The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 05-20 is "in compliance," as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005),1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and Statement of Intent filed by the Department of Community Affairs ("the Department").
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Lee County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Leeward is a Florida limited liability company that owns a portion of the real property that is the subject of the amendment at issue. The Amendment The amendment would change the future land use designation for 41.28 acres in the northeast quadrant of the Interstate 75 (I-75)/State Road 80 (SR 80) interchange from General Commercial Interchange to Urban Community, as shown on the FLUM. The General Commercial Interchange land use is described in the County Plan as “intended primarily for general community commercial land uses: retail, planned commercial districts, shopping, office, financial, and business.” It does not allow residential development. The Urban Community land use provides for a mix of residential, commercial, public, quasi-public, and limited light industrial uses. The standard density range for residential uses in the Urban Community category is one to six dwelling units per acre (du/a). The 41.28 acres affected by the amendment ("the amendment site") consist of 19.28 acres of lands along the Orange River owned by Leeward, a platted subdivision known as Dos Rios of approximately 11 acres, and the remaining acreage consists of right-of-way for SR 80 and I-75. Currently operating on Leeward's property is a vessel repair facility, a marina with wet and dry slips, and an ecotourism company. Leeward also has its office on the site. The Dos Rios subdivision includes 26 single-family lots. Apparently, only a few of the lots (the number was not established in the record) have been developed. Because residential land uses are not allowed in the General Commercial Interchange category, the Dos Rios lots were non-conforming uses. Maximum Allowed Density The County Plan provides residential density bonuses to promote various County objectives, such as the provision of affordable housing. With density bonuses, lands designated Urban Community can boost their density to a maximum of ten du/a. There was testimony presented by Leeward that the County has not often approved applications for density bonuses. Even if the practice of the County in approving density bonuses were relevant, the practice can change. It is reasonable for the Department to consider the maximum intensity or density associated with a future land use designation when determining whether a FLUM amendment is in compliance. Therefore, in this case, it is reasonable to consider the Urban Community land use designation as allowing up to ten du/a. The Department asserts that the amendment would allow the 41.2 acres affected by the amendment to have a total of 412 dwelling units (41.2 acres x 10 du/a). Leeward disputed that figure because the 41.2 acres includes road right-of-way and the Dos Rios subdivision. A hearing officer appointed to review a Lee County development order recently determined that right-of-way external to a development should not be included in calculating allowable units, and the County accepted the hearing officer's recommendation based on that determination. The definition of "density" in the County Plan supports the determination.2 Therefore, for the purposes of this case, the right-of-way in the northeast quadrant should not be included in calculating the maximum residential density that would result from the amendment. On the other hand, Leeward's argument that the Dos Rios subdivision acreage should not be included in the ten du/a calculation is rejected. For the purposes of an "in compliance" determination, it is reasonable for the Department to apply the maximum potential densities to all developable and re- developable acreage. Using 29 acres as the approximate acreage affected by the amendment when road right-of-way is subtracted, the amendment would create the potential for 290 residences in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. Adoption of the Amendment The amendment was initiated as part of the County's reexamination of the existing land use designations in the four quadrants of the I-75/SR 80 interchange. Following the County planning staff's completion of a study of the entire interchange, it recommended several changes to the County Plan, but no change was recommended for the northeast quadrant. Apparently, the amendment at issue was urged by Leeward, and, at a public hearing held on June 1, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt the amendment. Pursuant to Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment was forwarded to the Department for an "in compliance" review. Following its review, the Department issued its ORC Report on August 19, 2005. In the ORC Report, the Department objected to the proposed amendment based upon what it considered to be inappropriate residential densities in the coastal high hazard area (CHHA) and floodplain. The Department recommended that the County not adopt the proposed amendment. On October 12, 2005, another public hearing was held before the Board of County Commissioners to consider adoption of the amendment. At the public hearing, the County planning staff recommended that the land use designation in the northeast quadrant not be changed to Urban Community "due to the potential increase in density in the Coastal High Hazard Area." Nevertheless, the Board of County Commissioners approved the amendment. Representatives of Leeward appeared and submitted comments in support of the amendment at the public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. On December 16, 2005, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance, identifying three reasons for its determination: (1) inconsistency with state law regarding development in the CHHA and flood prone areas, (2) internal inconsistency with provisions of the County Plan requiring the consideration of residential density reductions in undeveloped areas within the CHHA, and (3) inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan regarding subsidizing development in the CHHA and regulating areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding. On January 5, 2006, the Department filed its petition for formal hearing with DOAH. Coastal High Hazard Area The Florida Legislature recognized the particular vulnerability of coastal resources and development to natural disasters and required coastal counties to address the subject in their comprehensive plans. [I]t is the intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans restrict development activities where such activities would damage or destroy coastal resources, and that such plans protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster. § 163.3178(1), Fla. Stat. The statute also requires evacuation planning. Until 2006, the CHHA was defined as the "category 1 evacuation zone." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In 2006, the CHHA was redefined as "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model."3 Ch. 2006-68, § 2, Laws of Fla. The County Plan defines the CHHA as "the category 1 evacuation zone as delineated by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council." Map 5 of the County Plan, entitled "Lee County Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)," shows the entire amendment site as being within the CHHA. Nothing on Map 5, however, indicates it was produced by the Regional Planning Council. Daniel Trescott, who is employed by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and is responsible for, among other things, storm surge mapping, stated that the Category 1 evacuation zone is the storm surge level for the worst case scenario landfall for a Category 1 storm. He stated that the Category 1 storm surge for Lee County was determined by the SLOSH model to be 5.3 feet. Mr. Trescott stated that the 5.3 foot contour (shown on Plate 7 of the Regional Planning Council's "Hurricane Storm Tide Atlas - Lee County") more accurately delineates the CHHA than Map 5 of the County Plan. Although Mr. Trescott's testimony suggests a conflict between the County Plan's definition of the CHHA and Map 5's depiction of the CHHA, the two can be reconciled by a finding that Map 5 is a gross depiction of the CHHA for general public information purposes, but the precise location of the CHHA boundary is the one delineated by the Regional Planning Council, and the latter is controlling. Using the 5.3 contour on the amendment site, Leeward's witness, Michael Raider, estimated that there are approximately 16 acres of the amendment site within the CHHA. Applying the maximum allowable residential density under the Urban Community land use designation (with bonuses) of ten du/a means the amendment would result in a potential for 160 dwellings in the CHHA. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)7., respectively, require each local government’s coastal management element to contain one or more specific objectives that "[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas” and limit development in these areas. The parties' evidence and argument regarding whether the amendment was "in compliance" focused on these rules and the following goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan related to the CHHA: GOAL 105: PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. To protect human life and developed property from natural disasters. OBJECTIVE 105.1: DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. Development seaward of the 1991 Coastal Construction Control Line will require applicable State of Florida approval; new development on barrier islands will be limited to densities that meet required evacuation standards; new development requiring seawalls for protection from coastal erosion will not be permitted; and allowable densities for undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduction. POLICY 105.1.4: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In the opinion of Bernard Piawah, a planner employed by the Department, the amendment is inconsistent with the goal, objective and policy set forth above because these provisions only contemplate possible reductions of residential densities in the CHHA and there is no provision of the County Plan that addresses or establishes criteria for increasing residential densities in the CHHA. Population Concentrations As stated above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. directs local governments to include provisions in their comprehensive plans to direct population concentrations away from the CHHA. The term "population concentrations" is not defined in any statute or rule. The term apparently has no generally accepted meaning in the planning profession. The word "population" has the ordinary meaning of "all of the people inhabiting a specific area." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1981). The word "concentration" has the ordinary meaning of "the act or process of concentrating." Id. The word "concentrate" means "to direct or draw toward a common center." Id. In the context of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012, the term "population concentrations" suggests a meaning of population densities (dwelling units per acre) of a certain level, but the level is not stated. Leeward argues that, because there is no state guidance on the meaning of the term "population concentrations," surrounding land uses should be examined to determine whether a proposed density would be "proportionate to its surroundings." According to Leeward, in order to be a population concentration, the density under review would have to be greater than the surrounding density. This comparative approach is rejected because the overarching Legislative objective is protection of life, which plainly calls for a straightforward consideration of the number of lives placed in harm's way. The Department, in its Proposed Recommended Order, states: By assigning either zero residential density to land by virtue of an Open Space land use designation, or a maximum density of one unit per acre by assigning a low density land use designation, the County Plan fulfills the mandates of State law that development be limited in and residential concentrations be directed away from the CHHA. Thus, not surprisingly, the Department does not consider one du/a to be a population concentration. A density of ten du/a is an urban density, as indicated by the fact that it is the maximum density allowed in the Urban Community land use designation and the highest density within the "standard density range" for the County's Central Urban land use designation. It is a generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that urban areas are areas where populations are concentrated. It is a another generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that ten dwelling units on one acre of land amounts to a lot of people living in a small space. Leeward, itself, described the residential density allowed under the Urban Community designation as "relatively intense." Leeward's Proposed Recommended Order, at 7. Whether measured by density alone (ten du/a) or by Leeward's estimate of 160 residences on 16 acres, the amendment places a population concentration in the CHHA. Offsets in the CHHA Leeward presented evidence that the County has been reducing residential densities, sometimes referred to as "down- planning," in other areas of the CHHA in Lee County. The reduction in dwelling units in the CHHA over the past several years may be as high as 10,000 units. The Department did not present evidence to dispute that there has been an overall reduction in dwelling units in the CHHAs of Lee County. Leeward argues that these reductions "offset" the increase in dwelling units in the CHHA that would result from the amendment and this "overall" reduction in densities in the CHHA must be considered in determining whether the amendment is "in compliance" with state law and with provisions of the County Plan related to directing population concentrations away from the CHHA. At the hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argued that the consideration of offsets in the CHHA was improper and unworkable, but that argument conflicts with the Department's actual practice and official position as described in the January 2006 "Department of Community Affairs Report for the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee." In that report, the Department acknowledged there is no statutory or rule guidance regarding what the maximum density should be in the CHHA. The Report notes that some local governments have established maximum densities for the CHHA (e.g., Pinellas County, 5 du/a; Franklin County 1 du/a). The Department states in the report that it reviews amendments to increase density in the CHHA on a "case by case" basis, and explains further: When a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the CHHA proposes a density increase, DCA's review considers the amount of the density increase, the impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" (generally accomplished through public acquisition). One of the visual aides used in conjunction with the 2006 report to Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee, entitled "Policy Issue #2 - Densities in High Hazard Areas," also describes the Department's practice: Without locally adopted density limits, DCA conducts a case by case review of amendments without any defined numeric limit. DCA considers amount of density increase, impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" in other areas of the CHHA. These statements use the phrase "there will be a corresponding offset," which suggests that for an offset to be considered, it would have to be proposed concurrently with an increase in residential density on other lands within the CHHA. However, according to the director of the Department's Division of Community Planning, Valerie Hubbard, offsets in the CHHA do not have to be concurrent; they can include previous reductions. Furthermore, although the Department pointed to the absence of any criteria in the County Plan to guide an offset analysis, Ms. Hubbard said it was unnecessary for a comprehensive plan to include express provisions for the use of offsets. To the extent that this evidence of the Department's interpretation of relevant law and general practice conflicts with other testimony presented by the Department in this case, the statements contained in the report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee and the testimony of Ms. Hubbard are more persuasive evidence of the Department's policy and practice in determining compliance with the requirement that comprehensive plans direct population densities away from the CHHA and limit development in the CHHA. As long as the Department's practice when conducting an "in compliance" review of amendments that increase residential density in the CHHA is to take into account offsets, the Department has the duty to be consistent and to take into account the County's offsets in the review of this amendment. The County planning director testified that he believed the applicable goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan are met as long as there has been a reduction in residential densities in the CHHAs of the County as a whole. The Department points out that the planning director's opinion was not included in the County planning staff's reports prepared in conjunction with the amendment. However, it necessarily follows from the Board of County Commissioners' adoption of the amendment that it does not interpret Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 as prohibiting an increase in residential density in the CHHA. Although these provisions make no mention of offsets, the Department has not required offset provisions in a comprehensive plan before the Department will consider offsets in its determination whether a plan amendment that increases density in the CHHA is in compliance. The wording used in Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 requiring "consideration" of density reductions in the CHHA can be harmonized with the County planning director's testimony and with the County's adoption of the amendment by construing these plan provisions consistently with the Department's own practice of allowing increases in the CHHA when the increases are offset by overall reductions in dwelling units in the CHHA. Seeking to harmonize the amendment with the provisions of the County Plan is the proper approach because, as discussed later in the Conclusions of Law, whether an amendment is consistent with other provisions of the plan is subject to the "fairly debatable" standard which is a highly deferential standard that looks for "any reason it is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense or point to a logical deduction." Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997). Shelter Space and Clearance Time Prior to the hearing in this case, Leeward moved to strike certain statute and rule citations in the Department's petition related to shelter space and clearance time4 because they were not included in the Department's ORC Report. The motion was denied because, although Section 163.3184(8)(b), Florida Statutes, limits the Department's petition to issues raised in the "written comments" in the ORC Report, the statute does not indicate that the Department is barred from citing in its petition, for the first time, a rule or statute that is directly related to the written comments. The CHHA is defined in the County Plan as the category one "evacuation zone." It is the area most in need of evacuation in the event of a severe coastal storm. Shelter space and clearance time are integral to evacuation planning and directly related to the Department's comment in the ORC Report that the amendment would, "expose a substantial population to the dangers of a hurricane." Therefore, the Department was not barred from presenting evidence on shelter space and clearance time in support of this comment. The Department's practice when reviewing an amendment that increases residential density in the CHHA, described in its 2006 report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Area Study Committee, is to consider not only dwelling unit offsets in the CHHA, but also the effect on shelter space and clearance time. That report did not elaborate on how shelter space and clearance time are considered by the Department, but evidence that a comprehensive plan amendment would have a significant adverse effect on shelter space or clearance time could presumably negate what would otherwise appear to the Department to be an acceptable offset of residential density in the CHHA. On this record, however, the Department did not show that a significant adverse impact on shelter space or clearance time would be caused by this particular amendment.5 Special Planning Areas Leeward argues that, even if the amendment were determined to be inconsistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4, that inconsistency should be balanced against other provisions in the County Plan that are furthered by the amendment, principally the provisions related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area and the Water- Dependent Use Overlay Zone. There is no authority for such a balancing approach that can overcome an inconsistency with an objective or policy of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, whether the amendment furthers the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area, Water-Dependent Use Overlay Zone, or other subjects is irrelevant to whether the amendment is consistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4. On the other hand, the Department's contention that the amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area is contrary to the more credible evidence. 100-Year Floodplain The amendment site is entirely within the 100-year floodplain. In its Statement of Intent, the Department determined that the amendment was not in compliance, in part, because the amendment site's location in the 100-year floodplain made it unsuitable for residential development. In addition, the Department determined that the amendment caused an internal inconsistency with the following policies of the County Plan related to development in the floodplain: POLICY 61.3.2: Floodplains must be managed to minimize the potential loss of life and damage to property by flooding. POLICY 61.3.6: Developments must have and maintain an adequate surface water management system, provision for acceptable programs for operation and maintenance, and post-development runoff conditions which reflect the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, direction, quality, hydroperiod, and drainage basin. Detailed regulations will continue to be integrated with other county development regulations. According to Mike McDaniel, a growth management administrator with the Department, "we try to discourage increasing densities in floodplains and encourage that it be located in more suitable areas." The policies set forth above are intended to aid in the achievement of Goal 61 of the Community Facilities and Service Element "to protect water resources through the application of innovative and sound methods of surface water management and by ensuring that the public and private construction, operation, and maintenance of surface water management systems are consistent with the need to protect receiving waters.” Plainly, Goal 61 is directed to regulating construction and surface water management systems. There is no mention in this goal or in the policies that implement the goal of prohibiting all development or certain kinds of development in the 100-year floodplain. The Department's argument in this case regarding development in the 100-year floodplain is rejected because it ignores relevant facts and law. First, substantial portions of Lee County and the State are within the 100-year floodplain. Second, there is no state statute or rule that prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain. Third, the Department of Environmental Protection, water management districts, and local governments regulate development in the floodplain by application of construction standards, water management criteria, and similar regulatory controls to protect floodplain functions as well as human life and property. Fourth, there has been and continues to be development in the 100-year floodplain in Lee County and throughout the State, clearly indicating that such development is able to comply with all federal, state, and local requirements imposed by the permitting agencies for the specific purpose of protecting the floodplain and the public. Fifth, the Department "discourages" development in the floodplain but has not established by rule a standard, based on density or other measure, which reasonably identifies for local governments or the general public what development in the floodplain is acceptable to the Department and what development is unacceptable. Finally, the Department's practice in allowing offsets in the CHHA, as discussed previously, necessarily allows for development in the 100-year floodplain in that particular context.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission determining that the amendment adopted by Lee County in Ordinance No. 05-10 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent Pierson should be granted variances to permit construction of a triplex on a lot 95 feet wide and 87 feet deep. To do so the three variances required are (1) of 5 feet in width, (2) of 13 feet in depth, and (3) 753 square feet in area (10,000 square feet required).
Findings Of Fact Don Curtis Pierson owns the north one-half of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3, Block 6, Revised Map of Clearwater Beach, and has owned this property for some 28 years. The property is zoned RM-20 and is high density residential developed. Pierson's lot is approximately 95 feet by 87 feet (approximately 82,500 square feet). The property is currently occupied by a duplex which was constructed according to Code, except for variances of zero setback from the coastal construction control zone and a 6 foot height variance to permit the construction of a building 31 feet in height. Appellant is the owner of a multifamily building adjacent to Pierson's property which was constructed before various code provisions became effective and was constructed to the lot lines without any setbacks. When Pierson applied for variances in 1983 to construct a triplex on his property, the Board of Adjustment Appeal granted setback variances of 10 feet in rear and front setback lines to permit the construction of a triplex on this property. Vasilaros appealed that grant, and on July 12, 1983 the undersigned heard that appeal. On August 31, 1983, an order was entered denying the setbacks, but approving the construction of a triplex on the lot less than 10,000 square feet in area. That approval was predicated upon then Section 131.020 of the Land Development Code which waived the area requirement for a lot of record. This Section was removed in the 1985 rewrite of the Land Development Code. Specific code provisions respecting the size of the lot on which a three family structure may be erected are in Section 135.044 which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and minimum lot width and depth of 100 feet each. The applicant's only hardship upon which the requested variance can be granted is the uniqueness of the property becoming nonconforming solely by reason of zoning changes.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plans and plan amendments pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, also known as The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Act). The Association is a non-profit Florida Corporation, whose members reside, own property, or conduct business generally within the boundaries of the City of Gainesville and specifically the College Park Neighborhood (College Park). The purpose of the Association is to maintain and improve the quality of life for the residents of College Park. The Association submitted written objections concerning the plan during the review and adoption proceedings. Further, the Association participated more in the comprehensive plan development process than any other part of the City. The City is a local government required to adopt a revised comprehensive plan pursuant to Sections 163.3164(12) and 163.3167, Florida Statutes. City Background The City is located in north central Florida and is the county seat for Alachua County. The City encompasses approximately 20,000 acres, of which approximately 3,600 acres remains vacant. The City is approximately 83%-85% "built out". The development of the remaining 15%-17% vacant and undeveloped land will be limited by constraints of soil types, floodplains and wetlands. There is an acute lack of unimproved land suitable for higher density development, necessitating the major focus of the comprehensive plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE) upon redevelopment of underdeveloped areas of the City. As of 1991, the City had an estimated population of 92,723, with a projected population in the year 2001 of approximately 97,116. The population is more densely concentrated around the major activity centers which include the Oaks Mall area, the University of Florida (University) campus and the older central part of the City. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA The University and the surrounding areas, make up an area described by the plan as the University Oriented Area. The area includes the College Park neighborhood and is one of the biggest activity centers in North Central Florida. The University is the major activity generator within the City limits. The University itself occupies approximately 1,100 acres within the City limits and has an enrollment of approximately 36,000 students. The data and analysis indicates that the students and faculty of the University will play a major role in the future development of the City. The University provides on campus housing for approximately 6,800 single students in dormitories located throughout the campus. The University also provides approximately 987 units for single parent and married students. Total housing provided by the University accounts for only 18-20% of the total student population and future development of on-campus housing will be limited due to the lack of room to build future dormitory facilities. The University is heavily dependent upon "off campus" housing offered by the areas surrounding the campus to meet student housing needs. SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION AREA In order to permit further redevelopment in the University Oriented Area, the City needed a mechanism to permit that further development in view of the potential degrading of level of service standards for traffic circulation. This was particularly so since the City had experienced traffic circulation deficiencies in the University Oriented Area, including College Park. To mitigate the traffic congestion in the vicinity of the University, the City proposed to make these areas a Special Transportation Area (STA). As defined by data and analysis, an STA is a compact geographic area for which the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the local government, in consultation with the Regional Planning Council and the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization, mutually agree to set specific standards for level of service standards and use and transportation services in order to reach growth management goals. By letter dated August 30, 1991, the FDOT approved an Interim STA for the central city which included the University Oriented Area and College Park. The specific strategies to be developed in the Interim STA are set forth in Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) policy 1.1.7 and read as follows: The following specific strategies and guidelines shall be applied within the Interim STA consistent with the conditions of approval by FDOT: The level of service of all arterial roadways in the Interim STA shall be evaluated using the ART by FDOT, to evaluate such traffic variables as green flow in order to determine the exact condition of each facility. This evaluation shall be done cooperatively with FDOT and the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization (MTPO). The City shall coordinate with the MTPO and the FDOT through the Technical Advisory Committee of the MTPO to review strategies for improved level of service such as signalization, adjustments in green dedicated turn lanes, and roundabouts. The City shall limit the development of new drive service or sales to customers while in their automobiles. In the STA, the City shall prohibit additional or expanded drive constrained roadways. Drive facilities on other roads within the STA shall be regulated by special use permit. Criteria shall include minimum separation of 400 feet for such facilities and shall provide minimal interruption of the urban streetscape. COLLEGE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD College Park consists of approximately 145 acres and is located immediately north of the University. College Park is bordered on the south by West University Avenue, on the east by NW 13th Street, on the west by NW 20th Street, and on the north by NW 5th Avenue. College Park also includes a small nine block area immediately northeast of the main boundaries. This additional area is bounded by NW 5th Avenue on the south, NW 15th Street on the west, NW 7th Avenue on the north and NW 13th Street on the east. College Park is one of the oldest residential neighborhoods in the City and has long served as a student residential area offering low to moderate apartment housing and duplex units. The area has a friendly environment for walking and biking. It has a number of crossing points to the campus and close proximity. The width of the street and the amount of on constrain the speed of the traffic to bicycling speed and walking speed so that it is compatible for walking and bicycling. The southern and eastern outermost boundaries of College Park, University Avenue and NW 13th Street respectively, consist of a mixture of commercial and institutional land uses. The western boundary, NW 20th Street, is predominantly fronted by single family residential land uses. The northern border, NW 5th Avenue, consists of single family and duplex dwellings, small apartment buildings and institutional facilities which include several churches and their ancillary buildings. Many of the single family housing units that previously existed in the core of College Park have been converted into multi- unit or garden apartment dwellings to better accommodate demands for student housing. The innermost core of College Park is almost devoid of true single family homes and the single family neighborhood character of the neighborhood has long since evolved into a student community. The large number of streets in College Park are arranged in a traditional grid pattern. Most of the streets in the neighborhood do not have curbs or gutters. COLLEGE PARK DENSITIES In 1970 the City, by ordinance, adopted the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Gainesville Urban Area (1970 Plan). The 1970 Plan had the provision of a framework for logical development decisions, both by the private and public sectors as its primary goal. The 1970 Plan in several provisions addresses the framework for allowable densities in College Park. One of those provisions, Premise C, Principle 7 provides: High density residential development should be encouraged to locate near concentrations of non-residential activities such as the University of Florida and the Central Business District, and adjacent to the major traffic arteries. Another provision, Premise B, Principle 2 provides: mixed dwelling types and housing densities should be permitted in those areas where prior planning will permit such a mixture. Prior to the 1970 Plan, the density in the innermost core of College Park was unlimited. The City Commission, in preparing the 1970 plan, determined that unlimited densities were not appropriate anywhere in the City. The actual numerical densities for College Park were established at that time by zoning regulations with the highest density being 43 units per acre in the innermost core. With the creation of the first Growth Management Act in 1975, local governments were asked to develop comprehensive plans. The City used the opportunity to enhance the existing 1970 plan. The revised plan was entitled "Gainesville Comprehensive Plan 1980 to 2000" (1980 Plan). The 1980 Plan continued to promote higher densities around the University of Florida, including College Park. The 1980 Plan also contained guiding principles which directly assisted the improvement of public facilities in College Park and incorporated recommendations made in a special neighborhood study of College Park conducted in 1975. The recommendations supported a number of zoning categories in a transitional approach, with higher densities near NW 13th Street and West University Avenue and decreasing densities moving into the core of the neighborhood. The actual densities in College Park through the zoning code followed the density transition approach with the core of the neighborhood remaining a maximum of 43 units per acre. The City also, through the revised zoning ordinance, incorporated urban design standards which contained development within the neighborhood. With the 1985 amendment of the Growth Management Act, the creation and adoption of a comprehensive plan by the City became mandatory. The City used this opportunity to improve upon the already existing 1980 Plan. In a further effort to better plan for development in College Park, the City hired renowned urban planner Andres Duany. After surveying the College Park neighborhood and interacting with the residents of the neighborhood, Duany developed the Master Plan for College Park. The Master Plan made many recommendations as to how growth should proceed within College Park. Based on the recommendations of the Master Plan, the City's 1990 comprehensive plan created a land use category for College Park which allowed up to 75 units per acre in the neighborhood core. 1990 PLAN College Park is referenced in several provisions of the 1990 plan and supporting data and analysis. In the second paragraph of the section entitled "Redevelopment" on page 38 of the Future Land Use Data And Analysis Report (accepted in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1.), the following information is provided: Neighborhoods north, east, and south of the University have a large percentage of student residents, but do not accommodate a large enough share of student housing. It is especially desirable to accommodate student housing close to the University to reduce the transportation demand that student housing in outlying areas places on the City and the University. As stated earlier, students at the University of Florida are currently included in the City's population figures. As new students enroll in the University dormitories, existing students move out. These are the students that should continue to be housed near the University. Over time, this will have the effect of reducing peak hour traffic problems and help to revitalize downtown. This would also provide the density that is needed to support the mass transit system. Future Land Use Element Policy 2.4.1 of the 1990 comprehensive plan provides that the City shall prepare special area plans for certain areas of the City. Specifically, the plan in Policy 2.4.2 provides: Special Area plans for the College Park Neighborhood, . . . shall be the first priority. The Future Land Use Element goes on to specifically address development in College Park in Policies 2.4.7, 2.4.8, and 2.4.9., respectively, as follows: The City shall only allow development and redevelopment within the College Park Neighborhood that is consistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood. Residential development in the neighborhood shall be allowed in Type II buildings with 3.5 stories and Type III buildings with 2.5 stories (measured in the number of floors, each not to exceed 13 feet, floor to ceiling). * * * The following criteria shall be used to guide development in the College Park Neighborhood south of N.W. 5th Avenue: Type I buildings which allow retail, office and residential uses within four story buildings shall be allowed in areas designated Mixed Use-Low, Retail uses shall be restricted to the first 2 floors, office uses shall be allowed on all fourth floors and residential shall be allowed on the second through the fourth floor. The Type II buildings which allow office and residential uses within a 3.5 story building shall be allowed in areas designated Mixed Use-Residential, Office uses accessory to the residential use shall be restricted to the first floor. The Type III buildings which allow residential uses within a 2.5 story building shall be allowed in areas designated Residential Medium Density, Residential uses along with home occupations shall be the only uses allowed. * * * By June 1992, The City shall adopt Land Development Regulations and a Special Area Plan for the College Park Neighborhood based on a Master Plan being prepared for the neighborhood. The Special Area Plan shall be adopted by amending the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations shall establish the overall density and intensity of uses. A review of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) indicates that the following densities and corresponding intensities are allowed in College Park: Residential Medium development is designated for land located in northern portions bordering 5th avenue at densities ranging from 8-30 units per acre. This designation also applies to predominantly all the areas in the 9 block extension of the northeast corner of College Park. Mixed Use Low Intensity development is designated along the borders of West University Avenue and NW 13th Street at a density of 8- 30 units per acre and a floor area ratio intensity of 1.00-2.00. In most areas this land use category extends into the neighborhood approximately one block. Public facilities development is designated for the one area in College Park located on NW 2nd Avenue between NW 16th Street and NW 17th Street. The maximum lot coverage in this category is 80%. Mixed use residential development is designated for the entire core area of College Park at a density of 75 units per acre with the intensity of office use not to exceed more than 10% of the total residential floor area per development. Residential low development is designated in the northwest portion of College Park at a density of 5.8 to 12 units per acre. Single family development makes up the remainder of the northwest portion of College Park at a density of 0 to 8 units per acre. The several land use designations found within the neighborhood are arranged so that the most intensive development (75 units per acre) is located in the innermost core of the neighborhood and the lesser intense development on the outermost core (8-30 units per acre). This density arrangement ensures that the adjacent neighborhoods with single family character will be buffered from the more intensive University oriented development of College Park. The major change in land use planning proposed by the 1990 plan which relates specifically to College Park is that within the mixed use residential land use category the maximum allowable densities in certain areas increased from 43 units per acre to 75 units per acre. Additionally, an intensity for commercial use of not more than 10% of the total residential floor area for the development was also added, although there is no allocation of solely commercial use in the interior of College Park. The mixed use residential category applies to approximately 36 acres within College Park. Objection to the increase in density and the addition of commercial intensity in this category forms the foundation of Petitioner's challenge. The mixed use residential category definition in FLUE Policy 2.1.1 of the comprehensive plan reads as follows: This residential district provides for a mixture of residential and office uses. Office uses that are complementary to and secondary to the residential character of the district may be allowed. An essential element of the district is orientation of structures to the street and the pedestrian character of the area. Office use as located within this district shall be scaled to serve the immediate neighborhood and pedestrians from surrounding neighborhoods and institutions. Land Development Regulations shall set the district's size; appropriate densities (up to 75 dwelling units per acre); the distribution of uses; appropriate floor area ratios; design criteria; landscaping, pedestrian, mass transit and bicycle access, and streetlighting. Land Development Regulations shall specify the criteria for the siting of public and private schools, places of religious assembly, and community facilities within this category when designated in a manner compatible with the adoption of a special area plan for that area. The intensity of office use cannot exceed more than 10 percent of the total residential floor area per development. As a review of the FLUE data and analysis reveals, land use analysis have been performed to determine the development and redevelopment possibilities within the City limits. Such analysis adequately supports the land use category designations on the FLUM. Specifically the analysis includes traffic circulation, potable water, natural groundwater aquifer recharge, sanitary sewers, stormwater and solid and hazardous waste. A plan policy is not required to contain actual data and analysis. Rather, the plan's Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) are required to be based on appropriate data and analysis. The Gainesville Urban Area Land Use Model was used to determine land use requirements. The model focused on market demand and existing and projected relationships between demand and developed space. Future land use and development was allocated by the model to nine market areas. College Park is located in Market Area 3. Data and analysis submitted by the City in support of the plan indicate that the City will require approximately 15 acres of commercial/office acreage through the year 2001. The data further indicates that there are 260 vacant acres which the FLUM designates for commercial/office usage. College Park contains approximately 5 vacant acres of land designated commercial/office land use, but no commercial/office use is required or needed in Market Area 3. The lack of projected need for the 5 acres of designated commercial/office land use in College Market would appear to suggest a conclusion that such additional commercial/office land uses should not be permitted in Area 3 and specifically College Park. However, such a conclusion ignores several other criteria which also must be factored into the analysis of the data. Much of the 260 vacant acres that could accommodate commercial/office land uses appears environmentally constrained. Therefore, in actuality many of the 260 acres will not accommodate future commercial/office development. An example of this can be seen in Market Area 5 which has a surplus of 108 vacant acres. Most of this land, however, is located near a hazardous waste Superfund site or near the airport. These areas clearly would not be appropriate for the provision of commercial/office land uses and justify planning for the accommodation of commercial/office land uses within College Park. The overall planning goals of the City include the redevelopment of urban areas and the promotion of infill and compact development. The City has made a policy decision that in order to further the regional and state planning goal of discouraging urban sprawl, commercial office development will be encouraged in College Park rather than outside of the City's central business core. Even with this new land use category, the actual increase in commercial uses will not be significantly different than what currently exists in College Park. It is not proven beyond fair debate that Policy 2.1.1 of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically the inclusion of such commercial/office land uses within College Park lacks the support of appropriate data and analysis. Traffic impacts in College Park that will be caused by the non residential uses allowed by the mixed use land use category have been analyzed by the City. The data and analysis which accompanies the TCE is replete with data concerning traffic circulation and traffic levels of service for the entire City, including College Park. The City readily acknowledges that certain areas of the City, including the University Oriented Area, have traffic circulation problems. In an effort to correct the traffic circulation deficiencies the City with the approval of FDOT created the Central City STA discussed earlier at paragraph 9. With the creation of the STA, the City analyzed the impacts of future development not only within College Park but within the entire University Oriented Community. This action establishes beyond fair debate that the City has analyzed traffic impacts. In terms of parking impacts, allowing the non-residential mixed uses will not increase the parking demands within College Park. There will be no significant increase of commercial land uses in the College Park Area over the commercial uses that already exist, absent compliance with concurrency management system requirements. If facilities are not in place at the time development of additional non-residential uses is desired, development can not proceed. Further, introduction of non-residential uses into College Park will not de-stabilize the neighborhood. Rule 9J- 5.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, specifically encourages local governments to use mixed use categories, provided policies for implementing the mixed uses are included. The plan provides these in FLUE Policies 2.4.7 and 2.4.8., set forth above. These policies, combined with the requirement that any additional office use allowed in the core area of College Park be allowed only in places where people live, will directly prevent de-stabilization. Accordingly, it has not been shown to the exclusion of fair debate that allowing mixed uses in College Park will de- stabilize the neighborhood. The FLUE is required by Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7., Florida Administrative Code, to contain policies which implement standards or intensities of use for each land use category. In reviewing FLUE Policy 2.1.1, specifically the mixed use residential land use category, it is clear that the policy establishes a maximum density (75 units per acre) and an intensity (intensity of office use not to exceed 10% of the total residential floor area). The Mixed Use Residential Land Use category provides that the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) will control the actual implementation of such things as appropriate floor area ratios, design criteria and distribution of uses. Such language does not inappropriately defer implementation of the plan to LDRs. The Act requires that local governments adopt appropriate regulations to implement their plans. As required by Section 163.3202(2), Florida Statutes, such regulations "shall contain specific and detailed" provisions necessary to implement the adopted plan. The Plan should, and does, contain general criteria upon which LDRs will be developed. FLUE Policy 2.1.1, specifically the mixed use residential category, contains many general standards which will guide and narrow the focus of future LDRs. The City has recognized that the mixed use category criteria of FLUE Policy 2.1.1 must be implemented carefully. The plan in FLUE Policy 2.1.3 places a moratorium on zoning changes within the mixed land use categories until new LDRs are developed and the comprehensive plan amended to reflect the new LDRs. In the interim, the plan indicates that Chapter 29, City of Gainesville Code of Ordinances, shall regulate development. It is clear that Policy 2.1.1 in combination with other policies in the FLUE taken as a whole does not inappropriately defer implementation to LDRs. Increasing density from 43 to 75 units per acre in College Park will not necessarily result in overcrowding and undue concentrations of population. While the previous maximum of 43 units per acre permitted intense urban development, the increase to 75 units per acre requires compliance with design standards that were previously absent. FLUE Policy 2.4.8 establishes the design standards for use in conjunction with the 75 units per acre density. Notably, criteria in FLUE Policy 2.4.8 were incorporated into the plan at the request of the Association. Those criteria and other policies in the FLUE indicate that no undue concentration of population will be allowed. For example, as noted in Policy 2.4.7, set forth above, "[t]he City shall only allow development and redevelopment within the College Park Neighborhood that is consistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood." It has not been proven to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 2.1.1 and the FLUE will result in overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population. Densities greater than the 75 units per acre found objectionable in College Park by Petitioner exist in several locations as illustrated by depictions on the FLUM of other neighborhoods surrounding the University which currently have densities upwards of 100 units per acre. As discussed earlier, the City is 83%-85% buildout and development on much of the remaining undeveloped land will be constrained since the land that can be developed will only accommodate low density development. To accommodate City wide future growth, the data and analysis indicates that redevelopment of already existing underdeveloped areas is necessary. Further, redevelopment and infill of areas is required to discourage urban sprawl. The data and analysis indicates that College Park is one of the few remaining underdeveloped areas where redevelopment can occur. As a result, the higher densities proposed for College Park appear justified. Just as allowing mixed uses in College Park will not result in de- stabilization, the same is true of the proposed higher densities. Although the higher density levels would, if realized, exceed the projected population for College Park, planning for this area of the City must be combined within the overall planning decisions of the City as a whole. The data and analysis clearly provides that the City has limited areas which can accommodate future high density development. The population projections for the City indicate an increase in population of approximately 10,000 people over the next 10 years. This population increase will include University students. Sound planning demands that the City not rely on the County to bear the burden of housing this future population increase and thereby promote even more urban sprawl outside of the City with further traffic problems and demands for additional services such as mass transit, police, and fire protection. Also, the higher densities in College Park are in part an effort to provide developers with an incentive to develop this area rather than the outlying urban areas. This effort is consistent with the conclusions found in the FLUE data and analysis that the FLUE must accommodate high densities close to campus. The overall impact of the increased density will be less urban sprawl, and a more efficient use of existing infrastructure. Such sound planning decisions do not show to the exclusion of fair debate that the FLUE inappropriately overallocated or that the increase in density will de-stabilize College Park. It has been alleged that FLUE Objective 2.4 and Policies 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 are not supported by data and analysis which substantiate the need for redevelopment of College Park. FLUE Objective 2.4 provides: Redevelopment shall be encouraged to promote urban infill, improve the condition of blighted areas, to reduce urban sprawl and foster compact development patterns. Policy 2.4.3 provides: Before June 1992, the City shall adopt a special area plan for the College Park neighborhood to identify the appropriate uses and intensity of uses and to provide urban design guidelines for development in the area. In the preparation of the plan the City shall consider recommendations made by the College Park Neighborhood Plan prepared by Wallace, Todd and Roberts. Policy 2.4.4 provides: The City's Future Land use Plan shall accommodate increases in student enrollment at the University of Florida and the relocation of students from the urban fringe by designating appropriate areas for high density residential development and/or appropriate mixed use development within one and half mile of the University of Florida and J. Hillis Miller Medical Center. As previously noted, the FLUE contains data and analysis which supports the allowance of mixed uses at a density of 75 units per acre within College Park. The FLUE data and analysis also justifies the City's policy decision to increase the potential for redevelopment and infill development within College Park. Housing Element (HE) data and analysis further indicates the amount of dilapidated and substandard housing conditions within College Park. As indicated by HE Map 3, the area which includes College Park contains between 16% and 30% substandard housing units. As HE Appendix C Tables 46 and 47 clearly indicate, College Park contains approximately 1,342 housing units. Of these units 23.10% are substandard or dilapidated. Based on these figures, the FLUE and HE data and analysis indicates that College Park is one of the areas in the City which should be redeveloped. It has not been shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the challenged plan provisions are not supported by data and analysis or that redevelopment is not appropriate for College Park. FLUE Policy 2.1.1 is consistent with Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code, and provides for compatibility of adjacent land uses. The mixed use residential category and the potential densities of 75 units per acre established by the policy does not appear incompatible with the adjacent single family neighborhoods when the existing land development patterns in the area are considered. Currently, College Park is buffered from the adjacent single family neighborhoods by several churches along 5th Avenue, and J.J. Finley Elementary School. The churches make up much of the northern border of College Park. 5th Avenue itself also works as a separator between College Park and the adjacent neighborhoods. Further, although there has been no showing that the previous 43 unit per acre density caused incompatibility problems, potential compatibility issues are addressed in FLUE Policies 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.7, 2.4.8, and 2.4.9. These policies interact with each other and the FLUM to form a step down in densities. This step down approach means that the lowest allowable densities in College Park will be next to the adjacent neighborhoods. The step down approach of the FLUE policies also ensures that land uses within College Park are compatible. It has not been proven to the exclusion of fair debate that FLUE Policy 2.1.1 fails to provide measures which ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. It is alleged that Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) Policies 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 are not in compliance with Section 163.3177(3)(a), F.S., and Rules 9J- 5.007(2)(a) and (b) 9J- 5.007(3)1. and 9J-5.005(1)2., Florida Administrative Code. TCE Policy 1.1.8 provides: The City shall designate areas on the FLUM for housing, which serves the needs of employees and students within walking distance of the University. TCE Policy 1.1.9 provides: Eighteen months from the adoption of this plan the City, in cooperation with FDOT and the MTPD, shall seek permanent designation of the Central City Interim Special Transportation Area or an extension of the interim designation or the elimination of the STA. These plan provisions outline principles for correcting deficiencies in traffic circulation. TCE Policy 1.1.8 directs the City to provide housing closer to the University so that fewer trips will be entering the area from further out in the urban area, thereby eliminating some of the traffic congestion that now exists. Further, TCE Policy 1.1.9 mentions the STA which was the City and FDOT solution to the problem of correcting existing deficiencies while still allowing growth. TCE Policies 1.1.4 through 1.1.10 combine to further provide controls to prevent degradation of traffic level of service standards. It is clear beyond fair debate that TCE Policies 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 outline principles for correcting deficiencies. Degradation of level of service standards as the result of increased densities in College Park has not been shown to the exclusion of fair debate. The Mass Transit Element (MTE) data and analysis indicates that the relevant transportation bus routes for College Park include Routes 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. As shown by Table 11 of the MTE data and analysis, each of these routes currently have at a minimum a 54% excess capacity available for ridership. In fact, Route 9 has a 90% excess capacity available for ridership. While TCE Policies 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 do not specifically provide for capital improvement implementation, each plan provision does not need to trigger capital improvements or concurrency requirements. The plan however does address concurrency and the triggering of capital improvements in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE). For example, CIE Policies 1.2.1, 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 establish how capital improvements through development orders will be implemented. In part, CIE Policy 1.2.1 provides: By June 1992, the City shall issue final development orders conditioned on the following: The availability of existing public facilities associated with the adopted LOS (level of service standards); The funding of public facilities (based on existing or projected funding sources) listed in the 5 year schedule of Capital Improvements that are needed to maintain adopted level of service standards. Petitioner has alleged that FLUE Objective 1.5 and Policy 2.4.4 are not in compliance with Rules 9J-5.015(1)(a) and 9J- 5.015(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, in that the City failed to assemble and assess data from the Alachua County School Board and the University regarding the shifting of student populations. The referenced rules require a local government to coordinate with adjacent local governments, school boards and other units of local government. Such intergovernmental coordination should address specific problems and needs within each jurisdiction and attempt to resolve the problems and needs through better plan provisions. FLUE, Objective 1.5 provides that the City will: Ensure that the future plans of state government, the School Board of Alachua County, the University of Florida, and other applicable entities are consistent with this comprehensive plan to the extent permitted by law. FLUE Policy 2.4.4 is set forth above in paragraph 49. As established by data and analysis of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE), the City coordinated planning action with the University of Florida and the Alachua County School Board. The School Board did have concerns about the City's 1990 plan designation of J.J. Finely Elementary School as a recreational facility. Through the intergovernmental coordination process, the City and School Board resolved the issue. In terms of justifying a shift of student population, the purpose of FLUE Policy 2.4.4 is not to shift student populations. Instead, the City is attempting to accommodate future population and development within College Park since the growing University population will not be completely accommodated on campus. FLUE Objective 1.5 and Policy 2.4.4 are in compliance with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. MTE Goal 1 and Objective 1.4 comply with requirements of Rules 9J- 5.008(2)(b) and 9J-5.008(3)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, and demonstrate that projected mass transportation levels of service are consistent with the proposal to locate increased student populations in College Park. MTE Goal 1 provides that the City shall: Encourage increased transit usage to reduce the impacts of private motorized vehicles on the social, cultural and natural environment, and provide basic transit for disadvantaged City residents to employment, education facilities and basic services. Objective 1.4 provides: The future land use plan shall distribute land uses in a way that promotes transit ridership. Objective 1.4 satisfies the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.008(3)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, that the plan contain an objective to address the provision of efficient mass transit. Further, as previously noted, there is more than adequate mass transit capacity in the City's system. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that MTE Goal 1 and Objective 1.4 do not comply with provisions of Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner alleges that Stormwater Management Element (SME) Objective 1.3 is not in compliance with Rule 9J-5.011(2)(b)1. and 2., Florida Administrative Code, in that the plan fails to address deficiencies in stormwater and drainage in College Park or coordinate the extension of, or increase in the capacity of those facilities to meet projected future needs. SME Objective 1.3 provides: The City shall ensure that proper and adequate stormwater management facilities are provided to meet future needs. Appendix C of the SME provides a stormwater need assessment list for the City. Need number 69 of the list specifically references College Park and the need to upgrade inadequate facilities. The City made the correction of these inadequate facilities a priority. In SME Policy 1.2.2, the plan calls for a Hogtown Creek Stormwater master plan to address deficiencies. The Hogtown Creek Master Plan is further accounted for in Table 14 of the Capital Improvements Element of the Plan. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that SME Objective 1.3 fails to address deficiencies in stormwater and drainage in College Park. A final issue raised by Petitioner is whether FLUE Objective 1.4 is in compliance with Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)3. and 4., Florida Administrative Code, requirements for provision of adequate facilities and services to accommodate densities and intensities of residential and commercial uses in College Park with regard to drainage and stormwater management, open space and convenient on- site traffic flow and vehicle parking. FLUE Objective 1.4 reads as follows: Upon Plan adoption, the City shall ensure the provisions of services and facilities needed to meet and maintain the LOS standards adopted in this Plan. Between Plan adoption and implementation of the Concurrency Management System, the City shall adjust existing facility capacity to reflect the demand created by final development orders as they are issued. As addressed earlier, the Plan, and supporting data and analysis, make provision for adequate facilities and services to accommodate densities and intensities of residential and commercial uses in College Park with regard to these matters. Petitioner has failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that FLUE Objective 1.4 is not in compliance. State And Regional Plans The City's comprehensive plan is consistent with, compatible with, and furthers the state comprehensive plan construed as a whole. A comprehensive plan not only has to meet the minimum criteria of Rule 9J Administrative Code and be generally found consistent with the regional policy plan, it also has to further and promote the goals within the state comprehensive plan. The promotion of infill development, maximizing existing facilities, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and downtown revitalization, are efforts in furtherance of the state comprehensive plan. Higher densities within downtown areas are generally considered to be not only sound planning principles but they achieve many of the state's goals. The plan is also consistent with, compatible with, and furthers the North Central Florida Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan). The North Central Florida Regional Planning Council's Regional Policy Goals IV, page 1, provides that "Urban sprawl should be minimized and urban development should be directed to a designated urban development area." Regional Policy Goals 16, 4 and 11, IV.2, lists six or seven goals dealing with future development directed to urban development areas. By increasing residential densities and high intensity urban areas, the City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plan implements regional as well as state Growth Management objectives. By providing opportunities for infill development, the plan increases development of potential existing urban areas, thus discouraging urban sprawl. This also serves to encourage the redevelopment of older areas and serves to direct new population growth to areas with existing facilities, thereby promoting the full utilization of those facilities before the expansion of new facilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding the comprehensive plan of the City of Gainesville to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. In lieu of proposed findings, Petitioner submitted a document entitled "Suggested Preliminary Finding". The document consisted of 28 pages containing unnumbered paragraphs with no citation to the record established at the final hearing, contrary to requirements of Rule 22I-6.031(3), Florida Administrative Code. Nonetheless, Petitioner's submittal has been reviewed. Many of the assertions contained in the document appeared to be a cumulative restatement of Petitioner's arguments heard at the final hearing, or proposed findings which are cumulative or subordinate to the findings of the Hearing Officer. To the extent possible, the remainder of Petitioner's suggestions have been reviewed and are addressed by the foregoing findings of fact. Respondent City's Proposed Findings. 1.-3. Accepted. 4.-6. Rejected, legal argument. 7. Accepted. 8.-9. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 10.-20 Accepted. 21. Rejected, unnecessary. 22.-24. Accepted. 25.-28. Rejected, unnecessary. 29. Accepted. 30.-34. Rejected, cumulative. 35.-45. Accepted. 46.-47. Rejected, conclusion of law. 48.-49. Rejected, unnecessary. 50.-59. Accepted. 60. Rejected, argumentative. 61.-65. Accepted. 66. Rejected, argumentative. 67.-71. Accepted. 72.-74. Rejected, argumentative. 75.-84. Accepted. 85.-86. Rejected, cumulative. 87.-90. Accepted. 91.-92. Rejected, unnecessary. Accepted. Rejected, unnecessary. 95.-96. Accepted. 97.-98. Rejected, argumentative. 99.-106. Rejected, unnecessary and cumulative. 107.-114 Accepted, not verbatim. 115. Rejected, unnecessary. 116.-135. Accepted. 136.-139. Rejected, cumulative. 140.-142. Accepted. 143.-146. Rejected, cumulative. 147.-157. Accepted. 158. Rejected, no record citation. 159.-161. Subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 162.-166. Adopted in substance, not verbatim. 167.-172. Adopted in substance. 173.-180. Adopted by reference. Respondent Department's Proposed Findings. 1.-26. Accepted. 27.-50. Adopted in substance, not verbatim. 51.-58. Accepted. 59. Adopted by reference. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Dr. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Dr. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Dr. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Elizabeth A. Waratuke, Esquire Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 1110 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Thomas D. Rider, 1624 Northwest 7th Place Gainesville, Florida 32603
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether two amendments to the Sunny Isles Beach Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2019-549 and 2019-550 (Plan Amendments) on December 19, 2019, are "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties Petitioner resides and owns property within the City. Petitioner provided oral comments and objections to the City during the period beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments and ending with the adoption of the same. The City is a Florida municipal corporation with the authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167. Land Use Designations The City was incorporated in 1997. In 2000, the City adopted its initial Comp Plan. As part of the initial Comp Plan, the City established the Town Center Planned Development District (Town Center) as an overlay area, which did not establish any densities or intensities. However, the Town Center overlay did contain underlying land use designations for the area as set forth in Policy 14A and 14B of the Comp Plan, which had established densities and intensities. The Mixed-Use Business land use category established a base density of 25 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), with a maximum density of 85 du/acre with density bonuses. Intensity was limited to a maximum of 2.0 floor area ratio (FAR). Community Facilities land use category established a maximum density of 25 du/acre, with the intensity limited to a maximum 2.0 FAR. Recreation Open Space land use category does not allow for development; therefore, there is zero density and intensity. In addition to the densities and intensities permitted for the identified land use categories, pursuant to Policy 14C of the Comp Plan, locations within the Town Center were designated as receiver districts for Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). Specifically, subparagraph (c) of Policy 14C established the limits on the use of TDRs by providing that: In no case […] shall the density or intensity on a receiver site exceed thirty (30) percent increase in the maximum permitted by the land use category limitations set in Policy 15B . . . and . . . in no case shall the resulting density bonus increases on any given receiver site exceed the number of dwelling units attainable on the sender site(s) under [comprehensive plan] provisions so as to assure NO net increase in city-wide residential dwelling unit Comprehensive Plan capacities occurs. Policy 14B of the Comp Plan set forth the Town Center's goals and objectives, including: The Town Center is encouraged to become the hub for future urban development intensifications around which a more compact and efficient urban structure will evolve. The Town Center is intended to be a moderate to high intensity design-unified area which will contain a concentration of different urban functions integrated both horizontally and vertically. The center will be characterized by physical cohesiveness, direct accessibility by mass transit services and high quality urban design. The Town Center is located to have direct connections to the 167th Street Causeway and Collins Avenue to ensure a high level of accessibility to the northeast Miami-Dade/bi-county area. Background In 2004, the City established the Town Center Zoning District in its Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which provided a maximum FAR of 5.2, and a maximum density of 75 du/acre. The intensity in the LDRs, as reflected by the FAR, exceeded the amount in the Comp Plan. However, the density in the LDRs was less than what was allowed in the Comp Plan. In 2007, the City proposed a comprehensive plan amendment that would have assigned density and intensity to the Town Center Planned Development District in its entirety. The state land planning agency objected to the proposed plan amendment in part because of a lack of data and analysis related to concurrency, emergency services, and hurricane evacuation routes. Beginning in 2005, the City approved a number of site plans for various development projects in the southern portion of the Town Center with underlying Mixed-Use Business land use designations. At that time, the City reviewed those developments solely for compliance with the City's LDRs for the Town Center Zoning District and without consideration of the maximum density and intensity allowable for the underlying land uses in the Comp Plan. As a result, all the approved projects in the southern portion of the Town Center with an underlying land use of Mixed-Use Business were permitted to be developed with intensities up to 5.2 FAR, which exceeded the allowable intensity of 2.0 FAR set forth in the Comp Plan for the Mixed-Use Business land use category. However, the densities allowed for those approved projects followed the Comp Plan, as the maximum density for the Mixed-Use Business land use category was 85 du/acre, whereas the maximum density allowable in the LDRs was 75 du/acre. Therefore, even though the City had not been evaluating the proposed site plans for compliance with the Comp Plan, all of the developed projects had densities that complied with the Comp Plan. In December 2018, a public hearing was conducted by the City Commission to consider the site plan for a development known as the Infinity Project. The proposed site for the Infinity Project was in the northern half of the Town Center. The City Commission unanimously voted to defer the matter to the January 2019 City Commission Meeting. To date, the application for site plan approval for the Infinity Project in the northern portion of the Town Center has not been approved or considered by the City Commission. While the City was considering the Infinity Project, the City became aware of the inconsistency between its Comp Plan and its LDRs with respect to the density and intensities within the entire Town Center area. As a result, the City began to take actions to remedy this inconsistency. In July 2019, the City Commission considered an ordinance to transmit to the state land planning agency, the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), a text-based comprehensive plan amendment to modify the FAR in the entire Town Center area. The City Commission voted to defer the matter. Instead, on August 28, 2019, the City Commission adopted on first reading an ordinance establishing a 12-month moratorium on the submission and consideration of any zoning applications in the Town Center District. The City Commission adopted the ordinance on second reading on September 19, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the City Commission also adopted a resolution declaring zoning in progress relating to development and redevelopment in the Town Center Zoning District. The Plan Amendments On October 17, 2019, the City Commission adopted on first reading Ordinance No. 2019-549, transmitting to DEO text-based amendments to the Town Center District that divided the Town Center into two overlay development districts: Town Center South and Town Center North. The text-based amendments also provided for density and intensity in the Town Center South overlay for the first time. Specifically, the maximum density was established at a maximum of 75 du/acre, and the intensity was established at a maximum of 5.2 FAR. These were the same as the LDRs. The Plan Amendments did not amend any portions of Policy 14C of the Comp Plan with respect to TDRs. The purpose of these amendments was to grandfather the various developments within Town Center South, which were previously approved with intensities that were inconsistent with the Comp Plan. Contrary to Petitioner's allegation, the density of each of these developments complied with the Comp Plan at the time of each’s approval. On October 17, 2019, the City Commission also adopted on first reading Ordinance No. 2019-550, transmitting to DEO the FLUM Plan Amendments reflecting the creation of the Town Center South and Town Center North overlay districts, and providing for amendment of the land use designation for certain properties located in Town Center South. Amendments to land use designations for specific properties in the Town Center South overlay area included changing the Bella Vista Park and Gateway Park from Mixed-Use Business to Recreation and Open Space. The Gateway Park Parking Garage changed from Recreation and Open Space to Community Facility. The Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Facility changed from Mixed-Use Business to Community Facility. All these FLUM changes reflected a decrease in density. On October 17, 2019, the City Commission passed Resolution 2019-3006 (Plan of Action), adopting a schedule to bring the City's LDRs into conformity with the provisions of the amended Comp Plan, as provided by section 163.3194(1)(b). On October 30, 2019, the Florida Department of Transportation issued a letter to Alex David, the City’s planning and land use consultant, advising that it had reviewed the proposed text-based Plan Amendments and "found that the amendment will not have an adverse impact on transportation resources and facilities of State importance." On November 15, 2019, the South Florida Water Management District sent correspondence advising that there are "no regionally significant water resource issues" and offered only technical guidance regarding regional water supply planning. On November 25, 2019, the South Florida Regional Planning Council found that the proposed Plan Amendments were generally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida. On November 22, 2019, the City's Mayor received correspondence from DEO advising that it had reviewed the proposed Plan Amendments and "identified no comment related to adverse impacts to important state resources and facilities within the [DEO's] authorized scope of review." DEO did provide a technical assistance comment. On December 19, 2019, the City Commission adopted both Ordinances on second reading. DEO's technical assistance comment directed the City to clarify that Town Center South and Town Center North were overlay districts and not separate land use categories. The City incorporated that clarification in bold text in the body of the adopted ordinance. The City then forwarded the adoption package of Plan Amendments to DEO for its review. On December 30, 2019, DEO issued a letter to Mr. David advising that the Plan Amendments package was complete and would be reviewed in accordance with section 163.3184(3). On January 28, 2020, DEO issued a letter to the City's Mayor advising that it had completed its review "and identified no provision that necessitates a challenge of the Ordinances adopting the amendment." Petitioner challenged the Plan Amendments on four grounds: (1) the City failed to submit relevant and appropriate data and analysis; (2) the Plan Amendments were internally inconsistent with the existing Comp Plan; (3) the Town Center South District was a new land use category; and (4) the Plan Amendments should not have been reviewed under the expedited review process pursuant to section 163.3184(2). Relevant and Appropriate Data and Analysis Petitioner alleged that the City did not provide any data or analysis to show it considered the impacts of alleged "massive increase of density and intensity in Town Center South on hurricane evacuation times [. . .]". Hurricane Evacuation Times and CHHA Petitioner's expert witness, Daniel L. Trescott, an expert in comprehensive planning and hurricane evacuation, opined that only increases in density would impact hurricane evacuation times, and that increases in intensity would not adversely affect hurricane evacuation times. Specifically, Mr. Trescott testified that if there was no increase in density then, in his expert opinion, the Plan Amendments would not trigger the need to evaluate the other policies and issues related to hurricane evacuation and Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA). Petitioner did not introduce any evidence that would support a finding that the Plan Amendments would actually increase density in Town Center South. Mr. Trescott testified that he did not perform an analysis that would demonstrate potential impacts on density resulting from the Plan Amendments. Also, Petitioner did not introduce any evidence to support a finding that the Plan Amendments would diminish future hurricane evacuation times, in the absence of a density increase. In fact, the undisputed testimony of the City's experts established that the Plan Amendments actually decreased the net density allowed in Town Center South. Claudia Hasbun, the City's planning and zoning director, was accepted as an expert in land use planning. Ms. Hasbun testified that the Plan Amendments would decrease the potential maximum allowable density in Town Center South by 462 dwelling units. Ms. Hasbun's analysis demonstrated that after consideration of the density provided by the Plan Amendments, including the land use changes reflected in the FLUM amendment, there was a significant reduction in potential maximum allowable density in Town Center South. Ms. Hasbun testified that the net total number of dwelling units that could ever be developed would decrease by 462 dwelling units for Town Center South because of the Plan Amendments. This analysis encompassed the absolute maximum redevelopment potential, and still reflected a reduction in density in Town Center South. Mr. Trescott confirmed that the potential maximum allowable density that existed under the current Comp Plan was actually greater than would be allowed under the Plan Amendments. He also acknowledged that land use changes reflected on the FLUM amendment would result in a decrease in density within Town Center South. Therefore, the uncontroverted evidence showed that the Plan Amendments decrease density. The City also presented the expert witness testimony of Alex David, the planning consultant with Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. Mr. David testified that there would not be any impact on hurricane evacuation times resulting from the Plan Amendments. The reason was that the potential maximum allowable density resulting from the Plan Amendments was significantly reduced from the existing maximum potential density. Mr. David's testimony was undisputed, and Petitioner's expert witness conceded that there would be a net decrease in maximum potential density resulting from the Plan Amendments. Mr. David testified that a map created from a 2016 Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges for Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model was utilized to determine whether any portions of Town Center South were in the CHHA. The referenced SLOSH map was incorporated into the Comp Plan in 2016. Mr. David testified that the SLOSH model does depict five very minimal areas of Town Center South within the CHHA. However, those areas either have an underlying land use designation of Recreation Open Space, cannot be developed for residential purposes and have no density, or they are located on parcels that have already been developed (or in one case is currently being developed) at higher elevations. The parcels developed or being developed at higher elevations have the appropriate mitigation to remove them from the CHHA. As a result, under the 2016 SLOSH model map in the Comp Plan, none of the property affected by the Plan Amendments was located in the CHHA. During the hearing, Mr. Trescott suggested that the City should utilize the map developed from the 2017 version of the SLOSH model, rather than the 2016 version adopted in the Comp Plan. Despite testifying that the City was required to use the 2017 version of the SLOSH map, Mr. Trescott admitted that Miami-Dade County, the entity responsible for emergency management, had not adopted the 2017 SLOSH map. Mr. Trescott also admitted that the State of Florida had not adopted the 2017 SLOSH map into the State's Emergency Plan. In addition, Mr. David testified that he was unaware of any jurisdiction in Florida that had adopted the 2017 SLOSH map. Thus, it was reasonable for the City to rely on the data contained in the 2016 SLOSH map incorporated in its Comp Plan. Consistent with Mr. Trescott's testimony, since there is no increase in density, the Plan Amendments would not trigger the need to evaluate the other policies and issues related to hurricane evacuation and CHHA. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the City failed to provide relevant and appropriate data or analysis with respect to impact on hurricane evacuation times. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that such an evaluation was not required because density was decreased by the Plan Amendments. Even so, the evidence established that since density was decreased by the Plan Amendments, hurricane evacuation times would not be impacted, and that, pursuant to the 2016 SLOSH model map adopted in the Comp Plan, none of the property affected by the Plan Amendments was located within the CHHA. Concurrency Analysis Petitioner also contended that the City failed to submit any data or analysis to show the impacts on sewer and water capacities, traffic/transportation, coastal management, infrastructure, and schools. However, the memorandum incorporated into Ordinance No. 2019-549 clearly demonstrated that an analysis was conducted. The analysis determined that the City did meet its level of service (LOS) standards for each of those areas. In addition, Mr. David testified to the methodology used to analyze concurrency for each of the areas and the conclusions reached with respect to them. His testimony was not contradicted and demonstrated that the Plan Amendments meet the City's LOS standards. Mr. David testified that in completing the concurrency analysis, he utilized data based upon the existing development in Town Center South. He opined that the methodology was a conservative approach for evaluating concurrency. Mr. David also testified that all the projects developed in Town Center South had been individually and separately reviewed for concurrency purposes during the site plan approval process. Internal Inconsistency Petitioner alleged that the Plan Amendments were internally inconsistent with two provisions of the City's existing Comp Plan. Objective 3C, which reads as follows: The City of Sunny Isles Beach shall not increase maximum densities and intensities in the Coastal High Hazard Area beyond that which is permitted in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations as of May 1, 2016, including bonuses and transfer of development rights provided therein. The provision of facilities and services to accomplish the timely evacuation of the City's residents in advance of approaching hurricanes shall be a priority of the Sunny Isles Beach's transportation and hurricane preparedness programs. The City's Comp Plan did not assign densities and intensities in the Town Center Development District overlay as of May 1, 2016. However, as previously found, the City's LDRs did include densities and intensities for the Town Center as of May 1, 2016. These Plan Amendments did not increase the densities and intensities contained in the LDRs as of that date, and therefore, are not internally inconsistent with the City's existing Comp Plan. Petitioner also asserted that the Plan Amendments were inconsistent with Policy 5C, which provides as follows: All planning activities pertaining to development and redevelopment and the provision of public services and facilities in the City of Sunny Isles Beach shall be consistent with the "Population Estimates and Projections" outlined below, as they are periodically amended and updated. During the hearing, the City introduced the 2019 population estimates derived from the U.S. Census Bureau. The census data reflected that the 2019 population estimate was 21,804, which was below the 2020 estimates set forth in Policy 5C. Further, the unrebutted testimony of the City's experts, Ms. Hasbun and Mr. David, was that the Plan Amendments would decrease the maximum potential density that could be developed in Town Center South. Petitioner did not introduce any evidence that the population estimates and projections would increase because of the Plan Amendments. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments were internally inconsistent with Objective 3C and Policy 5C of the City's existing Comp Plan. New Land Use Category Petitioner alleged that Town Center South was a new land use category. Petitioner referenced the comments from DEO that the City should consider amending the FLU text to clarify that Town Center North and Town Center South are overlay districts, not separate land use categories. However, the City did specifically incorporate those comments in Ordinance No. 2019-549, where the word "overlay" appears in bold text to reflect said clarification. Petitioner's claim that the City created a new land use category called "Town Center South" was not supported by the evidence. Expedited Review Process Petitioner alleged that the City should not have proceeded with the expedited review process because of the City's alleged past failures to comply with the law. Section 163.3184(2) provides for an expedited review process for adoption of comprehensive plans and amendments. The two exceptions to this expedited review process are contained in section 163.3184(2)(b) and (c), neither of which are applicable to the Plan Amendments. Petitioner suggested that the Plan Amendments should have been treated as an evaluation and appraisal review (EAR) under section 163.3191. However, the determination of whether the comprehensive plan should be evaluated under this provision is the responsibility of the City. Also, the City's last EAR was conducted in 2016, so the City is not required to perform the analysis again until 2023. Petitioner failed to introduce any evidence to support a finding that the City is precluded from proceeding pursuant to section 163.3184(3). Summary Petitioner failed to carry her burden of proving beyond fair debate that the City of Sunny Isles Beach Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2019-549 and 2019-550 on December 19, 2019, are not in compliance, as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b).
Conclusions For Petitioner Magaly Gordo: Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney Suite 107 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 For Respondent City of Sunny Isles Beach: Gregory Thomas Stewart, Esquire Elizabeth Desloge Ellis, Esquire Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Suite 200 1500 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valerie Vicente, Esquire Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Suite 1000 8201 Peters Road Plantation, Florida 33324
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the City of Sunny Isles Beach Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2019-549 and 2019-550 on December 19, 2019, are "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 2021. Gregory Thomas Stewart, Esquire Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. Suite 200 1500 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elizabeth Desloge Ellis, Esquire Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. Suite 200 1500 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney Suite 107 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Edward A. Dion, Esquire City of Sunny Isles Beach Fourth Floor 18070 Collins Avenue Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160 Valerie Vicente Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. Suite 1000 8201 Peters Road Plantation, Florida 33324 Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Dane Eagle, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a development order (Resolution No. 233- 1991) issued by Monroe County on June 26, 1991, to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., is inconsistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations, and/or whether it violates a Joint Stipulation of Settlement previously executed by the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), Monroe County (the "County"), and Key Largo Associates, Ltd.'s predecessor in title.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: DCA is the State Land Planning Agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. The County issued the Development Order which is the subject of this proceeding. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical Concern as designated in Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Development orders issued by a local government agency for an area of critical state concern are subject to review by DCA pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. On April 8, 1985, DCA, Monroe County, and I. D. Properties, the previous owner of the subject property, executed a Joint Stipulation of Settlement regarding DCA's challenge to a prior development order for the subject property. That Joint Stipulation of Settlement required the preservation of certain tropical hammock on the site including Paradise Tree hammock. After executing the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, I. D. Properties quitclaimed its interest in the site to Key Largo Associates, Ltd. Key Largo Associates, Ltd. proceeded to seek approval from Monroe County to develop the property inconsistent with the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. Those efforts resulted in the Development Order which is the subject of this case. The County Commission issued the Development Order granting a major conditional use permit for the Project to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., after being ordered to do so by the Circuit Court for Monroe County. The Development Order purports to authorize the complete elimination of existing tropical hammock on the site including the Paradise Tree hammock. The Development Order is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations adopted thereunder. In addition, the Development Order is contrary to the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order which sustains the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs and which rescinds the issuance of Monroe County Resolution No. 233- 1991. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August 1993. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Betty J. Steffens, Esquire McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Blackwater Associates Partnership 7225 S.W. 108th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Ray Parker Parker Real Estate 2028 North Dixie Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 G. Steven Pfeiffer General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David K. Coburn, Secretary FLWAC Exec. Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Interstate-Tallahassee West has demonstrated that development rights in certain real property it owns have vested against the provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Purchase of the Property. In the Spring and Summer of 1985, Thomas W. Anthony began an inquiry relative to the purchase and development of 21.5 acres (original tract) located at the intersection of Capital Circle West and I-10. (R-2, pp. 11-15.) On December 11, 1985, a Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase was executed between Rehold, Inc. and C. Gary Skartvedt, Thomas W. Anthony, and Mary J. Price, d/b/a Denver West Joint Venture (Denver, Colorado) for the purchase of the original tract. (Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase.) On March 14, 1986, the Interstate-Tallahassee West Partnership Agreement was executed and Interstate purchased the original tract from Rehold, Inc. (Chronological Listing of Events, p. 1.) At the time of the closing on the initial purchase of the original tract, the property was zoned C-2, with the exception of a small portion in the northwest corner of the tract which was zoned A-2. (R-2, pp. 34-35, Preliminary Plat approved on January 18, 1990.) Development Chronology. During 1987 and 1988 the original tract was held to realize growth potential in terms of Interstate's economic investment. (Chronological Listing of Events, p. 2.) In 1989, Interstate began negotiations for the sale of a portion of the original tract to Kent C. Deeb (Deeb). (Chronological Listing of Events, p. 2.) On June 26, 1989, Broward Davis and Associates, Inc. prepared a drawing of easement location and depiction of a 25 year flood line relative to the portion of the original tract which was the subject of the negotiations between Interstate and Deeb. (Chronological Listing of Events, p. 2, R-2 p. 20.) On September 12, 1989, Tilden Lobnitz and Cooper, Inc., (Consulting Engineers) recommended a reconfiguration of the original tract relative to the location of high voltage power lines. (Chronological Listing of Events, p. 2.) On October 11,1989, final descriptions of the lakes on the original tract were prepared for Interstate by Broward Davis and Associates. (Chronological Listing of Events p. 2.) On November 13, 1989, a sketch depicting a revised legal description of a proposal to subdivide the subject property was prepared for Interstate by Broward Davis and Associates, Inc. (Chronological Listing of Events, p. 2.) On December 7, 1989, an Environmental Assessment of the site was prepared for Interstate by Jim Stidham and Associates. (Chronological Listing of Events, p. 2.) On December 14, 1989, Deeb executed a Purchase and Sale Agreement which contemplated the conditional purchase of 6.98 acres of the original tract from Interstate. Interstate signed the Purchase and Sale Agreement on December 27, 1989. (Purchase and Sale Agreement, p. 8.) Interstate contends the execution of this Purchase and Sale Agreement resulted in it incurring substantial contractual obligations and argues that these obligations (along with other items and events) are elements in support of "common law vesting" of its development rights. This agreement is the subject of expanded discussion later in this Final Order. The services that Interstate obtained during 1989 (as described in paragraphs 6-11 above) were related to the eventual consummation of the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Deeb. (R-2, pp. 20-21 and 27, Chronological listing of Events, p. 2.) On January 18, 1990, the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission approved Interstate's Preliminary Plat of the subject property. (Chronological Listing of Events, p. 3.) On April 4, 1990, the Tallahassee City Commission approved Interstate's previously filed application to rezone a portion of the subject property from A-2 to C-2. (Chronological Listing of Events, p. 3.) Interstate entered into a written Utility Agreement with the City on or about July 10,1990. (Letter of agreement dated June 25, 1990 from Henry L. Holshouser, Director of Growth Management, to Interstate Tallahassee West.) The Utility Agreement is the subject of expanded discussion later in this Final Order. On August 20, 1990 a Vested Rights Application covering 6.98 acres of the original tract, which is the subject of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Interstate and Deeb, was approved. (Letter dated August 21,1990 to Kent Deeb from Mark L. Gumula, Director of Planning, Tallahassee-Leon Planning Commission, containing CERTIFICATION OF VESTED STATUS.) The Vested Rights Application for the approximately 15.6 acres remaining of the original tract was disapproved by the Staff Committee and that portion of the property is the subject of this appeal. (R-1, p. 17.) Interstate has not prepared a specific building or development design for the property which is the subject of this appeal. (R-2, p. 97, R-1, p. 5.) As of the date of the hearing in this case, Interstate had no specific building plans for the property which is the subject of this appeal. (R-2, p. 38.) As of the date of the hearing in this case, Interstate had not chosen a specific land use for the property. (R-2, pp. 38-39.) As of the date of the hearing in this case, Interstate had not made application for environmental permits for the property. (R-2, pp. 49 and 98.) As of the date of the hearing in this case, the only infrastructure that had been constructed on the original tract are two storm water ponds which were built in the 1970's, and prior to Interstate's purchase of the property. (R-2, pp. 86, 87.) Interstate was never assured by the City that the property could be used for any specific use such as a motel, apartments or offices. Interstate and the City made no commitments as to any specific uses of the property. (R-2, pp. 47-48.) The City advised Interstate by letter dated August 13, 1990, that the 2010 Comprehensive Plan requires Planned Unit Development zoning for an office park (which is by definition an office building or buildings of more than 40,000 square feet). (Letter from Martin P. Black, City's Chief of Land Use Administration, to Interstate Tallahassee West, dated August 13, 1990.) The City did not advise Interstate that it could not build such an office building on its property. (R-2, pp. 45, 46, and 100.) As of the date of the hearing in this case, Interstate had not requested a determination from the City as to whether the 2010 Comprehensive Plan would prohibit development of the property as the market might dictate. (R-2, p. 40.) At the hearing in this case, Interstate presented the testimony of Mr. Deeb regarding the existence of a master environmental permit for the original tract which was in place before Interstate purchased the property. (R-2, p. 67.) However, Interstate offered no evidence that such permit contemplated any specific use or density regarding development of the property. Costs Associated with Interstate's Property. Interstate purchased the original tract in 1986 at a cost of $748,000. (R-2, p. 17; Development Expenditures.) The cost to purchase the property was not incurred in reliance on any representation of the City. Interstate has expended $325,063.82 in interest on acquisition loans, pursuant to the property purchase. (Development Expenditures.) The interest cost on acquisition loans was not incurred in reliance on any representation of the City. Interstate has expended $46,824.95 in Ad Valorem taxes on the property. (Development Expenditures) These costs were not incurred based on any representation of the City. Interstate has expended $28,839.75 on engineering and survey work on the property. (Development Expenditures) The costs of the engineering and survey work during 1989 were substantially incurred by Interstate in conjunction with the negotiations of the potential sale of the 6.98 acre parcel of its property to Deeb. (Chronological Listing of Events, pp. 2-3; R-2, p. 27.) These costs were not incurred based upon any representation of the City. Interstate has expended $8,500.00 in legal and miscellaneous fees associated with development of the original tract and the potential sale of the 6.98 acres to Deeb. (Chronological Listing, Development Expenditures) Interstate has failed to prove that these costs were incurred based on any representation of the City. The Purchase and Sale Agreement with Deeb. Negotiations between Interstate and Deeb regarding The Purchase and Sale Agreement began in the Spring of 1989. (R-2, p. 20.) Deeb executed the agreement on December 14, 1989, and the Interstate partners signed the agreement on December 27, 1989. (Purchase and Sale Agreement, p. 8.) Interstate does not assert that the City was privy to this agreement and has failed to prove that it relied on any representation of the City in entering into this agreement or in incurring any costs or future obligations pursuant to the agreement. Interstate was aware that the 2010 Comprehensive Plan was being developed when the Tallahassee-Leon Planning Commission approved Interstate's Preliminary Plat on January 18, 1990. (R-2, p. 50.) Interstate knew that the Comprehensive Plan "was coming" at the time Mr. Anthony (partner in Interstate) understood that the original tract was to be subdivided in order to "cut out" a site for Deeb so as to "key on him" as to the development of the property. (R-2, p. 46.) The Preliminary Subdivision Plat drawing, subsequently presented to the Tallahassee-Leon Planning Commission, is dated November 29, 1990. (Preliminary Subdivision Plat as approved on January 18, 1990.) The testimony of Thomas W. Anthony that Interstate would not have entered into the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Deeb if it knew that it would not be able to move forward with C-2 development of the remaining lots is accepted. (R-2, p. 36.) However, Interstate has failed to prove that it relied on any representation of the City that it could so proceed upon adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Utility Agreement. The Utility Agreement (previously described in paragraph 16) was executed by the City on June 25, 1990. The agreement was signed by on behalf of Interstate on June 29, 1990, by C. W. Harbin and Tommy Faircloth, and on July 10, 1990, by Mr. Anthony. This agreement outlines what Interstate and the City have each agreed to do in terms of Interstate's proposed development. The agreement describes Interstate's proposed development activity in general terms as "commercial development". In this agreement, the City makes no representation or commitments relative to any specific land use or specific density concerning Interstate's property. Interstate has failed to prove that the City, in executing the Utility Agreement, made any representation upon which Interstate relied in incurring any costs or future obligations. The Preliminary Plat Approval. The Preliminary Plat Approval of January 18, 1990, does not contemplate any specific uses, intensities or designations. (R-2, pp. 47-48.) Interstate has failed to prove that the approval of the Preliminary Plat constitutes an act or representation upon which Interstate relied in incurring any costs or future obligations. The A-2 Rezoning Approval. Interstate has failed to prove that it relied upon the act of the City, in approving Interstate's request to rezone a portion of the original tract from A-2 to C-2 in incurring any costs or future obligations. Interstate's Application for Vested Rights. On or about July 25, 1990, Interstate filed an application for vested rights determination (Application), with the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department. (Application VR0008T.) The Following information concerning the development of the subject property is contained on the Application: "Kent C. Deeb" is listed as the "owner/agent". Question 3 lists the name of the project as "Interstates Tallahassee West." The project is described as a "Four Lot Subdivision." The project location is described as "lots 1 and 2 Block A Commonwealth Center." The total project costs are estimated at $2.5 Million." Progress towards completion of the project is listed as: A. Planning: "Plans; Rezoning; Subdivision Plat Approval; Utility Agreement for Extension with the City"; B. Permitting: "Existing with the original Commonwealth Center Development; C. Site Preparation: "Zoning, Platting, and Plans"; D. Construction: "Original Holding Ponds". Total expenditures to date attributed to the progress towards completion of the project are listed as $1.325 Million. The form of government approval allowing the project to proceed is listed as "Original Plat; Rezoning; Subdivision Plat." On August 20, 1990, a hearing was held to consider the application before the City's three member Staff Committee. Kent C. Deeb appeared and testified for Interstate. By letter dated August 21, 1990, Mark Gumula, Director of Planning for the Tallahassee-Leon Planning Department, informed Interstate that the Application had been denied. During the hearing before the undersigned, Interstate stipulated that it sought approval of its Application based upon "common law vesting" and not upon "statutory vesting," as those terms are defined in City of Tallahassee Ordinance 90-0-0043AA.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the City of Hallandale's comprehensive plan adopted in Ordinance No. 1999-12 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Mickey Biss, is an individual who resides in Miami, Dade County, Florida. Respondent, City of Hallandale (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipal corporation located within Broward County, Florida. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Respondents, Ocean Marine Yacht Club, Inc. and Security Management Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Ocean Marine"), are corporations organized under the laws of Florida and Maryland, respectively. Intervenor, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Standing. Mr. Biss owns a condominium, unit No. 2109, located at 2030 South Ocean Drive, Hallandale, Broward County, Florida. Mr. Biss' parents reside in the condominium unit. Mr. Biss made oral and written comments to the City during the adoption of the amendment at issue in this case. Ocean Marine and Security Management own parcels of property located at 1935 and 1945 South Ocean Drive, Hallandale, Broward County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is the subject of the plan amendment at issue in this proceeding. All of the parties proved that they are "affected persons" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. All of the Parties have standing to participate in this proceeding. The City and Its Comprehensive Plan. General The City is located in Broward County, Florida. Broward County is a charter county with county-wide powers over land use planning. The City has adopted the City of Hallandale Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan"). The City's Plan has been determined to be "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act. The City's Plan includes a Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE") and Future Land Use Maps (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"), a Coastal Management Element, a Capital Improvements Element, and other elements required by the Act. Among the land use categories allowed pursuant to the FLUE are residential "High Density" and residential "High Density-2." Residential property designated High Density is subject to a "maximum density of twenty-five (25) dwelling units per net acre." The residential High Density-2 land use category was created by an amendment to the City's Plan adopted by the City on February 5, 1998, through Ordinance No. 1998-3. Residential property designated High Density-2 is subject to a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. This new land use category was also added to the FLUM. The amendment to the City's Plan to add High Density-2 as a land use category was found to be "in compliance" by the Department. It was also found to be consistent with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. The High Density-2 land use category is subject to the following limitation: Dwelling units and accessory structures subject to a maximum density of fifty (50) dwelling units per net acre, provided however that any density over 25 dwelling units per net ace may only be permitted by the City Commission on site specific properties by assignment of Flexibility Units in accordance with the Flexibility Rules of the Administrative Rules Document, Broward County Land Use Plan. The High Density-2 land use category of the City's Plan is consistent with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, which contains a "High (50) Residential" land use category allowing up to 50 dwelling units per acre. The City's Urban Infill Area and Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas The FLUE of the City's Plan establishes an Urban Infill Area in the City. The Urban Infill Area is delineated on the FLUM. The following Objective and Policies concerning the Urban Infill Area are included in the City's Plan: OBJECTIVE 1.17: Establish criteria which encourage development of urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s) to promote economic development, increase housing opportunities, and maximize the use of existing public facilities and services. POLICY 1.17.1: Increase economic development and employment opportunities within urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s). POLICY 1.17.2: Adequate housing opportunities necessary to accommodate all segments of present and future residents shall be provided within urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s). The City's Plan also designates Urban Infill Areas as Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas. FLUE Policy 1.17.4 of the City's Plan provides the following: Designated urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s) shall be excepted from transportation facilities concurrency requirements consistent with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; however, application will be subject to providing a traffic analysis consistent with the Traffic Circulation Element and potential improvements to minimize impacts. Coastal High Hazard Area The City's Plan includes a Coastal Management Element addressing, among other things, hurricane evacuation from the City's coastal high-hazard area and participation in the development of evacuation plans by Broward County. The FLUE of the City's Plan also includes Policies providing for protection of the City's coastal high-hazard area. The City's Plan, prior to the adoption of the Challenged Amendment, allowed the designation of property located anywhere in the City, including the coastal high-hazard area, as High Density-2. This fact must be considered in interpreting the provisions of the Coastal Management Element and the FLUE of the City's Plan dealing with development within the coastal high hazard area. Flexibility Units. The Broward County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "County's Plan") includes an Administrative Rules Document. The Administrative Rules Document was adopted to assist local governments, among others, in interpreting the County's Plan. The FLUE of the City's Plan adopts by reference the Administrative Rules Document as they relate to flexibility units. The Future Land Use Maps of the County's Plan divide Broward County into 125 geographic areas designated as "flexibility zones." The number of flexibility units available within each zone is determined by subtracting the number of dwelling units permitted within a flexibility zone by a local government's plan from the number of dwelling units permitted within the same flexibility zone by the County's Plan. Local governments are allowed to, within certain specified limits, rearrange land uses, including residential densities, within flexibility zones located within the local government's jurisdiction. The City is divided into two flexibility zones: Flex Zones Nos. 93 and 94. The FLUE of the City's Plan contains a table on pages 2-28 and 2-32 which sets out the number of flexibility units available in Flex Zone Nos. 93 and 94. The City's Plan allows the use of flexibility units anywhere within either Flex Zone of the City, including areas within the coastal high hazard area. A "Summary" included with the table provides, in pertinent part, that flexibility units may be "assigned to any particular site within the Flexibility Zone to allow for increased residential densities above the amount permitted under the Hallandale Land Use Plan map. . . ." The flexibility units are available for transfer without the need to amend the City's Plan. At the time that the Challenged Amendment was adopted, there were a total of 2,429 flexibility units available within Flex Zone No. 93. The Subject Property. The Subject Property consists of approximately 5.75 acres of land. The parcel of the Subject Property located at 1935 Ocean Drive is vacant. The parcel of the Subject Property located at 1945 Ocean Drive is developed. The developed parcel has an 80-unit motel on it. The motel located on the Subject Property was constructed in 1956. The buildings on the Subject Property are in substantial decay. The Subject Property is surrounded on three sides by property used for high density multi-family residences. The property to the north, Chelsea Hall, has been developed at a density of 54 units per acre. The properties to the east, Malage Towers, Biltmore Mansions, Taromina Apartments, and Hemispheres Ocean, have been developed at densities of 75, 19, 45, and 117 units per acre, respectively. The property to the south, Hemispheres, has been developed at a density of 85 units per acre. Densities in the area surrounding the Subject Property averaged approximately 86 units per acre. The Subject Property lies totally within the City's Urban Infill Area. The Subject Property is, therefore, also considered to be located totally within a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area. The Subject Property also lies within the coastal high-hazard area. The Subject Property is located within the City's Flex Zone No. 93. The Subject Amendment. On June 1, 1999, the City passed Ordinance No. 1999-12, amending the City's Plan by changing the FLUM land use designation for the Subject Property (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Amendment"). The Challenged Amendment changed the land use designation of the Subject property from residential High Density to residential High Density-2. The Challenged Amendment was adopted pursuant to the procedures allowed for "small scale" development amendments set forth in Section 163.3187 of the Act. Pursuant to this provision, the City decided that it would elect to have the Department review the Challenged Amendment. The change in land use designation on the Subject Property increased the allowable development of the Subject Property from a maximum of 25 units per acre to a maximum of 50 units per acre through the use of "flexibility units." The Challenged Amendment assigns 143 flexibility units out of the 2,429 available within Flex Zone No. 93 to the Subject Property and specifically provides " . . . the applicant agrees the assignment of 143 Flexibility Units to the parcel is a maximum and agrees the use of density above 25 units per acre will be determined by the City Commission upon review of a future major development plan." Mr. Biss' Challenge. Mr. Biss filed a Petition for Hearing to Challenge Compliance of a Small Scale Development Amendment with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Biss alleged generally that the Challenged Amendment is not "in compliance" for the following reasons: The Challenged Amendment is not a small scale amendment pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c) of the Act because the density of the Subject Property is more than ten units per acre and the Subject Property is not vacant; The Challenged Amendment is contrary to the State Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1997). In particular, Mr. Biss alleged that the Challenged Amendment is contrary to Section 187.201(7)(b)22., Florida Statutes (1997), which requires the following: 22. Require local governments, in cooperation with regional and state agencies, to prepare advance plans for the safe evacuation of coastal residents. The Challenged Amendment, by increasing densities in the coastal high-hazard area, increases the dangers from hurricanes contrary to Coastal Element Goals 2 and 3, and Objective 2.2 of the City's Plan, and FLUE Policies 1.9.5 and 2.7.2 of the City's Plan; The Challenged Amendment degrades the level of service standard of Hallandale Beach Boulevard contrary to FLUE Element Policy 1.12.4 and Section 9.3.2.1 of the Transportation Element of the City's Plan; There is insufficient data and analysis to demonstrate that the possible additional 143 residential units in the coastal high-hazard zone will not negatively impact the City's ability to evacuate the coastal high-hazard area; and The Challenged Amendment fails to consider the impacts on public schools contrary to the County's Plan. Qualification as a Small Scale Amendment. The Subject Property is located within the Urban Infill Area and a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area. Therefore, the Challenged Amendment may involve a residential use with a density of more than ten units per acre and still qualify as a small scale amendment. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is not a small scale amendment pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c) of the Act. I. The State Comprehensive Plan. The City has prepared plans for evacuation of coastal residents as required by Section 187.201(7)(b)22., Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Biss failed to prove that the requirements of Section 187.201(7)(b)22., Florida Statutes (1997), concerning the preparation of evacuation plans, apply to the Challenged Amendment. Density Increase in the High-Hazard Area; Coastal Management Element Goals 2 and 3, and Objective 2.2 of the City's Plan, and FLUE Policies 1.9.5 and 2.7.2 of the City's Plan. The Coastal Element of the City's Plan includes Goals 2 and 3, and Objective 2.2 pertaining to the City's high hazard area: GOAL 2: The City of Hallandale Shall Protect Human Health and Safety in the Coastal Area. . . . . OBJECTIVE 2.2: The City shall direct populations away from High-Hazard Areas in concert with the established hazard mitigation strategies developed by Broward County . . . . GOAL 3: The City Shall Discourage or Limit Development in Areas Subject to Destruction by Natural Disasters. The evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with these Goals or the Objective of the Coastal Management Element of the City's Plan. These Goals and the Objective were intended to provide broad planning guidelines and were not intended to apply specifically to a small scale amendment such as the Challenged Amendment. The Goals and the Objective of the Coastal Management Element relied upon by Mr. Biss must be evaluated with other provisions of the City's Plan. In particular, those provisions which allow the transfer of residential dwelling unit densities through flexibility units anywhere within the City, including the coastal high-hazard area. Because of these existing provisions the Challenged Amendment does not increase densities within the coastal high-hazard area or increase the danger from hurricanes anymore than already allowed by the City's Plan. Although not required by Coastal Management Element Goals 2 or 3, or Objective 2.2 of the City's Plan, even a consideration of the impact of the Challenged Amendment on actual hurricane evacuation times does not support Ms. Biss' challenge. The City's projected hurricane evacuation time for roads which would be impacted by increased density on the Subject Property are less than seven hours. The addition of up to 143 dwelling units will not significantly impact that evacuation time. Ongoing road improvements will even mitigate any such impacts. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the Coastal Management Element of the City's Plan. FLUE Policy 1.9.5 of the City's Plan provides: POLICY 1.9.5: The City shall direct populations away from High-Hazard Areas, to the extent legally feasible, through the establishment of redevelopment regulations for High-Hazard Areas by 1998. The City has complied with this Policy by adopting redevelopment regulations. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with this Policy. FLUE Policy 1.9.3 of the City's Plan provides the following: POLICY 1.9.3: Encourage development and redevelopment in the coastal high hazard area to include hazard mitigation measures for beach and beachfront property protection to minimize loss of life and property against beach erosion. This Policy has no relevance to the Challenged Amendment. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the Policy. The City's Plan does not include a Policy 2.7.2. The FLUE of the City's Plan includes a "Section 2.7.2" which describes the following "Natural Conditions Affecting Development" as part of the description of the dangers from flooding in the City: The danger from hurricanes can be somewhat controlled by limiting future allowable densities in high hazard areas. This subject is more fully addressed in the Coastal Management and Conservation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with Section 2.7.2 of the City's Plan. Impacts on Traffic. FLUE Element 1.12.4 of the City's Plan establishes a level of service standard "D" for City roads. Section 9.3.2.1 of the Transportation Element of the City's Plan recognizes existing traffic circulation problems within the City, including roads impacted by the Challenged Amendment. This Section is not, however, a goal, objective, or policy of the City's Plan. Mr. Biss has argued that the Challenged Amendment degrades the level of service standard for the City on roads which may be impacted by the Challenged Amendment and further exacerbates the traffic circulation problems recognized by Section 9.3.2.1 of the Transportation Element of the City's Plan. The evidence failed to support this argument. While the addition of 143 dwelling units will naturally increase traffic in the area surrounding the Subject Property, Mr. Biss failed to prove the extent of that impact. More importantly, Mr. Biss failed to prove that the impact will be so great as to be considered inconsistent with the City's Plan. Data and Analysis. Mr. Biss has argued that the City did not have sufficient data and analysis to demonstrate that an additional 143 residential units will not negatively impact the City's ability to evacuate the coastal high hazard area. Mr. Biss failed to prove this allegation. Hurricane evacuation times for roads which may be impacted by the Challenged Amendment are well below acceptable hurricane evacuation time standards. An additional 143 dwelling units will not significantly impact those evacuation times. Data relied upon by the City indicated that, after ongoing road improvements, hurricane evacuation times, even with the Challenged Amendment, will decrease. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the City did not have adequate data and analysis to support the Challenged Amendment. Impacts on Public Schools. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment did not consider the impacts on public schools contrary to the County's Plan. The Challenged Amendment is not required to be consistent with County's Plan until it is reviewed for "recertification" by the Broward County Planning Council. At the time of recertification, the Challenged Amendment will likely be considered exempt from school concurrency pursuant to Policy 13.01.10 of the County's Plan. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with any provision of the City's Plan dealing with public schools. Mr. Biss also failed to prove that the impact on public schools by the Challenged Amendment will be more than the addition of nine students. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with Coastal Management Element Policy 3.1.1 of the City's Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the Challenged Amendment to be a small scale amendment and that it is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kent Harrison Robbins, Esquire 1224 Washington Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Clifford R. Steele, Esquire John C. Hanson, II, Esquire Steele & Hanson, P.A. Museum Tower, Penthouse 150 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Barbara Hall, Esquire Greenberg, Taurig, et al 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Richard Kane, City Attorney City of Hallandale 400 South Federal Highway Hallandale, Florida 33009 Karen A. Brodeen, Assistant General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Arnold Lanner, Mayor City of Hallandale City Hall 400 South Federal Highway Hallandale, Florida 33009 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Jim and Paulette Holzinger own Lot 17, Section B, Long Beach Estates, located on Big Pine Key in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. The property is south of Long Beach Drive. The property is located within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. See Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Under these statutes, Monroe County adopted a comprehensive plan and implemented it with land development regulations which are consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development found in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. The Department of Community Affairs approved the County's comprehensive plan in Rule Chapter 9J-14, Florida Administrative Code, and the Administration Commission approved the comprehensive plan in Chapter 28-29, Florida Administrative Code. The County's comprehensive plan is implemented through its land development regulations, codified as Chapter 9.5 of the Monroe County Code. Monroe County is responsible for issuing development orders for land development in unincorporated Monroe County, including these development orders (building permits). The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act, Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, restricts the County from permitting development which is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Sections 163.3161(2) and 163.3194(1), Florida Statutes. No person may undertake any development within an area of Critical State Concern except in conformity with Chapter 380; Section 380.05(16), Florida Statutes. After the County issued the three related permits, the Holzingers engaged Pinewood Enterprises, Inc., as general contractor, for the construction of their single-family residence. Those permits were rendered to the Department of Community Affairs on July 21, 1992, and the Department issued its notice of appeal of those permits on September 4, 1992. No party disputes the timeliness of the appeal. The Holzingers' lot is vegetated by mangroves, transitional plant species, and beach berm plant species. The site plan, and which was part of the Holzingers' application for the permits, which Monroe County approved, includes the approval of dredging of a portion of Lot 17 and the placement of fill on site to provide driveway access to the single-family residence. The site plan locates the single-family residence in an area of Bay Cedar thicket. The mangroves are located along the north of the lot along Long Beach Drive. Facts Found Based on Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing The Holzingers' lot is located at the southernmost area of Big Pine Key, and is separated from the rest of the key by a wetland to the north of the property. To its south is the Atlantic Ocean. The lot is approximately 100' x 230' and contains approximately 22,750 square feet from property line to property line. On the lower keys land elevations only extend from sea level to a maximum of approximately five or six feet above sea level. The soil or substrate conditions on the lot are white calcareous deposits which appear to the untrained eye to be sand. It is not quartzite, but deposits from the breakdown of marine grasses or marine algae which have the appearance of sand. There is no caprock on the property. B (1). Habitats Recognized in the Monroe County Plan The Monroe County Comprehensive Development Plan is based upon the Data and Analysis found in volume 1 of the Plan. According to that Data and Analysis, there are different types of habitat found in the Keys. These include salt marsh, salt marsh and buttonwood association, mangrove community, tropical hardwood hammock, and beach berm complex. The most significant one here is beach berm complex; it includes: "bare, sandy shoreline with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of and usually parallel to the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organism such as corals, algae and mollusks. The berm may include forested costal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation." Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code [the land development regulations]. In the Data and Analysis, the County records that on Long Beach Key the most landward area of the berm is tropical hardwood hammock. The low hammocks are upland hardwood forest communities containing species such as blolly, buttonwoods, darling plums, spanish stopper and wild dilly, all of which are found on the vegitation survey of the lot done by a biologist for Mother Nature's Enterprises, Linda Pierce, as part of the Holzinger building permit application. See Section 9.5-4(L-10), Monroe County Code, which defines low hammocks. Low hammocks include berm hammock, and the beach berm association described in the County comprehensive plan includes berm hammocks (Tr. 184). B (2). The Land Use Maps and their Designations The existing conditions map which is part of the Monroe County comprehensive plan designates the area of the Holzingers' property as beach berm association. That map is drawn at the sale of one inch equals 2,000 feet. Similar aerial maps at a scale an order of magnitude smaller (one inch equals 200 feet) also show the land as beach berm with fringing mangroves. These aerial photographs have been overlaid with the Comprehensive Plan's habitat designations for use in the practical application of the land development regulations by County employees. Under the land use regulations found in the Monroe County Code, the County Commission is required to follow the existing conditions map it adopted, Section 9.5-227, Monroe County Code. Under the first paragraph of Section 9.5- 345 the environmental design criteria applicable to development of a parcel of land depend upon the habitat designated for the parcel on the existing conditions map (the map drawn at the larger scale of one inch equals 2,000 feet). Ground proofing of the habitat on the lot done by the Lower Keys' biologist, Diana Stephenson, and by the Department of Community Affairs planner/biologist, Kathleen Edgerton, show that the land is actually beach berm from the ocean to the mangroves, and there is a small area of disturbed saltmarsh landward from the mangroves to the county road which runs down the center of the key. I am not persuaded by the testimony of the biologist for the Holzingers, Mr. Smith, who believes that there is a separate tropical hardwood hammock habitat on the Holzingers' lot. A full habitat analysis would have been required if there were mixed habitats on the lot (Tr. 88, 96) and the Holzingers did not submit one to the County as part of their application. Because the County biologist found no separate low hardwood hammock habitat on the lot, she believed that no habitat evaluation index was required in processing the Holzinger application, and none was done independently by the County. Mr. Smith contended at final hearing that there are several distinct habitats on the single lot. Moving south from Long Beach Drive toward the ocean he first finds a disturbed saltmarsh of approximately 4,000 square feet; then a mangrove community of about 2,500 square feet; then a saltmarsh and buttonwood association of about 2,500 square feet; next a tropical hardwood hammock of moderate quality and finally, closest to the ocean, beach berm complex. This analysis, which designates a separate saltmarsh and buttonwood association waterward of the mangrove community, and then a separate tropical hardwood hammock waterward of the saltmarsh and buttonwood association, fails to give significant weight to the fact that low hammocks are typically found within beach berm complex. While Mr. Smith testified to the square footages for each of the five habitats, he only performed rough calculations for their size, he was not working with, nor did he perform an actual survey which would define the boundaries of the various habitats he believes are present. He readily acknowledged his preliminary habitat analysis was incomplete. Moreover, accepting for the sake of argument that there is a mixed habitat on the lot under the evidence adduced by the Holzingers, a complete habitat evaluation index should have been performed by the Holzingers as a necessary part of their application, since the County biologist did not do one in the belief there was no need for one. The essential problem with the view expressed by Mr. Smith that there are five habitats on this 100-foot lot is his contention that due to the very small changes in elevation through the Keys, one must identify different habitats recognized in the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations by assessing the predominance of different types of vegitation typical of a habitat. To Mr. Smith, if the vegitation is of a type normally found in a tropical hardwood hammock, and it predominates over the other vegitation, that area must be classified as a tropical hardwood hammock. At that level of generalization, the statement is no doubt true. Neither the land development regulations or the County's Comprehensive Plan require, or even permit, a microanalysis of the vegitation for the purpose of defining multiple habitats on a lot. Taking a broad view, such as that embodied in the existing conditions map, the predominate vegetative and soil conditions on the southern part of the island where Lot 17 is located are consistent with the categorization as beach berm association. The same is true using the aerial maps on which the different habitat designations from the land development regulations have been overlaid. What Mr. Smith has done is to look for small areas within the 100' x 230' parcel to identify areas where tropical hardwood species may be said to "predominate." The obvious purpose of Mr. Smith's division of the lot into small areas is to be able to characterize these uplands species as "predominating." This is essential to justify intensive use of the property. The comprehensive plan and the land development regulations do not permit any use of areas colonized by mangroves, which are wholly protected by a 100 percent open space requirement. This means that 100 percent of the area colonized by mangroves must be maintained in its natural condition and free and open to the sky, Section 9.5-343, Monroe County Code. Open space ratio for saltmarsh and buttonwood associations is .85 but for moderate quality low hammocks is only .60. Beach berm association is highly protected, with an open space requirement of 90 percent. Only 10 percent of the land area waterward of the mangrove habitat, therefore, can be covered with the footprint of the single-family residence and any associated driveway or other access way because it is beach berm complex. Accepting the mangrove line contained in the vegitation assessment submitted by the Holzingers in their application done by Mother Nature's Enterprises, and then using a "planimeter" to measure the area from the mangrove line to the mean high water line on the lot, there is 16,594 square feet of property. Given the 90 percent open space requirement, a very small area of 1,659 square feet may be covered with the footprint of the single-family home, including its porch, eaves, and driveway. The footprint of the house, its porch, and driveway shown on the site plan approved by the County, with the addition of a five-foot clearing zone around the footprint of the house [because it is essentially impossible to clear land only to the footprint of the completed building] reveals that the County's permits would allow the clearing of 2,880 square feet. Even without the five-foot construction zone around the house, porch and driveway, the County permits allow the clearing of 2,172 square feet. It is very difficult to understand how the Monroe County official in charge of the office which issues building permits could have determined that the development proposed by the Holzingers was permittable. That official did not testify. The County biologist for the Lower Keys who did testify, Ms. Stephenson, was adamant that the project was never permittable under the Monroe County land development regulations. The only explanation by which the permit conceivably could have been granted would be to do something the land development regulations do not permit: aggregate the square footage which the code makes available for development on the landward side of the mangroves, in the area of disturbed saltmarsh between the road and the mangroves, and add the usable square footage for that habitat area to the usable square footage on the waterward side of the mangroves, in the beach berm association. But the amount of each habitat which must remain as open space is determined for each habitat type. They cannot be aggregated across habitats, to give some total usable number of square feet, to be cleared anywhere on the property. That would ignore the significance of the separate habitat designations. The 1,659 square feet available for development in the beach berm association must be used only within that habitat, and square footage available for development within the disturbed salt marsh cannot be added to it. Fill Issues The site plan approved by the County permits fill to be used to construct a driveway on the property through the mangrove area and the beach berm area. This is simply an error on the part of the County, for no party disputes that fill is forbidden in these areas. The performance standards in the land development regulations do permit certain piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways over mangrove areas, but no fill is permitted. Section 9.5- 345(m)(1), Monroe County Code (Tr. 139). The Holzingers could receive a permit to build a raised bridge over the mangroves for access to the beach berm association portion of the lot, as has been done on a nearby lot to the west of the Holzingers' lot. They cannot, however, fill the mangroves to create the driveway shown on the site plan the County approved. The building permit the County granted which purports to allow fill in mangrove areas is inconsistent with the County's own land development regulations and cannot stand. The next question is whether there is some alternate means of access to the lot which can be used instead of that permitted. At the final hearing Mr. Smith stated that on a recent visit to the Holzingers' property, he found an old road on the east side of the property which is high land which could serve as a location for a driveway or accessway to the interior of the Holzingers' property. There is, however, actually no old road anywhere on Lot 17. There was an old road on Lot 16, and a bit of the spoil from that road may be found on Lot 17, but there simply never has been a road on the Holzingers' lot which they can use for a driveway. Fill will be required to locate any driveway, and that is inconsistent with the County land development regulations. The only thing the Holzingers can do to overcome this problem would be to build a bridge over the mangrove area and completely avoid the use of any fill. Summary of Findings The scarified or a disturbed saltmarsh area from the county road to the mangrove area is too small to be useful. The Holzingers do not plan to build in that area. Whatever portion of that area which is not required to be open space cannot be "banked" to allow additional clearing in the beach berm association on the waterward side of the mangroves. For all practical purposes, that disturbed saltmarsh area adds nothing to the buildable or clearable area on Lot 17. The mangrove area has a 100 percent open space requirement. Mangroves are a highly protective habitat, which contribute nothing to the buildable area on Lot 17. The remaining portion of the Lot 17 waterward from the mangrove area to the mean high water line is too small to permit the construction and erection of the house and driveway permitted by the development orders (building permits) issued by Monroe County. The buildable area in the beach berm association is no more than a total of 1,660 square feet for the house, its porch, the driveway. The County has issued a permit to use 2,880 square feet of that habitat (including an allowance for a construction zone), or at least 2,172 square feet, assuming the location of the house, porch, and an eight-foot wide driveway and no construction clearing around the footprint around the house/porch. This fails to meet the 90 percent open space requirement found in the Monroe County Code. The building permits issued by Monroe County to the Holzingers are therefore invalid. To obtain valid permits, the Holzingers must substantially reduce the footprint of the house, including an allowance for a construction clearing zone. A house that small may be undesirable, but it could be permitted. What the County has attempted to permit, however, is invalid under its own regulations.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that development approval for the subject lot be denied, unless the applicant presents, and the County and the Department approve, a revised permit and site plan which demonstrates compliance with the mandatory open space requirements for the beach berm and mangrove habitats, and which eliminates the placement of fill in the beach berm complex and the mangrove wetlands on site. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of July 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July 1993. APPENDIX The Findings of Fact proposed by the Department have been generally adopted, although the long quotation from Volume I and II of the County Comprehensive Plan are not essential or necessary. See proposed finding 10. The Respondents submitted no proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie M. Callahan Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Theodore W. Herzog, Esquire 209 Duval Street Key West, Florida 33040 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 G. Steven Pfeiffer, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Arborwood Community Development District (Petition), dated November 17, 2003. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
