desired outcomes, goals, a mode hierarchy, a mode-shift goal, and a series of proposed projects and strategies to improve mobility, not only along the Okeechobee Corridor, but also the entire downtown. The plan estimated needs in 2040 based on jobs and population rates and provided specific proposed projects that could be implemented to manage future growth in the entire downtown. The study specifically included streets within the OBD and was, therefore, relevant data and analysis that supported the OBD Amendment. The Okeechobee Corridor Study looked at the needs, capacity, and characteristics along Okeechobee Boulevard, all of which are related to the OBD. The Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study provided an audit of the parking in the downtown area. The study supported adoption of the OBD Amendment since the OBD is an area included within the overall parking demand study. The Citywide Bicycle Master Plan included an analysis of bike facilities and bike lanes along and accessing the OBD. It discussed the existing transit network in the Okeechobee corridor, obstacles, and the need for modification to some of the street systems to achieve the Bicycle Master Plan's long-term goals of producing a connected series of trails. The City also relied upon traffic count data for Okeechobee Boulevard produced by the County. In addition to the County's traffic count data, the City relied on an FDOT analysis dated June 7, 2018, which showed existing conditions before and after the Brightline train service began and which revealed that there were no intersections on the relevant portions of Okeechobee Boulevard that were failing. The City Commission also reviewed data concerning trolley ridership and skybike ridership. There were numerous other data and analyses that existed at the time of adoption of the OBD Amendment that supported the City's action in adopting the amendment including: The Economic Impact Analysis of the OBD by Fishkind & Associates, which found that the City's Class-A office market is underserved, that the City's market has a vacancy rate far below average for business districts in Florida or the United States, that a new Class-A office building in the OBD is likely to have a beneficial impact on the City's office market, that the OBD could create 1,000 new high-wage jobs and create additional demand for residential housing, that a new Class-A office building would likely generate $1 million in tax revenue for the City, and that approval of the OBD would not have a detrimental impact on surrounding Class-A offices. The West Palm Beach Downtown Walkability Analysis specifically stated that certain streets, most notably the state- owned Okeechobee Boulevard and Quadrille Avenue, are considered "downright hazardous" to pedestrians. Dr. Depew explained that the study was relevant to the OBD Amendment because it explained how the City could get people out of their personal automobiles and move them into an urban environment in different modes of transportation, which is consistent with the TCEA's aim to have more people living and working downtown. The City has adopted the walkability study in the Transportation Element Policy 2.4.4(a) of the City Comp Plan. The FDOT District 4 Road Safety Audit Report was intended to look at the performance of existing or future road intersections, including the intersection of Okeechobee Boulevard and Florida Avenue and Rosemary Avenue, to determine how the area itself could be made safer for pedestrians, provide alternative means of transportation, and reduce conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles in the area. The Transit Choices Report + Sketch Alternatives contained data related to population and employment trends in the downtown area and alternatives for transit in the downtown area. It provided options, alternatives, and recommendations that included a portion of the OBD area. The report contained a map related to the mobility plan and shifting transit services to a new downtown site as a potential for future consideration within the OBD. It also referenced the Okeechobee Boulevard Corridor Study. The West Palm Beach Economic Development Study by Avalanche evaluated economic and demographic data, assessed the City's business climate, analyzed visitor trends, analyzed real estate trends, and reviewed economic development assets and programs in the City. With regard to infrastructure and real estate, the study found that Class A office space was in high demand, that office vacancy rates have been falling since 2011, and that the potential OBD would allow the City to increase in-demand Class A office product in a prime downtown location. The appraiser report by Aucamp, Dellenback and Whitney concluded that the proposed OBD would not have an adverse effect on property values for the downtown-at-large, no adverse effect on property values for nearby residential buildings, and no adverse effect on property values for nearby office buildings. The Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan included growth forecasts regarding population and employment (population growth at 35 percent and employment growth at 56 percent by 2040), which Dr. Depew looked at to confirm that the materials in other reports he reviewed were accurate. The City did not perform a site-specific traffic impact study because it was exempt under the TCEA, and there was a reduction of development intensity within the Okeechobee Corridor. Dr. Depew opined that the proposed OBD Amendment did not require a traffic impact study. The Petitioners argued that the various surveys, studies, and reports did not expressly refer to the OBD and the OBD Amendment. However, section 163.3177(1)(f) does not require creation of a plan amendment prior to conducting studies and gathering data to support it. In fact, a plan amendment is usually the reaction to surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data. The data and analyses relied on by the City were prepared by recognized professionals using professionally accepted methodologies and sources. The City's reaction to the data and analyses was appropriate. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the OBD Amendment was not supported by relevant data and analysis or that the City did not react appropriately to the data and analysis. Intergovernmental Coordination The County, Town, and City entered into the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement, dated October 1, 1993 (Interlocal Agreement), to comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of chapter 163. The Interlocal Agreement established a countywide coordinated review process designed to provide cooperation between affected local governments and opportunities to resolve potential disputes within the plan amendment process with the least amount of infringement upon existing processes. The Interlocal Agreement established the IPARC Clearinghouse. Local governments are obligated to provide the Clearinghouse with an executive summary and hearing information. The City timely sent its executive summary to the Clearinghouse, and the Clearinghouse provided notice of the OBD Amendment to the Town and the County. The Interlocal Agreement provided that a written notice of intent to object may be filed by a participating local government and must be filed no later than 15 days before the transmittal hearing. Once filed, a meeting is required between the jurisdictions, a fact-finding panel is established, an opinion letter is issued, and conflict resolution is available as provided under Article X. The Town signed the Interlocal Agreement. It also adopted Policy 1.1.3 in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) of its Comprehensive Plan requiring it to cooperate with all other local governments in a voluntary dispute resolution process for the purpose of facilitating intergovernmental coordination. The County also signed the Interlocal Agreement. In the County's ICE, it too recognized the intergovernmental review process established under the Interlocal Agreement. The County and Town did not present any evidence that they filed notices of intent to object to the OBD Amendment 15 days prior to the transmittal hearing as required by the Interlocal Agreement. In addition to the IPARC Notice, the City provided notice to both the County and Lakeview by mail and published required notices in the newspaper. Mr. Greene and Ms. Aponte spoke with John Lingren from the Town about the OBD Amendment. During that conversation, the purpose of the amendment was clarified, development capacity was discussed, and it was explained that the amendment did not increase development capacity on the corridors and did not change the uses. Ms. Aponte and Mr. Hansen also spoke with Mr. Mohyuddin, a principal planner from the County, and clarified that the City was not modifying development capacity and that there was no effect on traffic in the corridor. Mr. Hansen also spoke to Jorge Perez, a senior urban designer with the County, regarding the plan amendments. The FDOT sent a findings letter to the City after reviewing the OBD Amendment. Following receipt of the letter, Mr. Greene communicated with Larry Hymowitz, the FDOT transportation planner who prepared the letter. After reviewing information provided by Mr. Greene, Mr. Hymowitz testified that he no longer believed that there were adverse impacts to transportation facilities and no longer had concerns about the data and analysis used to support the OBD Amendment. Mr. Hymowitz stated that he considered this type of communication to be intergovernmental coordination. The City also received letters from the Petitioners and heard public comment made by the Petitioners' representatives at the public hearings before making its final decision to adopt the OBD Amendment. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the City did not comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of the Comp Plans of the County, Town, or City, or of chapter 163. De Facto Future Land Use Plan Amendment The Petitioners argued that the OBD Amendment conflicts with the Future Land Use (FLU) Element and is a de facto future land use plan amendment. On its face, the Ordinance amended the City's DMP Element, not the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The only FLU designation for the entire DMP area is the Urban Central Business District. The OBD Amendment did not change the FLUM since the designation remains Urban Central Business District. DMP Element Policy 3.1.3 stated that the City would establish zoning designations, and specifically indicated that Table DMP-1 identified the maximum FAR and maximum height allowed within each zoning subdistrict by right and with incentives. The City's illustrative zoning maps included in the DMP Element were reviewed in the past by the state land planning agency and were accepted as part of the DMP Element, not as a part of the FLU Element or FLUM. The Petitioners' argument is an attempt to challenge the status quo by claiming that the OBD Amendment is part of a change to or in conflict with the FLU Element when no change to the FLUM has occurred. The City's interpretation of its Comp Plan is reasonable. Ultimate Findings The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding the OBD Amendment adopted by the City by Ordinance No. 4783-18 "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES 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 26th day of December, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan E. Nason, Esquire Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A. 3001 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (eServed) John Kenneth Rice, Esquire Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A. 750 Park of Commerce Boulevard Boca Raton, Florida 33487 (eServed) Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Terrell K. Arline, Attorney at Law, Company 1819 Tamiami Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Kimberly L. Rothenburg, Esquire K. Denise Haire, Esquire City of West Palm Beach 401 Clematis Street, 5th Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Peter Penrod, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Cissy Proctor, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Stephanie Webster, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Plan Amendment 98-51C adopted by the City of Ocala by Ordinance No. 2869 on August 4, 1998, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this land use dispute, Petitioner, Shady Historic and Scenic Trails Association, Inc. (SHASTA), has challenged the consistency of a plan amendment adopted by Respondent, City of Ocala (City). The amendment changes the land use on certain real property owned by Intervenor, Norbert M. Dorsey, as Bishop of the Diocese of Orlando (Intervenor). By stipulation, the parties have agreed that SHASTA is a not-for-profit corporation whose members include residents of Marion County, Florida (County). Through the testimony of its registered agent, it was established that SHASTA is a "county- wide organization" formed in 1985 because of its concern "about where growth was going," and the potential impact of growth on the "plan." Another witness (Baldwin) made comments to the City at one of its meetings concerning the adoption of the plan. Whether she is a member of SHASTA is not of record, and it can reasonably be inferred that the witness resides and owns property outside of the City. SHASTA's registered agent also presented testimony at hearing, but whether she resides within the City or in the County is unknown. Finally, while SHASTA's registered agent presented argument during her opening statement concerning the organization's standing, she presented no evidence (through sworn testimony or exhibits received in evidence) that any member of the organization who resides, owns property, or owns or operates a business within the City made comments, recommendations, or objections to the City during the course of its review and adoption of the amendment. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law. The City is a local government located within the County. It is one of five cities in the State designated by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as a "sustainable community" under Section 163.3244, Florida Statutes (1999). To this end, the City has entered into a sustainable community designation agreement with the DCA, and thus its plan amendments are not reviewed by the DCA or the regional planning council. Intervenor is an affected person since it owns the property which is the subject of the amendment. The amendment The City adopted plan amendment 98-51C by Ordinance No. 2869 on August 4, 1998. That amendment changed the land use on Intervenor's property from agriculture to public buildings and facilities. Section 1.1.12 of the City's Future Land Use Element specifies that the public buildings and facilities category "includes areas or facilities that serve the general public," such as "government buildings, public grounds, airports, cemeteries, churches and educational facilities." In making its recommendation, the City's Planning Department considered factors such as the type of soil on the property; the absence of known caves, sinkholes, or wetlands on the site; the suitability of the property for development; the property's location in the City's urban service area; the County's land use designation of the property as an urban land use; and the compatibility of the property with the surrounding land uses, including the proximity of the property to adjacent developments of regional impact (DRI), malls, large movie theaters, shopping centers, and other heavy commercial and retail development. In addition, the Planning Department considered the comments of other state and governmental agencies, including the DCA, St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and County. The County did not object to the amendment. Based on the foregoing data and analysis, the Planning Department recommended to the City's Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission) that the plan amendment be adopted. The Commission in turn recommended to the City Council that the amendment be approved. That recommendation was accepted by the City on August 4, 1998. The property The subject property consists of 40 acres and was annexed into the City in 1998. It lies within the boundaries of the City at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Southwest 42nd Street and Southwest 27th Avenue. Both roads are two-lane paved roads designated by the County as special scenic roads. This means that the right-of-way on those roadways cannot be widened or altered, and trees cannot be removed in or adjacent to the right-of-way. Prior to annexation, the property had a low-density residential land use designation in the County, and it was zoned agricultural. However, this zoning was inconsistent with the land use designation and a more likely zoning classification under the County comprehensive plan would have been R-1, which permits a maximum of four dwellings per acre. Had the property been assigned a City zoning classification most similar to the County's R-1, it would have received a low-density residential use allowing five residential units per acre. Intervenor purchased the property for the purpose of building a private school on the site. In the County, schools are located in both rural and urban areas. Under the County's land use designation for the property, schools are an allowable use. Before the property was annexed, it was located within what is known as the City's "urban service area." Under an interlocal agreement with the County, the City had the exclusive right to provide water and sewer services to that area and to condition the provision of such services upon annexation. At the time the plan amendment was adopted, the property immediately south of the subject property was being operated as a thoroughbred horse farm known as Glen Hill Farm. Immediately to the north and across Southwest 42nd Street was property with a land use designation of low-density residential allowing five residential units per acre. That property was previously approved as a planned unit development of mixed commercial and residential uses. The adjacent property on the northwest corner of the intersection of Southwest 42nd Street and Southwest 27th Avenue has been developed as a high-density assisted living facility. Immediately behind the assisted living facility are two DRIs. The first includes retail uses (including a shopping center), professional and medical offices, two large apartment complexes (consisting of more than 700 units), and three or four nursing homes or adult living facilities; this DRI would allow a vocational or technical school with approximately 500 students. The second DRI consists of the Paddock Mall, which includes 580,000 square feet of developed retail use and another 173,000 square feet of available but undeveloped use. Across Southwest 27th Avenue to the west is property commonly known as the Red Oak Farm property, which is the subject of another plan amendment challenge by Petitioner in Case No. 98- 4144GM. That amendment allows medium-density residential use. Finally, the property is located within one mile of the fastest growing and most intensively developed property within the City, which lies in and around State Road 200. The objections raised by Petitioner In its Amended Petition filed on November 2, 1998, SHASTA has alleged that the plan amendment is not in compliance for a number of reasons. They include contentions that the property is unsuitable for a private high school in that all of the land slopes to the south where extensive flooding has occurred (paragraph 9); that the site cannot be engineered to prevent flooding or that control surface water flow by retention ponds will leak into the aquifer (paragraph 10); that the site is vulnerable to stormwater pollution (paragraph 11); that the City has inadequate data and analysis to support development regulations for natural resources protection, including sinkholes and floodplains pursuant to the Conservation Element (paragraph 12); that the City has not specified how sinkholes or solution pipes to the aquifer will be protected pursuant to Policies 1.5 and 1.7 of the Conservation Element (paragraph 13); that the City has violated Policy 1.4 of the Conservation Element by not continuing the County land use designations on the property (paragraph 14); that the City has not distributed proposed interlocal agreements for annexation and future land uses as required by Policy 2.8 of the Future Land Use Element (paragraph 15); that the amendment is not in compliance with Goal II of the Future Land Use Element (paragraph 16); that the amendment is not in compliance with Policy 3.5 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (paragraph 17); that the amendment is inconsistent with revisions made by the 1998 Legislature concerning school siting in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1999)(paragraph 18); that the amendment does not further "the six broad principles of sustainability," as set forth in Section 163.3244(1), Florida Statutes (1999)(paragraph 19); that extending water and sewer lines to the property is unfair to City taxpayers (paragraph 20); that City taxpayers will be forced to pay a higher rate to fund expansion of City services into the area (paragraph 21); and that the school will not be compatible with adult living facilities located northwest of the property (paragraph 24). Allegations not raised until hearing, such as a contention that the amendment would promote urban sprawl, were deemed to be untimely raised and were not considered. Finally, concerns about the specific design of the school, assuming one is built, are not relevant to a determination of whether the amendment is in compliance. As to the allegation in paragraph 18 concerning the amendment's lack of compliance with school siting requirements in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, that allegation is irrelevant since the new law became effective more than a year after the amendment was adopted. Likewise, the allegation in paragraph 19 has been found to be irrelevant for the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, while the allegation in paragraph 16 regarding Goal II of the Future Land Use Element has no relevance to the amendment since it refers to a transportation concurrency exception/urban area redevelopment area, a matter not in issue here. Finally, the allegations in paragraphs 20 and 21 regarding the potential for taxes being raised are not grounds on which to find an amendment not in compliance. The undisputed (and only) evidence shows that there are no sinkholes or known wetlands on the property; that the property did not have a conservation land use under the County's Comprehensive Plan; that the City has entered into an interlocal agreement with the County establishing an urban service area; that the amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses, including adult living facilities; and that the City considered and analyzed all of the data summarized in Findings of Fact 6 and 7 before it adopted the amendment. Therefore, the allegations in paragraphs 12-15, 17, and 24 of the Amended Petition have not been sustained. Still in issue are the allegations in paragraphs 9-11 of the Amended Petition concerning potential flooding and stormwater pollution. They will be discussed below. The property The property was once one of the three largest horse farms in the County. These farms have already been developed or, as is the case here, are in the process of being developed. The entire City, including Intervenor's property, and most of the land in the County, lie within a Karst sensitive area, which features sinkhole and cave systems. Mapped and documented cave systems are found approximately one-half mile to the west- southwest (Briar Cave) of the property and a like distance to the east (Oak Creek Caverns). However, no sinkholes, caves, or wetland systems have been found on the property, and the rules of the SJRWMD pertaining to Karst sensitive areas do not prohibit the construction in question. The tract is part of a high Floridan Aquifer (Aquifer) recharge area which permits very rapid infiltration of surface waters to the Aquifer, and it discharges into a 100-year-old flood plain. However, the property itself is not located in a flood plain. Two basic soils are found on the property. They are the Kendrick soil and Zuber soil. Due to shrinkage or swelling of the clay and "low strength," these types of soil present "slight" or "moderate" construction limitations. Expert testimony confirmed, however, that through good planning and design, or presite removal of the soils, these limitations could be readily overcome. This was also acknowledged by two of Petitioner's witnesses. At the same time, if SJRWMD regulations for construction of water retention areas in Karst sensitive areas are followed, those limitations would be resolved. Typically, the City does not impose specific requirements concerning stormwater retention or groundwater protection at the comprehensive plan stage. Rather, these are normally imposed through the City's land development regulations at the site plan stage of the process. Presumably, at that point, Petitioner will have an opportunity to raise these types of concerns. The City has had experience with other properties having Karst topography and water recharge features similar to the property in question. For example, on the Heathbrook DRI, the City imposed groundwater protection provisions which other local governments throughout the State have used as a model for other developments. To prevent groundwater contamination, the City uses a tool called a DRASTIC Index (Index), which was prepared by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Index is used by the City and a host of other regulatory agencies to determine the potential of property for groundwater contamination. According to the Index, the property is less vulnerable to contamination than approximately seventy percent of the rest of the land in the County. City water facilities are available in the right-of-way on the north and west sides of the property, while City sanitary sewer facilities are approximately one-half mile away. If the project goes forward, Intervenor would be required to run sewer lines from the existing sewer facility to the improvements to be located on its property. If stormwater retention facilities are constructed on the property pursuant to City land development regulations, more pre-development water would be retained on the property than would be the case if the property were not developed. In addition, less runoff would be generated from the property if it were developed under the public buildings and facilities land use than would occur if the property was developed under the City land use most comparable to the County's R-1 classification. The potential for flooding Because the property slopes from the north to the south, stormwater run-off naturally flows over the property to the south and east across Glen Hill Farm to a natural low area or pond located on that farm. The evidence shows that in February and March 1998, when unusually heavy rains occurred, substantial flooding occurred on the farm, causing one of its road to be closed for almost two weeks. Intervenor has entered into an agreement with Glen Hill Farm whereby the farm has agreed to allow a portion of stormwater to continue to flow onto its property. Without such an agreement, the City would have required that Intervenor retain all stormwater from a 100-year storm on its property. A stormwater run-off system and a drainage system can be designed on the property to fully satisfy the SJRWMD's Karst sensitive development regulations. Such a system will retain all post-development run-off created by a 100-year storm. Thus, development of the property is unlikely to cause flooding on adjacent properties. Stormwater runoff As noted above, the SJRWMD has promulgated regulations for the design and construction of drainage systems and drainage basins within Karst sensitive areas, which are designed to protect against stormwater run-off contamination of the underlying aquifer. These regulations are more stringent than those that apply to other areas; if adhered to by Intervenor, they will adequately contain and control stormwater run-off and prevent groundwater contamination. In order to develop the property, Intervenor will be required to go through the site plan approval process with the City and to comply with the SJRWMD Karst sensitive regulations. Sufficient testing has been performed on the property to determine that stormwater retention systems may be designed for the property which will avoid unreasonable risk of groundwater contamination. The land use assigned to the property has less potential for detrimental impact upon the environment than would occur had the County permitted development using an R-1 classification, or a similar one by the City upon annexation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the City of Ocala enter a final order finding Plan Amendment 98-51C to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER , Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene Weesner, Registered Agent Shady Historic and Scenic Trails Association, Inc. 655 Southwest 80th Street Ocala, Florida 34476 W. James Gooding, III, Esquire Gilligan, King & Gooding, P.A. 7 East Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 500 Ocala, Florida 34470-6659 Bryce W. Ackerman, Esquire Hart & Gray Post Office Box 3310 Ocala, Florida 34478-3310 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
