The Issue The issue in this case is whether the City of South Daytona Beach plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 94-05 on May 24, 1994, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The Parties Respondent, City of South Daytona Beach (City), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. Petitioner, Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), is a federal agency now acting as the receiver for Commonwealth Federal Savings & Loan Association, a banking institution taken over by that agency and which owned the property affected by the City's plan amendment. As the owner of property within the City, RTC is an affected person within the meaning of the law and thus has standing to bring this action. The Nature of the Dispute On October 29, 1993, the City received an oral request, which was later confirmed in writing, from Thomas J. Wetherall on behalf of various residential property owners to make an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan to change certain nearby vacant land owned by RTC from a general commercial designation to residential density 1. Under the request, the City would change the use on the eastern part of RTC's 5.6 acre tract of land from commercial to single-family residential use. The specific amendment involves a change in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Rather than treating the change as one initiated by a property owner, the City elected to have its city manager file the application on its own behalf. Public hearings were held on the plan amendment on January 19 and February 16, 1994. A transmittal hearing was then conducted by the City on February 22, 1994, and despite objections by RTC, final adoptive action occurred on May 24, 1994, through the enactment of Ordinance No. 94-05. Thereafter, on July 1, 1994, the DCA issued a notice of intent to find the amendment in compliance. On August 5, 1994, RTC filed a petition for an administrative hearing challenging the plan amendment on the ground it was inconsistent with the law in various respects. As clarified at hearing, petitioner contends the amendment (a) violates certain provisions within Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, (b) is inconsistent with policies 2-1, 2-4, 2-6 and 7-3 of objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the plan, and (c) is not supported by adequate data and analysis. The Plan Amendment Petitioner is the owner of a rectangular shaped tract of vacant land more commonly known as the Halifax Center. The land, which totals approximately 5.6 acres, lies between South Ridgewood Avenue (U. S. 1) to the west, Palmetto Avenue to the north, and Palmetto Circle to the east. The property being redesignated (2.6 acres) is the eastern part of the parcel and measures approximately 105 feet deep by 864 feet long. If found to be in compliance, the plan amendment would change the FLUM to redesignate the 2.6 acres of the property from general commercial to residential density 1. This means that instead of having its entire tract of property with a single designated commercial use, RTC would have a split designation, with roughly the eastern half designated as residential. Therefore, the eastern part of the tract could only be subdivided for a few substandard, medium to lower-end, single-family residential homes on lots 105 feet deep. Even then, the amendment does not give consideration to setback and buffer requirements needed between the newly created residential lots and the commercial land directly abutting their rear. Because of this, and the fact that its remaining commercial property has been reduced to a depth of 170 feet, petitioner complains that the value of its property has been substantially reduced, a concern not relevant here, and that the amendment does not conform to the requirements of the law. To the east of the subject property and across Palmetto Circle lie a string of large, single-family lots with upscale homes fronting on the Halifax River. It is this group of property owners who are responsible for the amendment. To the west of the property and across U. S. 1 is found a tract of vacant land designated for professional office land use. To the north of the property is found a combination of multi-family (8-10 units per acre) and general commercial uses. In crafting the amendment, it may be reasonably inferred that the City simply drew an arbitrary line down the middle of RTC's property, leaving what it believed to be was the bare minimum amount of commercial land necessary to comply with the plan. Although the City contended that one of the purposes of the amendment was to further its goal of increasing the amount of single-family housing in the City, it can be reasonably inferred that the true purpose of the amendment was to protect the value of homes located across Palmetto Circle by placing a buffer between their property and the commercial property to the west. Indeed, a City memorandum sent to the City's Land Development Regulation Board on January 12, 1994, stated that the purpose of the change was to "provide a buffer between (the) Ridgewood Avenue commercial zone and existing housing along Palmetto Circle." Is the Plan Amendment in Compliance? The City's comprehensive plan is broken down into elements which conform to the statutory requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Under each element are found goals, objectives and policies. As is relevant here, the goal for the FLUE is to "(p)rovide for a well-rounded community as described in the overarching goal." Objective 2 of the FLUE is to: (l)ocate commercial and industrial land uses where transportation access is adequate and conflicts with other land uses can be minimized. Petitioner contends that the plan amendment conflicts with four of the policies which implement objective 2. These are policies 2-1, 2-4, 2-6 and 7-3, which read as follows: 2-1: Locate major commercial and industrial land uses along primary arterials. 2-4: Commercial districts along principal arterials shall be made deep enough to provide options to typical strip development. 2-6: Provide adequate commercial/industrial land for development or redevelopment which will result in a 15 percent increase in taxable value over the next ten years. 7-3: New development shall be required to be compatible with existing development by the arrangement of land use and/or the provision of adequate buffering. As noted earlier, petitioner's tract of land lies between U. S. 1 to the west and Palmetto Circle to the east. Because the western part of petitioner's property lies along Ridgewood Avenue (U.S. 1), a principal arterial road, and will continue to remain general commercial, the amendment is deemed to be consistent with policy 2-1. In other words, that portion of petitioner's property which retains a general commercial designation will be located "along primary arterials," in conformity with policy 2-1, while the remaining portion of the property which fronts on a local road (Palmetto Circle) will be designated residential. The purpose of policy 2-4 is to ensure that commercial districts along principal arterials such as U. S. 1 are deep enough to provide options to typical strip commercial development patterns. This type of development is defined as one or more buildings that are parallel to and facing the primary street with no circulation around the back. Petitioner contends that the plan amendment violates this policy since the remaining portion of its land designated general commercial will only be 170 feet deep in relation to U. S. 1, thereby severely limiting its development options. By reducing the depth of property, as will be done here by the City, the flexibility and creativity for developing petitioner's parcel will be substantially reduced. While respondents' experts opined that the site will be deep enough to accommodate some types of commercial development other than the typical strip pattern, such as freestanding buildings, a restaurant, or even two or three office buildings, the more persuasive evidence shows that anything less than 200 feet in depth eliminates virtually all meaningful development options except a strip shopping center. Since the remaining commercial land along U. S. 1 will not "be made deep enough to provide options to typical strip development," the amendment is inconsistent with policy 2-4. Under policy 2-6, the City's goal is to increase its tax base 15 percent by the year 2000. Since the overall plan went into effect in 1990, the City's tax base has increased approximately 14.5 percent. Petitioner contends that the plan amendment will substantially reduce the value of its property, and the concomitant tax base, and thus the plan amendment is inconsistent with the policy. But even if a reduction in value will occur, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the City's taxable value will not increase by an additional half percent during the next five years. Accordingly, the undersigned finds the amendment to be consistent with policy 2-6. Finally, Policy 7-3 requires that new development be compatible with existing development by the arrangement of land use and/or adequate buffering. Under the proposed plan amendment, the City has created a more integrated residential neighborhood along Palmetto Circle. Also, the redesignated land will serve as a form of buffer between the residential development on the east side of Palmetto Circle and the commercial development on the west side of Palmetto Circle. Although the City asserts that the change in land use should reduce the potential amount of traffic on the local road (Palmetto Circle) that would otherwise increase through commercial development, this assertion is questionable given the fact that no access to the commercial property from Palmetto Circle now exists. Finally, if the amendment becomes operative, the property would be the only single-family residential property on the corridor east of U. S. 1 and west of Palmetto Circle. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that the plan amendment's consistency with policy 7-3 is fairly debatable. Property appraisals are not appropriate data or analysis upon which to base future land use designations. In other words, property values should not control planning decisions. If they did, future land use maps would reflect only high intensity uses, not a balanced community. Except to the limited extent it bears on policy 2-6, evidence presented by petitioner that the plan amendment would decrease the value of the Halifax Center from $610,000.00 to less than $359.000.00 has little, if any, probative value on the other relevant issues. Although petitioner raised other contentions in its initial petition, including one that the plan amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis, these issues have been deemed to be irrelevant, abandoned, or not supported by sufficient evidence to make a finding in petitioner's favor. In determining whether a plan amendment is in compliance, the DCA looks to consistency with the plan as a whole rather than isolated parts. Therefore, an amendment may be inconsistent with the plan in certain respects, but still be in compliance as a whole unless the inconsistency is determined to be "very important." It may be reasonably inferred from the evidence that the City's policy of discouraging "typical strip development" is an important ingredient in its overall plan. To summarize, the evidence fails to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with policies 2-1, 2-6 and 7-3 of objective 2 of the future land use element of the plan. As to policy 2-4, however, it is found that the City's determination of compliance is not fairly debatable, and thus the amendment is not in compliance in that respect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining the City of South Daytona Beach comprehensive plan amendment to be not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 19th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5182GM Petitioner: Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 4-6. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 11-12. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact Rejected as being irrelevant since not Rejected as being a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. raised as an 13. issue. 19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being irrelevant. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Rejected as being irrelevant. Respondent (DCA): 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4, 6 and 7. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 7-10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 12-13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Respondent (City): 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4-5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 6-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 8. Covered in preliminary statement. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 10-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 13-14. Rejected as being irrelevant. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 16. Covered in preliminary statement. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 19. Covered in preliminary statement. 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 24-26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. 27-28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 30. Covered in preliminary statement. 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Maureen A. Arago, Esquire 1411 Edgewater Drive Suite 203 Orlando, FL 32804 Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Scott E. Simpson, Esquire 595 West Granada Boulevard Suite A Ormond Beach, FL 32174
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: The City of Islandia: General Description and Location The City of Islandia is a municipality situated within the jurisdictional boundaries of Dade County, Florida. It was incorporated in 1961. The City is located in an environmentally sensitive area in the southeastern corner of the county several miles east of the mainland. The City is separated from the mainland by Biscayne Bay and is accessible only by boat, seaplane, or helicopter. The City consists of 42,208 acres of submerged and non-submerged land, 41,366 acres of which are owned by the federal government and are part of Biscayne National Park. Biscayne National Park Biscayne National Park was established as a national monument in 1968. Twelve years later it was designated a national park. The park was established because of the unique natural resources within its boundaries. Its designation as a national park promotes the preservation and protection of these valuable resources. The park attracts visitors who engage in passive, marine-oriented recreational activities, such as fishing and snorkeling. Some development has taken place within the park. Among the structures currently standing are the buildings that house the park rangers who work and reside in the park and the docks that are used by those who travel to and from the park by boat. The City's Privately Held Land The remaining 842 acres of land in the City are owned by twelve private landowners, five of whom serve on the Islandia City Council. This land contains no infrastructure and is almost entirely undeveloped. As a result, it is in virtually pristine condition. Because the privately held land in the City is part of the same ecosystem as Biscayne National Park, the development of the privately held land will necessarily have an impact on the activities in the park. Of the 842 acres of privately held land in the City only approximately three acres consist of uplands. These uplands, at their highest elevation, are only four feet above sea level. The other 839 acres of privately held land are submerged bottom lands of Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. The privately held land in the City is located in an area of coastal barrier islands known as the Ragged Keys. These islands lie between Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. They are separated from one another by surge channels, through which the ocean waters enter the bay. Because of their location and low elevation, these islands are extremely vulnerable to the threat of storm surges and coastal flooding. It therefore is imperative that individuals on the islands evacuate to safety as soon as possible in advance of any storm or hurricane. 2/ The Coast Guard, which assists in the early evacuation of coastal residents, removes its assets from the water when wind speeds reach 35 miles per hour. This heightens the need for those on the islands to leave before the weather takes a turn for the worse. There are five Ragged Keys in private ownership. Ragged Key One, the northernmost of these islands, is surrounded by an old, breached bulkhead. Tidal waters enter where the bulkhead is breached. Coastal wetland vegetation is the only vegetation found on the island. Ragged Key Two is totally submerged and has no uplands. Mangroves are scattered throughout the island. Unlike Ragged Key Two, Ragged Key Three includes some uplands. Its shoreline, however, is fringed with white, red and black mangroves, vegetation associated with wetlands. Mangroves play a vital role in maintaining the health of the Biscayne Bay ecosystem. They contribute a leafy matter, known as detritus, to the nutrient budget of the bay. In addition, mangroves help filter upland runoff and protect against shoreline erosion. Most of Ragged Key Four is covered with mangroves. Red mangroves dominate, but there are also white and black mangroves. A narrow band of uplands, approximately 30 to 50 feet in width, runs through the center of the island. The island's upland vegetation consists of an unusual, and therefore ecologically significant, tropical hardwood hammock species not found on the mainland. Ragged Key Five, the southernmost of the privately owned Ragged Keys, is completely inundated by tidal waters twice a day. The vegetation on the northern one-half to two-thirds of the island consists almost exclusively of mangroves, with white mangroves dominating. Mangroves are also found on the island's southeastern perimeter. Less than an acre of uplands lies toward the center of the island. The dominant vegetation on these uplands is Australian pine. The privately held bottom lands in the City that are on the ocean side of the Ragged Keys consist of a number of species of hard coral as well as soft coral and sponges not found further to the north. Consequently, these hard- bottom communities are very significant ecologically. The privately held bottomlands in the City that are on the bay side of the Ragged Keys are covered almost entirely with seagrass beds. These seagrass beds are an essential component of the bay's ecosystem. They help to maintain water quality by stabilizing and filtering sediment and serve as habitat and food for fish and other marine organisms. This is significant from not only an environmental perspective, but from an economic perspective as well, inasmuch as commercial fishing is an important industry in the area. Seagrasses depend on light for their survival. If they are beneath, or otherwise shaded by, a structure, such as a "stilt home" or dock, or deprived of light as a result of construction-related turbidity, they will die. Water depths in the City on both the ocean and bay side of the Ragged Keys are extremely shallow. In most areas, the depth of the water never exceeds four feet. Consequently, one has to be a competent boater to navigate in these areas without running aground. Boats that travel in these shallow waters, even if piloted by competent navigators, are likely to scrape and scar the ocean and bay bottom and damage the seagrass and hard-bottom communities that exist there. Furthermore, these boats are likely to leave behind in the waters they have traversed bilge waters, oils, greases and metallic-based paints from their undersides. This has the effect of lowering water quality. Fortunately, boating activities in these waters have been limited to date and, consequently, these activities have resulted in only minor environmental damage. Substantial damage will occur, however, if boat traffic on these waters increases significantly. Comprehensive Plan Preparation and Adoption The City's comprehensive plan was drafted by the staff of Robert K. Swarthout, Inc., a consulting firm that specializes in land use planning. Before retaining the services of the Swarthout firm, the City's governing body, the City Council, voted that, in the plan, all of the privately held land in the City would be designated for "residential" use and that the allowable density would be six units per acre. Sound planning dictates that such decisions be made only after the character of the land and its suitability for development are analyzed. A proposed plan for the City was developed by the Swarthout firm. Following a vote of the City Council, the proposed plan was transmitted to DCA. Upon its receipt of the proposed plan, DCA distributed copies to other governmental agencies, including Dade County, and solicited their comments. After receiving these comments and conducting its own review, DCA sent to the City a report containing DCA's objections, recommendations and comments regarding the City's proposed plan. In response to this report, the Swarthout firm drafted certain modifications to the proposed plan. The proposed plan, as so modified, was adopted by the City Council on January 13, 1989, and thereupon transmitted to DCA. The City Council held public hearings before transmitting the proposed plan and the adopted plan to DCA. The twelve private landowners in the City were notified of these hearings by mail. No one else, including any park ranger residing in the City or any other representative of the federal government, was given direct, individual advance notice of these hearings, nor were the hearings advertised in any newspaper or other publication. In failing to provide advance notice of these hearings to any one other than the City's twelve private landowners, the City Council relied upon the opinion of its attorney that no additional notice was necessary to meet the requirements of the law. Format of the City's Adopted Plan The City's adopted plan focuses upon the 842 acres of privately held land in the City. It does not discuss in great detail the future of Biscayne National Park, which comprises more than 98% of the City's land area. The plan consists of nine elements: future land use; transportation; housing; infrastructure; coastal management; conservation; recreation and open space; intergovernmental; and capital improvements. Each element contains goals, policies and objectives. In addition, the future land use element includes a future land use map and the capital improvements element includes both an implementation section and a section prescribing monitoring, updating and evaluation procedures. The document containing the City's adopted plan also describes and discusses the data and analysis upon which the plan is purportedly based. According to the document, however: Only the following segments of this document were adopted by the City Council: Goals, Objectives and Policies Capital Improvements Element Implementation section Future Land Use map Monitoring, Updating and Evaluation Procedures Future Land Use Element The future land use element of the City's adopted plan sets forth the following goals, objectives and policies: Goal 1 To provide for minimal residential development compatible with the natural resources of the National Park and balance of the islands. Objective 1.1 By 1994, achieve first phase new development sited appropriately for the topographic/flood conditions and infrastructure compatible with soil conditions. Policy 1.1.1 As the residential development occurs, require acceptable private paths, drainage, water and sewer systems through the development code; special care is needed due to limited wellfield and soil absorption areas. Policy 1.1.2 Private automobiles shall not be permitted; adequate boat or aircraft access facilities shall be required by the development code. Policy 1.1.3 Development permits shall be issued only if facilities meeting the following levels of service can be made available concurrent with the impacts of development: -Sewage disposal: septic tanks 3/ or package treatment plants providing a treatment capacity of 300 gallons per residential unit per day -Water: wells providing 300 gallons per residential unit per day -Drainage: on-site retention and drainage systems that can accommodate a one-day storm that occurs once in ten years (statistically) -Solid waste: off-island disposal by individual homeowners or other property owners 4/ -Circulation: pedestrian and golf cart paths -Open space: public and private of 175 acres per permanent resident Objective 1.2 Ensure reasonable protection of historic and natural resources (particularly) mangroves as development occurs. See policy for measurability Policy 1.2.1 Within one year of transmitting this plan, a development code will be prepared to assure adequate protection of the vegetative communities (particularly mangroves) as well as sensitive to hurricane considerations and the bay bottom ecology. Policy 1.2.2 The City shall consult with the National Park Service should any archaeological sites be found on the privately owned islands. Policy 1.3 Facilitate planned unit development projects through the 1989 adoption of a development code. Policy 1.3.1 Within one year of transmitting this plan, include Planned Unit Development provisions in the zoning provisions of a development code to help achieve residential development. Objective 1.4 By July 1989, adopt a development code to implement land use policies that correspond to the category on the Future Land Use Plan and minimize hurricane evacuation. Policy 1.4.1 The following land use densities, intensities and approaches shall be incorporated in the land development code; development will be required to use these densities in a mixed use Planned Unit Development format -Residential: Single-family detached and attached units at a density of 6 units per acre or less in a PUD mixed-use format. -Commercial: Supporting boat clubs/marinas, restaurants and light convenience retail; this would either be in the residential PUD or the National Park Recreation category i.e. not shown on the map. -Recreation and Open Space: This category includes primarily the National Park. The future land use map depicts only two future land uses: "recreational," which is described on the map as constituting lands of the "National Park and City Park;" and "residential," which is indicated on the map as constituting "[l]ess than 6 units per acre in Planned Unit Developments with supporting service commercial." Because Policy 1.4.1 of the future land use element permits a maximum "residential" density in the City of "6 units per acre" whereas the future land use map reflects that the City's maximum permissible "residential" density is "less [emphasis supplied] than 6 units per acre," these two provisions of the City's adopted plan are inconsistent. On the future land use map, only Ragged Keys One through Five are designated for "residential" use. The remaining land in the City, including the privately held bay and ocean bottom surrounding these islands, is designated on the map for "recreational" use. There are statements in the plan document that reflect that "residential" development is contemplated not just for the five Ragged Keys, but for the entire 842 acres of privately held land in the City. Such statements include the following which are found in the discussion of the data and analysis allegedly underlying the future land use element: Residential Capacity- The islands under municipal jurisdiction have not been developed, and there are only 842 acres of suitable vacant land for the development of residential units. Based on the Land Use Plan PUD density of six units per acre, this would suggest a build-out of 5,000 housing units. * * * Needs Assessment: Not Applicable and Other Issues- There are no incompatible or blighted uses. Some private redevelopment might be involved in upgrading the boat dock and several recreational housing units. Rather than an analysis of the land required to accommodate the projected population, this is a case where the 842 acres of buildable private land can accommodate a build-out population of about 5,000 although 720 is projected for the year 2000 based upon a projected private market demand for development at five units per acre requiring 78 acres. * * * Future Land Use Plan: Land Use Category- As indicated above, all non-Park Service land and bay bottom (842 acres) is designated "Residential Planned Unit Development With Supporting Commercial;" this will accommodate the projected population. * * * Future Land Use Plan: Impact- It is important to note the minimal impact that the private development area (842 acres), will have on the total area of the City which encompasses 42,208 acres. * * * Future Land Use Plan: Density- Approximately 842 acres, at a density of less than six units per acre, are proposed for development of the recreational units. These statements, however, are not included in those portions of the plan document that were adopted by the City Council and therefore are not part of the City's adopted plan. In addition to depicting future land uses, the future land use map also shows shoreline areas. Beaches, wetlands, and flood plains, however, are not identified on the map. Transportation Element The transportation element of the City's adopted plan contains the following goals, objectives and policies: Goal 1- To meet the unique circulation needs of Islandia. Objective 1.1- As development occurs, achieve an internal circulation system that uses paths for pedestrians, bicycles and golf carts but not automobiles. Policy 1.1.1- By July 1989, enact a development code that requires developers to provide such a path system, a) concurrent with development, and b) that connects with other adjacent developments and the boat dock facilities. Policy 1.1.2- Include development code provisions that require adequate access to the development from the mainland i.e. either by boat or aircraft facilities. Housing Element The following goals, objectives and policies are set forth in the housing element of the City's adopted plan: Goal 1- To provide recreational housing units compatible with the unique locational and environmental character of Islandia. Objective 1.1- Achieve and maintain quality housing with supporting infrastructure. Policy 1.1.1- By July 1989, enact a development code that provides an expeditious review process yet assures concurrent adequate private infrastructure. Policy 1.1.2- Include building and property maintenance standards that will assure that units are maintained in sound condition. Policy 1.1.3- To assure environmentally sound design, City codes shall include building standards (sensitive to hurricanes) and site plan review. Infrastructure Element As evidenced by the following goals, objectives and policies set forth in the infrastructure element of the City's adopted plan, the City intends that infrastructure needs will be met by private developers, rather than by the City through the expenditure of public funds: Goal 1- To provide adequate private infrastructure to serve the projected limited recreational residential development. Objective 1.1- Assure provision of adequate, environmentally sensitive private infrastructure concurrent with development through a 1989 development code. Policy 1.1.1- By July 1989, enact a development code that requires City site plan review with engineering design standards in the areas of water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, solid waste, groundwater recharge and wellfield protection plus incentives for the use of solar energy and solid waste recycling (to reduce disposal quantities by 30 percent). Policy 1.1.2- Require all development to meet the following level of service standards: -Sewage disposal: package treatment plants providing treatment capacity of 300 gallons per residential unit per day 5/ -Water: wells providing 300 gallons per residential unit per day -Drainage: on-site retention and drainage systems that can accommodate a one-day storm that occurs once in ten years (statistically) -Solid waste: off-island disposal by individual homeowners or other property owners. Objective 1.2- Encourage multi-unit water and sewer systems in order to protect the fragile environment through the 1989 development code. Policy 1.2.1- Include planned unit development provisions in the development code to be enacted by July 1989 thereby encouraging joint systems rather than individual wells and septic tanks. 6/ Policy 1,3- Protect wellfield aquifer recharge areas from development. Policy 1.3.1- By 1991, enact development code provisions that require developers to designate their wellfield aquifer recharge areas, and authorize the City to then prohibit development within said areas and related drainage systems. Objective 1.4- Each developer shall provide a mechanism for water conservation. Policy 1.4.1- At the time building permits are issued for the first development, the City and developer shall jointly prepare a water conservation plan for normal and emergency consumption. Coastal Management Element The City's adopted plan contains the following goals, objectives and policies relating to coastal management: Goal 1- To conserve, manage and sensitively use the environmental assets of Islandia's coastal zone location. Objective 1.1- Through the 1989 development code adoption, continue to protect the barrier island function and wildlife habitat. Policy 1.1.1- Retain the integrity of the islands by strictly regulating shoreline dredge and fill through the development code. Policy 1.1.2- Require common open space in conjunction with private development to retain wildlife habitats, wetlands and mangroves and assist in preservation of marine water quality and living resources. Objective 1.2- Through the 1989 development code adoption, include estuarine protection policies and thus assure environmental quality. Policy 1.2.1- The development code shall result in drainage, sewage disposal and shoreline setback policies that protect the estuary. Policy 1.2.2- As private development occurs, the City shall use the County's Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan as a basis for review and maintain liaison with the Biscayne Bay Management Committee's staff. This will also be the vehicle for coordinating with the City of Miami (which is some 10 miles to the north) in terms of estuarine. Objective 1.3- Continue the current pattern which is all uses, including shoreline uses, are water dependent. Policy 1.3.1- Use the development code to maintain a shoreline use pattern that is either park, natural private land or residential with supporting boat facilities; by definition, all Islandia uses are water dependent. Objective 1.4- Protect the current natural beach and dune configuration. Policy 1.4.1- Through the development code, require any private development to a) setback far enough from the beach to retain the dunes and b) retain the related vegetative cover and wetlands or mitigate on a fair value ratio. Goal 2- To minimize hurricane damage both to property and people. Objective 2.1- Continue the current City policy of not providing infrastructure unless public safety or natural resource preservation so requires. Policy 2.1.1- The City shall not program any municipal infrastructure; private development will provide its own circulation, water and sewer systems. Objective 2.2- Residential development will be limited in amount and density, and setback from the shoreline due to the coastal high hazard area location. Policy 2.2.1- Maintain density controls so that the City will experience only limited new residential development and thereby not jeopardize hurricane evacuation capabilities or undue concentration on the private islands which are the high hazard area. (Analysis explains why directing population away from the coastal high hazard area is not feasible.) 7/ Objective 2.3- By July 1989, adopt development code provisions that assure adequate boat evacuation capability by developers and occupants. Policy 2.3.1- The development code shall require, as a condition of development permit approval, an evacuation plan showing adequate boat or aircraft capability. Objective 2.4- By 1993, prepare an emergency redevelopment plan. Policy 2.4.1- By 1993, the first phase of residential development should be underway; that will permit preparation of a realistic post-disaster redevelopment plan. Currently there is little to "redevelop." Objective 2.5- Preserve both resident and general public access to the beach. Policy 2.5.1- Over 98 percent of Islandia's area is public land with shoreline access. However, the remaining two percent should be developed so as to maximize resident beach access through planned unit development requirements. 8/ Objective 2.6- The City's objective is not to provide any public infrastructure; private developers shall provide infrastructure in conformance with level of service standards, concurrent with development. Policy 2.6.1- Developers shall provide infrastructure, with a design sensitive to hurricane vulnerability, concurrent with the impact of development within a development code concurrency management system and in keeping with the following levels of service: -Sewage Disposal: package treatment plants providing treatment capacity of 300 gallons per residential unit per day. 9/ -Water: wells providing 300 gallons per residential unit per day. -Drainage: on-site retention and drainage systems that can accommodate a one-day storm that occurs once in ten years (statistically). -Solid Waste: off-island disposal by individual homeowners or other property owners. Conservation Element The following goals, objectives and policies are found in the conservation element of the City's adopted plan: Goal 1- To preserve and enhance the significant natural features of Islandia. Objective 1.1- Continue policies that help achieve compliance with State Department of Environmental Affairs [sic] air quality regulations; see policy for measurability. Policy 1.1.1- Continue to prohibit automobiles in the City. Objective 1.2- By July 1989, require drainage practices that avoid direct development runoff into the ocean or bay. Policy 1.2.1- By July 1989, enact development code provisions that require on-site runoff detention. Objective 1.3- By July 1989, achieve protection of existing vegetation and wildlife communities. Policy 1.3.1- By July 1989, enact development code provisions that require retention of a percentage 10/ of prime vegetative cover and wildlife habitat; particularly mangroves. Policy 1.3.2- These development regulations shall also address preservation/mitigation of the scattered island wetlands and related soils. Policy 1.3.3- Work with Federal park officials to assure that any National Park improvements are sensitive to the mangrove and other environmentally sensitive vegetative/wildlife/ marine habitats. Objective 1.4- By July 1989, have basis to avoid development activities that adversely impact the marine habitat. Policy 1.4.1- By July 1989, enact development code provisions that control dredge and fill activities, and boat anchorages in order to protect the marine and estuarine character, including the fish feeding areas on the Biscayne Bay side of the islands; special care must be taken to avoid any disruption of the tidal channels between the islands. Objective 1.5- When development occurs, achieve carefully located and designed well and sewage disposal systems. Policy 1.5.1- By July 1989, enact development code provisions that require City technical review of all well and sewage disposal systems to assure well water protections, groundwater conservation and sewage effluent control. Policy 1.5.2- When the first phase residential development permits are issued, develop an emergency water conservation program. This element of the City's adopted plan does not contain a land use and inventory map showing wildlife habitat and vegetative communities. Recreation and Open Space Element The recreation and open space element of the City's adopted plan prescribes the following goals, objectives and policies: Goal 1- To provide recreation facilities and open space which are responsive to the leisure-time needs of residents. Objective 1.1- By July 1989, achieve controls that achieve common access to the bay and the ocean. Policy 1.1.1- The City shall enact development code provisions that protect common access to the shoreline as development occurs. Objective 1.2- By July 1989, assure private recreational resources in the limited development projects to complement the National Park. Objective 1.2.1- The City shall enact development code provisions that require private recreational facilities for developments over a certain size, to complement the public National Park. Policy 1.3.1- The City shall urge Congress to retain the National Park thereby providing a Level of Service of at least 57 acres of public open space per permanent resident prior to the year 2000. 11/ Objective 1.4- Ensure the preservation of public and private open space. Policy 1.4.1- By July 1989, enact development code regulations to assure preservation of adequate private open space in conjunction with private development. Policy 1.4.2.- Work with Congress and National Park Service to assure preservation of this public open space resource. Policy 1.4.3- The City shall retain City Key in its ownership for potential use as a municipal park. Intergovernmental Element The following goals, objectives and policies in the City's adopted plan address the matter of intergovernmental coordination: Goal 1 - To maintain or establish processes to assure coordination with other governmental entities where necessary to implement this plan. Objective 1.1- By 1994, at least three of the seven issues listed in the Analysis shall be the subject of formal agreement, assuming development review has been initiated. Policy 1.1.1- The Mayor shall oversee the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the Analysis section of this element. Policy 1.1.2- In particular, the Mayor shall work with County Office of Emergency Management relative to hurricane warning and evacuation mechanisms. Policy 1.1.3- The City shall continue to work with the County and Regional planning agencies in an attempt to reach consensus on a mutually agreeable land use designation for the private islands. Policy 1.1.4- If necessary, the City shall use the South Florida Regional Planning Council to assist in the mediation of any major intergovernmental conflicts; the County land use plan is a potential example. Policy 1.1.5- After development is initiated, the Mayor shall annually issue a report outlining the services the City is providing and providing information on intergovernmental coordination. Policy 1.1.6- The City shall review all development applications in the context of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Management Plan and maintain liaison with the staff to the Committee responsible for this plan. Objective 1.2- The Mayor shall meet at least annually with the National Park Superintendent to coordinate the impact of the City's development upon adjacent areas. Policy 1.2.1- City officials shall maintain liaison with the National Park Service on any land use or development impacts along their common boundaries. Objective 1.3- By 1999, assure level of service standards coordination with the County relative to solid waste. Policy 1.3.1- As first phase development is completed, City officials shall work with County officials on the long range implications of solid waste disposal to determine adequacy and approach. The "seven issues listed in the [intergovernmental] Analysis" section of the plan document (reference to which is made in Objective 1.1) concern the following subjects: land uses and densities; historic resources; private holdings within the National Park; permitting for construction and related infrastructure; solid waste; Biscayne Bay water quality; and emergency evacuation. The "land uses and densities" issue raised in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document relates to the alleged inconsistency between the City's plan and Dade County's plan regarding the land use designation of the privately held land in the City. It is asserted in this section of the document that the "Metro-Dade Comprehensive Plan shows the privately owned land in Islandia as 'Parks and Recreation' rather than residential." The following recommendation to resolve this alleged conflict is then offered: To date, the coordination on this issue has been sporadic. 12/ If neither the County nor National Park Service are willing to acquire these islands at a fair price, then the County plan should be amended to show them as residential. The Regional Planning Council can serve as a mediator. Dade County's adopted plan provides the following explanation of the significance of a "Parks and Recreation" land use designation in terms of the development potential of the land so designated: Both governmentally and privately owned lands are included in areas designated for Parks and Recreation use. Most of the designated Privately owned land either possess outstanding environmental qualities and unique potential for public recreation, or is a golf course included within a large scale development. The long term use of such golf courses is typically limited by deed restriction. If the owners of privately owned land designated as Parks and Recreation choose to develop before the land can be acquired for public use, the land may be developed for a use, or at a density comparable to, and compatible with surrounding development providing that such development is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies of the CDMP (the County's plan). This allowance does not apply to land designated Parks and Recreation that was set aside for park or open space use as a part of, or as a basis for approving the density of, a residential development. Certain commercial activities that are supportive of the recreational uses and complementary to the resources of the park, such as marine supply stores, fuel docks or tennis and golf clubhouses may be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category. Other commercial recreational or entertainment, or cultural uses may also be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category where complementary to the site and its resources. Some of the land shown for Parks is also environmentally sensitive. These areas include tropical hardwood hammocks, high- quality Dade County pineland, and viable mangrove forests. Some sites proposed for public acquisition under Florida's Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) program are identified in this category on the LUP (Land Use Plan) map although they may be as small as ten acres in size. Many of these areas are designated on the LUP map as "Environmentally Protected Parks" however, some environmentally sensitive areas may be designated simply as Parks and Recreation due to graphic restraints. All portions of parkland designated Environmentally Protected Parks or other parkland which is characterized by valuable environmental resources is intended to be managed in a manner consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies for development of the applicable environmental resources or protection area. Because it is an environmentally sensitive area, the City of Islandia, including the five Ragged Keys, has been designated "Environmentally Protected" parkland on the County's future land use map. Under the County's plan, the maximum density permitted on land so designated is one unit per five acres. With respect to the issue of historic resources, it is stated in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the document containing the City's plan that the preservation of such resources within Biscayne National Park is the responsibility of the "National Park Service working with the State Bureau of Historic Preservation (within the Department of State) and the County Historic Preservation Division." Regarding the matter of private holdings within Biscayne National Park, the assertion is made in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document that "[a]lthough existing formal agreements exist relative to individual life estates and long-term leases by private owners within the Park, there is a need for a formal agreement relative to joint development review and agreements between the National Park Service and the City." As to permitting requirements, the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document acknowledges "the array of permits required [from federal, state and county agencies] for private development and related infrastructure" in the City. In view of the regulatory authority of these agencies, the recommendation is made that the "City development code should establish a systematic review process flow chart meshing with the concurrency management system." Concerning the issue of solid waste, it is suggested in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document that "once first phase development is completed, the off-island disposal of solid waste by residents should be monitored for effectiveness" and if "this system is not working, a City-County collection arrangement would have to be developed." With respect to the issue of the water quality of Biscayne Bay, it is noted in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document that the County's "Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan (Biscayne Bay Management Plan) can serve as a guide to intergovernmental estuary planning and protection as development occurs" and that therefore the "City should consult with the [County's Biscayne Bay Management Committee] staff when development proposals reach preliminary status." 13/ The Biscayne Bay Management Plan is codified in Chapter 33-D of the Metro-Dade County Code. It identifies guidelines and objectives designed to optimize the quality and quantity of marine life in the bay, to protect the bay's endangered and rare plants and animals, and to avoid irreversible and irretrievable loss of the bay's resources. The following are among the guidelines set forth in the plan: Coastal construction should be compatible with the Bay's natural features. . . * * * 8. Siting of new marinas and docking facilities should avoid use of shoreline areas containing viable submerged communities and near-shore areas of inadequate navigational depths. Such facilities should not negatively impact existing water quality. * * * The total impact from the many individual development or user activities along the Bay shoreline should not be allowed to negatively affect the Bay's biological, chemical or aesthetic qualities. Facilities in and over Bay waters and its tributaries should only be constructed if their development and use are water- dependent. Concerning the issue of emergency evacuation, the observation is made in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the document that the "City's hurricane vulnerability makes an effective early warning imperative." It is therefore recommended that "[w]hen development occurs, the City should formalize an arrangement with the County 14/ including formal contacts, evacuation route/shelter designations and boat monitoring mechanism." 15/ Capital Improvements Element The capital improvements element of the City's adopted plan establishes the following goals, objectives and policies: Goal 1- To undertake municipal capital improvements when necessary to complement private new development facilities, within sound fiscal practices. Objective 1.1- The Mayor shall annually monitor public facility needs as a basis for recommendations to the City Council. Policy 1.1.1.- Engineering studies shall form the basis for annual preparation of a five- year capital improvement program, including one year capital budget if and when such municipal projects are deemed necessary. This element shall be reviewed annually. Policy 1.1.2- Overall priority for fiscal planning shall be those projects that enhance residential development and the environment, as per Land Use Plan. Policy 1.1.3- In setting priorities, the following kinds of criteria will be used: -Public Safety implications: a project to address a threat to public safety will receive first priority. -Level of service or capacity problems: next in priority would be projects needed to maintain the stated Level of Service. -Ability to finance: A third criteria is the budgetary impact; will it exceed budget projections? -Quality of life projects: lowest priority would be those projects not in categories 1 or 2 but that would enhance the quality of life. -Priority will be given to projects on islands experiencing development. Policy 1.1.4- Pursue a prudent policy in terms of borrowing for major capital improvements; in no case borrow more than two percent of the total assessed value in any one bond issue or loan. Objective 1.2- By July 1989, the City shall adopt a development code containing a concurrency management system to integrate the land use plan, capital improvement element and levels of service. Policy 1.2.1- City officials shall use both the Future Land Use Plan and financial analyses of the kind contained herein as a basis for reviewing development applications, in order to maintain an adequate level of service; all except parks are expected to be private: -Sewage disposal: septic tanks or package treatment plants providing treatment capacity of 300 gallons per residential unit per day 16/ -Water: wells providing 300 gallons per residential unit per day -Drainage: on-site retention and drainage systems that can accommodate a one-day storm that occurs once in ten years (statistically) -Solid Waste: off-island disposal by individual homeowners or other property owners -Public open space: 57 acres per permanent resident Objective 1.3- Major future development projects shall pay their fair share of the capital improvement needs they generate. Policy 1.3.1- The proposed development code and related review process shall require on-site detention and drainage structures acceptable to regional environmental agencies plus private water and sewer systems. Policy 1.3.2- The development code preparation shall include the consideration of impact fees. Policy 1.3.3- Pedestrian paths shall be installed as a part of all new development. Objective 1.4- Achieve mechanisms whereby public and private facility requirements generated by new development are adequately funded in a timely manner. Policy 1.4.1- The development code shall specify that no development permit shall be issued unless assurance is given that the private (or possibly public) facilities necessitated by the project (in order to meet level of service standards) will be in place concurrent with the impacts of the development. The capital improvements element of the City's adopted plan also contains an Implementation section which provides as follows: Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements Not applicable; no deficiencies and no projects planned for 1990-1994 period. Programs For purposes of monitoring and evaluation, the principal programs needed to implement this Element are as follows: Initiate an annual capital programming and budgeting process as soon as warranted by prospective projects; use project selection criteria. Use engineering or design studies to pinpoint the cost and timing of any potential needs or deficiencies as they are determined. Amendments to the development code to a) assure conformance to the "concurrency" requirements relative to development orders, levels of service and public facility timing, and b) explore selected impact fees e.g. for park, boat dock and beach renourishment. Data and Analysis If a comprehensive plan is to be an effective tool in managing a community's future growth and development, it must be based, not upon unsubstantiated assumptions or wishful thinking, but rather upon appropriate data and reasoned analysis of that data. Typically, the first step in developing a comprehensive plan is to ascertain the projected population of the community. Once such a projection is made, the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population must then be determined. The analysis does not end there, however. Before any decision is made regarding how, and to what extent, the community's land will be used in the future to meet the needs of the projected population, the character of the land, including its soils, topography, and natural and historic resources, must be examined so that its suitability for development can be determined. Only after such a suitability determination is made and the carrying capacity of the land is evaluated is it appropriate to assign land use designations and densities. The City Council did not follow this conventional approach in developing its comprehensive plan. Instead, it used a methodology that is fundamentally flawed and not professionally accepted. Without collecting and analyzing available information concerning the amount of land needed to accommodate the City's future population and the character and suitability of the City's land to meet the needs of the population, it arbitrarily determined at the outset of the planning process that the privately held land in the City would be designated for "residential" use and that a maximum density of six units per acre would be allowed. It appears that the City Council simply assumed, based on nothing more than the fact that the land was in private ownership, that it was suitable for residential development at six units per acre. Had the City Council examined the information that was readily available to it concerning the character of the privately held land in the City, it undoubtedly would have realized that such land is actually unsuitable for such intense residential development. The City Council, through its consultant, the Swarthout firm, subsequently, but prior to the January 13, 1989, adoption of the City's plan, projected the population of the City and the amount of land needed to accommodate the anticipated population. It estimated that the City's population would be about 300 in 1994 and approximately 720 in the year 2000 and that 78 acres of land would be needed to accommodate the projected population in the latter year. These projections, however, were not made pursuant to a professionally accepted methodology inasmuch as they were based, at least in part, upon the preconceived notion that the City's plan should permit residential development of the privately owned land in the City at a density of six units per acre. In making these projections, the City Council assumed that all of the 842 acres of privately held land in the City would be subject to residential development. The future land use map adopted by the City Council, however, designates only a small portion of that land, the approximately 12 acres comprising the five Ragged Keys, for residential use. This is considerably less land than that the City Council projected would be needed to accommodate the City's population in the year 2000. The final land use decisions reflected on the future land use map were not the product of a thoughtful and reasoned analysis of issues that should have been considered before such decisions were made. The City Council failed to adequately consider and analyze, among other things, the following significant matters before making these decisions and adopting the City's comprehensive plan: the character of the five Ragged Keys and their suitability for residential development at a density of six units per acre, particularly in light of their location in a flood prone area; the adverse impact that such development, including related housing and infrastructure construction activities, would have on the area's natural resources and fragile environment; 17/ whether the potable water 18/ and sanitary sewer needs generated by such development can be met given logistical and environmental constraints; 19/ the financial feasibility of, and problems associated with, siting infrastructure on the land to be developed; 20/ whether the future residents of the City can be safely evacuated from the City in the face of a hurricane or tropical storm given the City's location in a coastal high-hazard area accessible from the mainland only by water and air; 21/ and the need for boat docking and other water-dependent facilities. The City's adopted plan therefore is not supported by appropriate data and analysis. The Regional Plan for South Florida The South Florida Regional Planning Council has adopted a Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan) to guide future development in Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties. The Regional Plan addresses issues of regional significance. Goal 51.1 of the Regional Plan provides as follows: By 1995 the amount of solid waste placed in landfills will be reduced by 30 percent over the 1986 volume. A local government's comprehensive plan must establish a level of service for solid waste disposal if it is to be consistent with, and further, this goal of the Regional Plan. The City's comprehensive plan does not do so. Goal 57.1 of the Regional Plan states as follows: New development will not be permitted in areas where public facilities do not already exist, are not programmed, or cannot be economically provided. The City's comprehensive plan contemplates new development in areas where there are no existing nor planned public facilities. Although the plan suggests that infrastructure will be provided by private developers, there is no indication that any consideration was given to the costliness of such a venture. Goal 58.1 of the Regional Plan imposes the following requirement: Beginning in 1987, all land use plans and development regulations shall consider the compatibility of adjacent land uses, and the impacts of development on the surrounding environment. The State Comprehensive Plan The State of Florida also has a comprehensive plan. The State Comprehensive Plan confronts issues of statewide importance. Among other things, it requires "local governments, in cooperation with regional and state agencies, to prepare advance plans for the safe evacuation of coastal residents [and] to adopt plans and policies to protect public and private property and human lives from the effects of natural disasters." It also reflects that it is the policy of the State to "[p]rotect coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development" and to "[e]ncourage land and water uses which are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources." Dade County Dade County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It has regulatory authority over the tidal waters, submerged bay bottom and coastal wetlands in the City of Islandia. It also has the authority under its Home Rule Charter to prescribe appropriate land uses and planning principles for the entire area within its territorial boundaries. Dade County municipalities, however, are free to deviate from the County's plan in fashioning a comprehensive plan of their own. If the residential development permitted by the City's adopted plan occurs, it will have a substantial adverse impact on areas within Dade County's jurisdiction, including Biscayne Bay, which have been designated as areas warranting protection and special treatment. Tropical Audobon Society The Tropical Audobon Society is a not-for-profit Florida corporation which engages in educational, scientific, investigative, literary and historical pursuits relating to wild birds and other animals and the plant, soil, water and other conditions essential to their development and preservation. On occasion, Tropical and its members engage in activity in the City of Islandia. They participate from time to time in census surveys of the City's bird population. In addition, they conduct tours through the City for people who want to observe the area's wildlife. The overwhelming majority of Tropical members are South Floridians. None of its members, however, reside or own land in the City of Islandia. Neither Tropical, nor anyone acting on its behalf, submitted oral or written objections during the City Council proceedings that culminated in the adoption of the City's comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED the Administration Commission issue a final order which: (1) dismisses the Tropical Audobon Society's petition to intervene; (2) finds the City of Islandia's adopted comprehensive plan not "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Conclusions of Law; (3) directs the City to remedy these specific deficiencies to bring the plan "in compliance;" and (4) imposes appropriate sanctions authorized by Section 163.3184(11), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of March, 1990. STUART M. LERNER 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 27th day of March, 1990.
The Issue Whether Amendment 99-1-NOI-5017-(A)-(I), Ordinance Number 509, to the Town of Juno Beach's (Town) Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) is "in compliance" as defined in chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and as alleged in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing.
Findings Of Fact Patterson, Bisbee, and McLeod Petitioners, Dr. Patricia M. Patterson and James M. Bisbee, are husband and wife and have resided at 431 Olympus Drive, Town of Juno Beach, Florida, since February, 1999. Dr. Patterson is a Professor of Public Administration at the Florida Atlantic University. Prior to occupying this residence, Dr. Patterson investigated the neighborhood and wanted to reside in an ungated, single-family neighborhood. Dr. Patterson describes her neighborhood as the Ridge Area, which has a southern border of Olympus Drive or south to a new development, a western border of U.S. Highway 1 (U.S. 1), an eastern border of Ocean Drive or A1A, and a northern boundary of the Ocean View Methodist Church (Church). The linear Ridge bisects this area, running approximately north and south. See (Town's Exhibit 1A); (Petitioners' Exhibits 9A & 9B). The top of the Ridge consists predominantly of single- family residences. There is a significant increase in elevation from the U.S. 1 corridor, east to the top of the Ridge. The Patterson/Bisbee residence is located on the top of the Ridge, toward the middle of Olympus Drive. Mr. McLeod resides in a single-family residence, east and adjacent to the Patterson/Bisbee residence. There is a rental, single-family home immediately adjacent to the west of the Patterson/Bisbee residence. The lots to the west of the rental property are vacant and include the corner property (+/-.34 acre) subject to the Plan Amendment, which is at the bottom of the hill on the U.S. 1 side. Shortly after they moved into their new residence, Dr. Patterson learned from a neighbor that a Key West-style home was proposed to be built on a portion of the vacant lot. Dr. Patterson attended the Town's Land Planning Agency (LPA) April 1999, meeting and learned that there was a proposal to change a portion of the use of the vacant lot to "commercial." She learned that an application was filed on behalf of the Town's former Mayor and a former Councilman. Dr. Patterson expressed concern that the area should remain residential and not be changed to commercial. Dr. Patterson appeared at the May 1999, Town Council meeting and objected to the proposal on behalf of herself and Mr. Bisbee. Dr. Patterson also furnished the members of the Town Council with a letter dated May 17, 1999, which set forth her objections to the proposed changes. Dr. Patterson also attended part of the November 1999 Town Council meeting. Mr. Baird appeared before the LPA and the Town Council on behalf of Mr. McLeod. Dr. Patterson objects to the proposed Plan Amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan based on the proposed "commercial" use of the site, rather than the architectural style of the building proposed by Celestial. The Petitioners are "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and have standing to participate as parties in this proceeding. Celestial Celestial is a partnership, which owns property and conducts a business in the Town of Juno Beach, Florida. In or around March of 1999, Celestial, the applicant, submitted an Application for an amendment to the Town of Juno Beach Comprehensive Plan. Celestial proposed to re-designate a +/-.34 acre portion (the Property) of a +/-.57 acre parcel owned by Celestial. The entire +/-.57 acre parcel is vacant property at the northeast corner of U.S. 1 and Olympus Drive. Celestial sought to amend the Town's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from the existing "low density residential" classification to the "commercial" classification for the western or corner portion, which is approximately +/-.34 acre. Celestial proposes to build a two (2)-story structure, with a professional office with residential units on the second level. The structure would be of an architectural style that will be compatible with surrounding, existing residential developments. Celestial has standing to participate as a party in this proceeding. Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Town The Town is a local government subject to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Act), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. On November 17, 1999, the Town adopted Ordinance Number 509 as an amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The Town also adopted Ordinance Number 510, which rezones the Property to "commercial office." The Department The Department is the state land planning agency, having authority to administer and enforce the Act. Among other responsibilities of the Department under the Act, the Department has the responsibility to review comprehensive plan amendments submitted by local governments and to determine if the plan amendments are in compliance with the Act. Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes. The Department reviewed the Plan Amendment and determined that it was "in compliance" pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187, and 163.3189, Florida Statutes. The Town of Juno Beach, the Property, and the "Neighborhood" The Town is a small coastal community consisting of approximately 903 acres. The Town is located along the U.S. 1 corridor in Northern Palm Beach County, with municipalities, Jupiter and Tequesta to the north, and Palm Beach Gardens, North Palm Beach, Lake Park, and Riviera Beach to the south. The Town is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The U.S. 1 corridor was the subject of a study, conducted by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council in 1999, which became known as "Seven Cities: Northern Palm Beach County US 1 Corridor Study." "[T]he 16-mile corridor is primarily a four-lane facility involving a mixed bag of landscape and lighting treatments, roadway designs, land uses, access management, and drainage infrastructure. Conditions in the corridor range from urban to rural, from healthy to blighted. Long range transportation plans have called for the corridor to be widened to six lanes over times, but the need for this widening has been called into question." "Juno Beach's segment of US 1 is a long expanse with a variety of situations, ranging from the semirural or naturalistic sea scrub landscape to suburban areas of shopping malls & hotels, to strategically located vacant parcels ideal for infill development. The planning team recommends that each of these areas have its own distinct planning approach for improvement over time." Several recommendations are made for the Town, including the provision of "[a] variety of uses" for the town center location at the intersection of Donald Ross Road and U.S. 1, north of the Property, "including adding 'in-town' residential options: apartments above shopfronts, rowhouses along intimate streets, live/work loft combinations and so on would complement Juno Beach other excellent housing offerings." The Study also generally encourages attractive building facades with doors and windows facing the street, as opposed to "[b]lank, windowless facades facing streets [which] are absolutely deadening to the scene for pedestrians and motorists alike." There seems to be some criticism of the existence of "halfhearted 'buffer' of landscaping between the highway and a 'sound wall,'" in the Town area, which does appear along U.S. 1, north and south of the Property. The lands contiguous to the +/-.34 acre Property, on the north and east, are designated "low density residential," on the Town's FLUM. The land to the immediate east of the subject property is vacant and owned by Celestial. See Finding of Fact 3. The land to the immediate north is developed with a single-family home. A four-lane divided highway (U.S. 1), with a 120-foot right-of-way, is located to the west of the vacant Property, and extends from the Town's southern boundary to its northern boundary. There are approximately 24,000 daily trips of traffic passing the Property on U.S. 1. The speed limit on U.S. 1 is fifty (50) miles-per-hour, a speed not consistent with low residential development. The southern and western borders of the Town consist of lands owned by Palm Beach County and maintained as conservation areas. The land immediately to the west of the Property from U.S. 1 is designated "commercial" on the Town's FLUM and is called Seminole Plaza (Seminole), a 65,400-square foot, fairly large-scale, shopping center with various commercial and professional tenants, located on approximately five (5) acres. The property west of U.S. 1, north and south of Seminole, is owned and maintained by Palm Beach County as conservation areas. A short distance south of Seminole are Florida Power and Light's Juno Beach Offices and West Offices, both of which are office developments approved for land totaling over sixty (60) acres. To the immediate south of the Property is Olympus Drive. The land across Olympus Drive, to the immediate south of the Property, is designated "low density residential," and is developed as a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) consisting of single-family homes. This is the "Seaside" area and is bounded on the north by a white picket fence, which does not provide access to "Seaside." Pedestrian and vehicle traffic enter the Seaside development from the east along Ocean Drive or A1A. The southeast corner of Olympus Drive and U.S. 1, which is directly across from the Property, is within Seaside. There is no residential development on the southeast corner. Rather, the corner is developed with a concrete cul-de-sac. This parcel is not eligible for residential development under the Town's zoning code. The Town presented a composite exhibit of photographs of various commercial and other non-residential uses which are interspersed in the vicinity of the Property. The photographs were overlaid onto an aerial photograph of the general area between Donald Ross Road to the north of the Property, and Juno Road, to the south of the Property. The Property is located approximately mid-point between these roads. This visual depiction of the area demonstrates the variety of the uses and structures, which have developed along this segment of the U.S. 1 corridor within the Town, as well as the impact of that highway upon the development in the vicinity of the Property. The developments, north and south of the Property, include office buildings, the Church, an automotive repair business (e.g. Goodyear), motels (e.g. Hampton Inn) and a golf course. For example, the two-story, 9,000 square foot Juno Beach Professional Office Building, is located four-tenths of a mile north of the Property, east and fronting U.S. 1, and between a duplex and a single-family house. (This house has a yellow retaining wall directly fronting U.S. 1.) The Church is directly east of the office building. There are several vacant lots south and east of U.S. 1, designated "low density residential," which are undeveloped. There is a vacant, two (2) acre, commercially-designated parcel, two-tenths of a mile to the south of the Property on the east side of U.S. 1. Compare with Findings of Fact 1-3. Amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan In April of 1999, Celestial filed a revised Application requesting an amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan, changing the FLUM classification of the Property from "low density residential" to "commercial." Among other things, Celestial advised that its Application was for a low-density project on the northeast corner of U.S. 1 and Olympus Drive. Celestial further stated that the proposed commercial (mix-use) land is compatible with the commercial uses adjacent to and across from U.S. 1 from the Property and that the residential component of the mixed-use proposal will be compatible with the residential uses to the north, east, and south of the Property. Celestial did not request a change to the Town's "commercial" FLUM designation. Several documents were attached to the Application including a vegetation survey with indicated that the Property had no environmental constraints which would prohibit its development. Other correspondence included with the Application indicate that all major utilities including telephone, electric, water, and sanitary sewer, would be provided. The described project also met the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. Further, the Florida Department of Transportation concluded that the placing the drive on Olympus Drive would better serve the development for the convenience and safety of the proposed access. On April 19, 1999, the Town of Juno Beach Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed Plan Amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan's FLUM. Mr. Peduto, Director of Planning and Zoning, reviewed the Application, coordinated the review by other governmental entities, prepared the staff report, and recommended approval of the Plan Amendment. The report describes the proposal and sets forth an analysis which included, in part, the following: The proposal meets the adequate facilities standards and is not in the Coastal High Hazard area, as defined by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and State of Florida. The proposed change is an appropriate classification for the subject property. The proposed project is an "infill" development, as opposed to "sprawl" development. Infill development is supported by the TCRPC Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Sprawl, which is typical through "Euclidean" planning, creates isolated uses through non-flexible zoning districts, and also through "single-use" structures. The opposite of this is more "neo-traditional" planning, which encourages multi-use structures and is more community oriented, creating more livable, healthy and sustainable communities and neighborhoods. This is why infill development becomes so important to revitalizing and recreating community in a town's neighborhoods. The Town of Juno Beach has expressed through historical efforts and its Comprehensive Plan (as well as its Zoning Code) that it envisions a sustainable community atmosphere. Mixed-use projects play an important role in this long term, committed effort. While remaining consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, the subject property is an ideal location to further express this effort. The subject property is located along an "urban principal arterial" highway, within an older residential neighborhood. Just south of the subject property [across Olympus Drive] is an newer residential neighborhood [Seaside]. West of the subject property is a commercial plaza (Seminole Plaza) with various commercial uses, from office uses to restaurant, retail, service oriented, medical and private educational uses. Further east is a large public recreational area and the Juno Beach Town Center. In the general area there is an existing mixed use which functions as an important community/neighborhood element in this section of the town. As part of the revitalization process of this overall area of town, the proposed project and petition brings an element of balance between newer residential and older residential, introduces a mixed-use and creates an ideal "bridge" between the western commercial uses and eastern residential, community and recreational uses. The proposed project meets the standards set forth by the Goals, Objectives and Policies in the adopted Town of Juno Beach Comprehensive Development Plan. The report also indicated that "[t]he Comprehensive Plan directly encourages mixed-uses throughout the document," and cited to several Objectives and Policies. The report confirmed that utilities and service providers have sufficient capacity to serve the Property for a potential project within the proposed designation/classification; that there are no environmental concerns concerning the entire +/-.57 acre site including the Property (+/-.34 acre); that the existing level of service standards of the adjacent U.S. 1 will not be adversely impacted by the proposed change of land use; that water and wastewater facilities exist nearby the site and will be able to provide for appropriate services to the site; that solid waste removal services will also be provided; and that all specific drainage designs must be acceptable to the Town engineer upon submittal of any site plan. The report concluded that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and, in part, that the proposed change is "an appropriate land use classification for the subject property, providing for an appropriate use of the property considering existing, surrounding uses and land uses " The Town's Planning and Zoning Board considered the Application. Numerous local residents, including Dr. Patterson and Attorney Thomas Baird representing Petitioner McLeod, opposed the Application. A motion to approve the Application to amend the Comprehensive Plan's FLUM failed with a 3 to 2 vote. Further, a motion to approve a request for a change in zoning from the existing designation of residential single-family to the designation of commercial office was not approved by a vote of 3 to 2. On or about May 12, 1999, Celestial submitted a "memorandum on proposed land use changes" to the Town, which provided a historical analysis of the development of the Town, including but not limited to changed circumstances around Olympus Drive and U.S. 1. The Town Council (Council) of the Town of Juno Beach met on May 26, 1999, to consider Ordinance Number 509 which provided the amendment vehicle to the Town's Comprehensive Plan requested by Celestial. This was the first reading and public hearing for this Ordinance. Several area residents and others were in attendance. The results were mixed with some residents speaking in favor and some against approval of Ordinance Number 509. After some discussion by the Council members, and responses from the Town planner and Celestial's representative, the Council approved Ordinance Number 509 on first reading by a vote of 4 to 1. The Council also discussed, on first reading and during a public hearing, Ordinance Number 510, which proposed to approve a rezoning request for the Property to "commercial office." Attorney Tom Baird, on behalf of Petitioner McLeod, opposed the rezoning request. Dr. Patterson also opposed the request. "Town Planner Peduto pointed out the property that was annexed into town with a residential zoning designation, surrounded on three sides by residential and rezoned to Commercial. This parcel is known as Dr. Hinman's Building, Juno Beach Professional Building. He also pointed out another parcel on U.S. 1 surrounded by residential that was given a commercial land use classification and commercial general zoning designation upon its recent annexation into the town." The minutes indicate that the Council was aware that the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended denial. The Council had before it the Town's Staff Report and Recommendation, which was previously presented to the Town's Planning and Zoning Board in substantially the same form. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 30. The Council unanimously approved Ordinance Number 510 on first reading. On or about August 5, 1999, the Town submitted numerous documents to the Department of Community Affairs, including but not limited to, the Town's Staff Report and Recommendation and proposed Ordinance Number 509. The Town requested no formal review. By letter dated September 3, 1999, the Florida Department of Transportation advised the Department that it did not recommend a formal review of the proposed amendment. By letter dated September 16, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection offered no comments to the Department. The staff at the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) submitted a memorandum dated September 17, 1999, for the Council members. The TCRPC is required to review the Plan Amendment prior to formal adoption by the Town Council. The TCRPC stated, in part, in its evaluation: The Town indicates that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development represents infill. Mixed-use projects of the nature are intended to play an important role in the Town's efforts to create a sustainable community. The amendment is consistent with several objectives of the Town Comprehensive Plan and also with the SRPP which encourages infill development and multi-use structures. The Town indicates that the proposed development will bring a balance between newer and older residential areas and creates a good transition between commercial and residential uses. All urban services are available to the site, there are no level of service concerns, and an environmental survey indicates that there are no environmental concerns relating to development of the site. According to the TCRPC, the proposed Plan Amendment would not have adverse effects on significant regional resources or facilities. The TCRPC concluded that "[b]ased on the lack of extrajurisdictional impacts or effects on significant regional resources and facilities, [TCRPC] does not recommend that the amendment be formally reviewed." However, the [TCRPC] noted: According to the SRPP, a mix of uses on a single property is desirable. However, the first mixed-use development in an area which has previously been devoted entirely to residential use can create controversy and result in opposition from nearby property owners. According to the Town, this has been the case for the subject amendment. Some of this controversy can be avoided and property owner objections lessened by creating a very fine-grained plan. The Town's comprehensive plan contains only a single commercial FLUM category. Therefore, neighbors are understandably concerned about what the type of commercial use might occupy the subject property. During the preparation of its Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the Town should consider the preparation of a more fine-grained plan for those parts of town where the "richness" of the urban fabric is important to protect, preserve, and enhance. On September 17, 1999, the Department advised the Town of its determination that the proposed Plan Amendment should be formally reviewed for consistency. On October 26, 1999, the South Florida Water Management District advised the Department that the District had no water resources related comments regarding the Town's proposed Plan Amendment. No state, regional, or local governmental entity requested review of the Plan Amendment. On November 12, 1999, the Department advised the Town that the Department had no objection to the proposed Plan Amendment. This letter served as the Department's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report. On October 27, 1999, Celestial provided the Town with a Supplemental Memorandum regarding land use changes in the Town since 1990. On November 17, 1999, the Council met to consider Ordinance Numbers 509 and 510 for second reading and received a Staff Report and Recommendation, authored by Mr. Peduto, which contained similar data and analysis from the prior report. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 30. The Town's staff also prepared a report and recommendation regarding the rezoning request/petition, Ordinance Number 510. During the hearing held regarding Ordinance Number 509, the report and recommendation, with backup, and the file for both this hearing and from the previous approval hearing, were entered into the record. During the hearing, the Council was apprised, in part, that the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended denial, by a three-to-two vote, "based on traffic concerns." The minutes further reflect that "[t]he [t]own traffic consultant agrees to the traffic studies from the applicant and the County. He reviewed other areas in [t]own that similar re-zoning occurred located on a local collector, abutted by residential and located on a major thoroughfare." During the public hearing, attorney Baird, representing Petitioner McCloud, advised the Council that Ordinance Number 509 needed to be corrected in the second "WHEREAS" clause stating that the land planning agency had recommended that the Town not adopt the ordinance. "He said the primary reason (to not approve the ordinance) is that the land use classification was incompatible with the residential neighborhood." Several persons opposed the Ordinance, whereas others favored the Ordinance. The Council received numerous letters both for and against Ordinance Number 509. The Council also received petitions for and against the Ordinance. After discussing the issue, the Council approved Ordinance Number 509 by a vote of 4 to 1. The Council also considered Ordinance Number 510 and after considering information both for and against, the Council voted 5 to 0 to approve Ordinance Number 510. On November 23, 1999, the Town submitted the adopted Plan Amendment to the Department. On January 7, 2000, the Department completed its review of the adopted Plan Amendment, Ordinance Number 509, and "determined that it meets the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), for compliance, as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), F.S." Petitioners' Objections to the Plan Amendment Petitioners claim that the Plan Amendment, as applied to the Property, is inconsistent with and, therefore, does not further the "Goal," Objective 1, and Policy 1.3, of the FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners also claim that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with and fails to comply with Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioners' claim that the Town has approved the Plan Amendment, which approves a mixed-use, without any specific provision in the Comprehensive Plan for a mixed-use designation. Petitioners further claim that the Plan Amendment is not supported by sufficient data and analysis, nor is the analysis professionally acceptable. Petitioners' inconsistency and incompatibility arguments focus primarily on Petitioners' description of the relevant "neighborhood." Mr. James Fleischmann testified on behalf of Petitioners as to his definition of the relevant "neighborhood." Mr. Fleischmann and Dr. Patterson carved out the area east of U.S. 1 and west of A1A and bordered on the north by the Church and on the south by the Seaside area, designated "low density residential," as the appropriate "neighborhood." They opined that any non-residential development within this area was inconsistent with this "neighborhood." See also Findings of Fact 1-3. The "Goal" of the Town's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provides: A Town characterized by a community spirit that: recognizes its historical development patterns and styles; maintains its established neighborhoods in a safe, secure, beautified, and efficient manner by providing for both vehicular and pedestrian movement in, and around, town; which promotes future growth and development that is creative and enhances historical values and architectural styles that are indigenous to Juno Beach; which protects natural environmental features; and which reflects those development values by well defined neighborhoods and public areas that create an overall continuity to the Town while providing effective and efficient community services. There is no definition of "neighborhood" in the Town's Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, Florida Statues, or Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Fleischmann provided his definition based upon his experience and expertise. Mr. Fleischmann did not rely on any specific portion of the Town's Comprehensive Plan in defining his view of the relevant "neighborhood." Mr. Fleischmann testified that all of his opinions concerning compatibility and internal Comprehensive Plan inconsistency in this case are based upon his definition of the relevant "neighborhood." U.S. 1 is a major, four-lane highway, which accommodates traffic at speeds, which are incompatible with a low-density residential neighborhood. It was not unreasonable for the Town to consider that the "neighborhood" area is not as limited or restricted as proposed by Mr. Fleischmann. In fact, Seminole, across U.S. 1 from the Property, actually serves the identified "neighborhood" east of U.S. 1. The data and analysis presented in this hearing, most of which was presented to the Town Council, demonstrates that the area in proximity to the Property has changed over the years, including but not limited to the expansion of U.S. 1 and the development of Seminole directly across from the Property. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that approval of the Plan Amendment will not cause the "neighborhood," as defined by Mr. Fleischmann, to be unsafe, insecure, or not beautified, nor will it impede vehicular and pedestrian movement in and around the Town. The data and analysis presented in this record do not support Petitioners' argument that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the "Goal." Also, the analysis was performed in a professional manner. Objective 1 of the FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan provides: To manage growth and development through the preparation, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of land development regulations which: coordinate future land uses with the appropriate topography, some of the conditions and the availability of the facilities and services; prevent, eliminate, or reduce uses inconsistent with the Land Use Goal, Future Plan, and Future Land Use Map; and which require redevelopment, renewal or renovation, where and when necessary through the establishment of standards or for density and intensity of land development. This Objective requires only the adoption of land development regulations to implement its provisions. The record is clear that the Plan Amendment, as a future land use amendment, is not a land development regulation. Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.3 of the FLUE and Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(c)(2), Florida Administrative Code. See Conclusion of law 87. Policy 1.3 states: "Implementing ordinances, regulations and requirements regarding the development of land shall consider adjacent land uses and promote compatibility with those uses." Mr. Fleischmann claimed that he was unaware of any analysis of compatibility in the Staff Report and Recommendation presented to the Town Council in support of the Plan Amendment. However, Mr. Peduto, in the staff report, analyzed the relationship of the Plan Amendment to the surrounding properties, and stated, in part: "[T]he proposed project and petition bring an element of balance between newer residential, older residential and existing commercial, introduces a mixed- use and creates an ideal transition between the western commercial uses and eastern residential, community, and recreation uses." Mr. Peduto also considered the issue of compatibility and stated: "[The Plan Amendment] is an appropriate land-use classification for the subject property, providing for an appropriate use of the property considering existing, surrounding uses and land uses " Petitioners next contend that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, because the "commercial" FLUM land-use category is not a "mixed-use" category, does not contain a percentage mix of uses, and does not contain densities and intensities of use for all identified land uses. The Town's Comprehensive Plan has numerous future land use classifications, including a classification called "commercial." This definition provides: Land Uses and activities within land areas which are predominantly related to and used for the sale, rental, and distribution of products; the provision or performance of business, personal and professional services. However, in order to allow for mixed uses, a maximum of 75 percent of the total gross floor area on the site may be used for residential development, not to exceed a density of 22 dwelling units per gross acre. The land uses allowed in the "commercial" category include mixed uses, such as residential and commercial. These general descriptions are consistent with the requirements of Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes, and the definitions in Rules 9J-5.003(21)("commercial uses") and 9J- 5.003(108)("residential uses"), Florida Administrative Code. The mix of uses is established within the description of the "commercial" land use category itself. A maximum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the total gross floor area on-site may be residential, with the remainder being commercial. The residential density is also established in the definition of "commercial" for a maximum of twenty-two (22) units per gross acre. Further, it appears the intensity standard for allowable commercial uses is found in FLUE Object 1, Policy 1.13 b. of the Town's Comprehensive Plan which provides: "The Building Site Area Requirements, as established in the CG-Commercial General and CO-Commercial Office zoning districts, shall provide the basis for intensity of use and be the development criteria standards for general commercial and commercial office development, respectively, in Juno Beach." The definition of "commercial" includes, and authorizes a "mixed-use" of the Town's property, including the Property, which is the subject of the Plan Amendment. Petitioners also claim that the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis as required by Rule 9J- 5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Fleischmann opined that based upon his examination of the record as it existed on November 19, 1999, the data submitted to the Town was insufficient and the analysis not professionally acceptable. Conversely, the data available to the Town and the evidence presented at the de novo hearing, is adequate to support a finding that the Town's decision to change the land use category for the Property from "low density residential" to "commercial" is at least fairly debatable. Mr. Fleischmann's disagreement with Mr. Peduto and the Town staff's analysis of the facts is not conclusive. Mr. Fleischmann offers a different opinion, which failed to overcome the data and analysis of record in this case. Petitioners also argue that the Plan Amendment could not be approved without the Town, and the Department's, requiring an analysis of a "worst case scenario." However, Mr. Wilburn's testimony in this regard is persuasive in that this analysis is normally employed in the planning field for a FLUM amendment only in terms of analyzing the five areas that a local government is required to set level of service standards, i.e., roads, water, sewer, recreation, and open space. It is not appropriate to use a "worst case scenario" when reviewing issues of compatibility. Importantly, the record indicates that there is no issue raised in this case regarding the sufficiency of the existing or proposed level of service standards. The Town Council held two public hearings regarding the Plan Amendment, heard from the public, including Petitioners, and was presented with adequate data and analysis to reasonably conclude that the Plan Amendment was consistent with its Comprehensive Plan and the relevant statutes and rules at issue in this case. In summary, the Plan Amendment's change of the FLUM land use category for the Property is fairly debatable, particularly in light of the historical development occurring within the Town, and the changing conditions affecting the U.S. 1 corridor in the vicinity of the Property. Based upon the totality of the circumstances and factors presented in this case, the Plan Amendment is consistent with the Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Town of Juno Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Ordinance Number 509, is "in compliance" as defined in chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Baird, Esquire Thomas J. Baird, P.A. 11891 U.S. Highway One Suite 105 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-2864 Daniel K. Corbett, Esquire 300 Mercury Road Juno Beach, Florida 33408 W. Jay Hunston, Jr. Esquire Gregory S. Kino, Esquire Boose Casey Ciklin Lubitz Martens McBane & O'Connell 515 North Flagler Drive Northbridge Center-19th Floor, Suite 190 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4330 Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether a small-scale amendment to the Panama City Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 2690.1 (the “Plan Amendment”) on July 23, 2019, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioner, Michael Rohan, resides and owns property within the City. Mr. Rohan submitted written comments concerning the Plan Amendment to the City during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendment and ending with the adoption of same. Respondent is a Florida municipal corporation with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167. The Subject Property The subject property is a platted residential lot in the Cove Terrace subdivision (“The Cove”), which was platted in approximately 1950. The parcel fronts on Tyndall Drive and backs up to Watson Bayou. The lot is surrounded by single family development, with the exception of Watson Bayou to the north. The parcel is the only lot in The Cove not developed for residential purposes. The lot is flat, undeveloped, and roughly 222 feet in depth. The northern 24 feet of the lot, most of which is located below the water line of Watson Bayou, is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (“CHHA”). There are no wetlands, protected or endangered species, protected habitat, or other sensitive natural resources located on the lot. At the rear of the lot is an approximate five-foot drop down to Watson Bayou. Petitioner has described this as a “precipitous slope.” There are no stairs or other improvements to facilitate access to the water from the lot. There is no platform, boardwalk, or other improvement on, or adjoining, the lot to provide public use or enjoyment of the waterfront. Access to the water from the lot, in its current condition, is not easy or safe. In order to access the water from the lot, one would need to hold on to trees or shrubs to prevent falling down the embankment. There is no evidence that anyone has regularly accessed the water from the lot. Petitioner accessed it one time and testified that he and his grandchildren “sort of shimmied and scooted down to the water.” The lot is bordered by a two-rail wooden fence along Tyndall Drive, and a steel wire prevents automobile access where there is an opening in the fence. A sign posted just outside the fence reads “Sudduth Park Overflow Parking.” Petitioner agrees that public access to the lot is discouraged. Sudduth Park is a nearby little league baseball field that is additionally used for kickball and soccer practices. For at least the past 44 years, the lot has been utilized solely as overflow parking for sporting events at Sudduth Park. The lot was donated to the City in 1958, and the City still owns it. The City is under contract to sell the lot to a private buyer. The City has never designated the lot as a public waterfront access point. On April 23, 2019, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 20190423, in which the City determined the lot is not a “waterfront access point,” as that phrase is used in the comprehensive plan. Further, the Resolution finds that even if the lot were deemed a waterfront access point, the City has determined there is an overriding public interest to sell the lot, as follows: The Property has not been used as an active park, is located in an area that is not easily accessible for public use as a park and the proceeds from the sale of the property are to be used to improve Sudduth Park for the benefit of the community. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation of the lot from Recreation to Residential. Pursuant to the comprehensive plan, the lot could be developed for residential use at a density no greater than 10 units per acre, for a private or public school, utilities, or for public or non-commercial private recreation. Challenges to the Plan Amendment Internal Inconsistency Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with several provisions of the City’s existing comprehensive plan. Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Goal 1A, which reads as follows: Goal 1A: Establish a defined pattern of land use intended to guide the provision of public facilities and provide predictability in managing development. Respondent introduced the expert witness testimony of Allara Mills-Gutcher, who testified that the defined pattern of land use in the subdivision is residential, and the Plan Amendment does not conflict with this goal. Respondent’s expert witness testimony was uncontradicted. Petitioner testified that the City has justified the Plan Amendment by arguing that the Residential designation is consistent with the surrounding residential uses. Petitioner testified, summarily, that recreation is not incompatible with residential uses. Petitioner’s argument does not support a finding that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Goal 1A. Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions related to waterfront access points: Objective 1.11, and Policies 1.11.1 and 1.11.2; Goal 5C, Objective 5.7, and Policies 5.7.1, 5.7.3, and 5.7.5; and Policies 7.1.5 and 7.1.6, which read, as follows: Objective 1.11: Provide additional areas for public recreation with particular emphasis on public access to the waterfront. Policy 1.11.1: The City shall pursue local, State, and federal funds as necessary to upgrade and acquire sites for public recreation and public access to the waterfront. Policy 1.11.2: The City shall retain ownership of all public access points to the waterfront. Vacation of public access points shall be based solely on public safety or overriding public interest considerations. * * * Goal 5C: Provide, or have available, adequate areas for public waterfront access. Objective 5.7: Maintain or increase public access to waters of the state. Policy 5.7.1: The City shall improve selected street-ends for use as dedicated public waterfront access points and shall clearly mark such points as public waterfront access. * * * Policy 5.7.3: The City shall not vacate, sell, or otherwise dispose of waterfront access points, except in cases of overriding public interest. * * * Policy 5.7.5: The City shall maintain existing public access points to the waterfront, and work with private property owners to increase public waterfront access within any waterfront area. The lot is not a “waterfront access point” as that term is used in Policy 5.7.3. Nor does the lot provide public access to the waterfront. The Plan Amendment is not internally inconsistent with Objective 5.7 and Policies 1.11.2, 5.7.3, and 5.7.5. Petitioner introduced no evidence to support a finding that the City has inadequate areas for public access to waters of the state. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Goal 5C. The Plan Amendment will have no impact on the City’s ability to acquire, upgrade, or otherwise provide additional areas for public recreation and public access to the waterfront. The Plan Amendment is not internally inconsistent with Objective 1.11 and Policies 1.11.1. The lot is not a street end, and the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 5.7.1. Petitioner next contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Goal 5A, Objective 5.3, and Policy 5.3.1, which read as follows: Goal 5A: Maintain the quality of coastal resources by restricting development activities which damage or destroy coastal resources. * * * Objective 5.3: Prioritize shoreline uses. Policy 5.3.1: The City recognizes the need to establish the public interest in achieving a balance between competing waterfront land uses and the limited amount of shoreline available for such uses. When making decisions concerning designation of land use categories, approval of plan amendments, or issuance of development approvals involving competing shoreline land uses, the City shall choose the following land uses in priority order, using number 1 as the highest priority: Water-dependent land uses that preserve the waterfront, including water-dependent conservation or recreation uses; Water-dependent industrial uses; Water-related land uses; Land for which a definitive public purpose has been established; and Other land uses which are not water- dependent or water-related including residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial. Petitioner introduced no evidence to support a finding that the Plan Amendment would allow development activities which would destroy coastal resources. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Goal 5A. Read together, Objective 5.3 and Policy 5.3.1 require the City to prioritize shoreline uses and sets forth a hierarchy for approving land use changes when competing shoreline land uses are at issue. Due to its location in a residential neighborhood, the lot is not suitable for either a water-dependent industrial or commercial use. No public water-related use has ever been established on the property. No definitive public purpose has been established for this property, other than overflow parking for sporting events at the nearby little league field. Even that use has been suspended since, if not prior to, Hurricane Michael. In its current configuration, with a precipitous slope to the water, the lot is not suitable for a water-related recreational land use. Any such use would require improvements to the property. Petitioner believes the City should improve the lot for water-dependent recreation, or passive recreation that would allow the public to view the water without access thereto, rather than changing the use to residential, which will eliminate the possibility of public access. The City is under no obligation to improve the property. The City’s stated intent in selling this lot is to fund the improvement of a nearby recreational facility which has a high utility rate. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with either Objective 5.3 or Policy 5.3.1. Petitioner next contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Goal 5B, Objectives 5.5 and 5.6, and Policies 5.5.3 and 5.5.4, which read, in pertinent part, as follows:2/ Goal 5B: Reduce the risk of hurricane- related damage to life and property. Objective 5.5: Maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times as established in the Northwest Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study. * * * Policy 5.5.3: The City shall direct population concentrations away from known Coastal High Hazard Areas (“CHHA”)(as defined in the element) through the [FLUM] by not increasing densities within the CHHA . . . . Policy 5.5.4: New structures, other than recreational amenities or water-dependent structures, are prohibited within the portion of the CHHA lying within the FEMA V Zone. * * * Objective 5.6: Maintain procedures that will reduce the exposure of human life, and public and private property, to hurricane- related hazards. Petitioner introduced no evidence regarding the hurricane evacuation times established for the City, or how the Plan Amendment may impact hurricane evacuation times in the City. Respondent introduced the uncontroverted testimony of Ms. Gutcher that one single-family home would have a de minimus impact on hurricane evacuation times. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Objective 5.5. The buildable area of the lot is located completely outside of the CHHA. The Plan Amendment does not increase densities within the CHHA or allow prohibited structures within the CHHA. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policies 5.5.3 and 5.5.4. Objective 5.6 is implemented by 11 policies which describe specific programs by which the City will reduce exposure to hurricane-related hazards. Petitioner did not challenge the Plan Amendment as inconsistent with any of these implementing policies. The Plan Amendment does not interfere with or prevent the City’s procedures to reduce the exposure of human life, and public and private property, to hurricane- related hazards. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Objective 5.6. Next, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following goal and policy relating to natural resources: Goal 6A: Provide the circumstances necessary for the conservation and protection of natural and public health related resources. * * * Policy 6.6.2: The City shall protect and conserve natural functions of existing soils, wetlands, marine resources, wildlife habitat, flood zones, and estuaries by enforcing the requirements established in its Land Development Regulations. * * * Objective 7.6: Conserve locally and regionally significant natural resources through the use of sustainable development practices when improving park and open space. * * * Policy 7.6.3: The following activities shall be considered when developing environmentally sensitive sites acquired by the City: nature trails or boardwalks, waterway trails, interpretive displays, educational programs, and wildlife observation areas. These provisions are wholly irrelevant to the Plan Amendment. Goal 6A applies to conservation of natural resources, none of which have been identified on the subject lot. Policy 6.6.2 requires enforcement of the City’s land development regulations, and the Plan Amendment does not affect enforcement of those regulations. The lot contains neither locally or regionally significant natural resources, nor environmentally sensitive areas, so Objective 7.6 and Policy 7.6.3 do not apply.3/ The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Goal 6A, Policy 6.6.2, Objective 7.6, and Policy 7.6.3. Finally, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions relating to recreation:4/ The purpose of [the recreation and open space] element is to plan for a comprehensive system of public and private recreation opportunities, and to provide areas of open space. Goal 7A: Provide equitable, adequate, and appropriate recreation opportunities through provision of a combination of public and private facilities. Objective 7.1: Provide public access to identified recreation sites, including public access to beaches. Policy 7.1.1: The City shall provide recreation sites and facilities consistent with the level of service standards established in policy 7.3.10. Policy 7.1.2: The City shall provide signs designating recreation sites and shall allow beach access to such sites during reasonable hours of operation. Policy 7.1.3: The City shall provide adequate parking for all City-owned recreation sites. Policy 7.1.4: The City shall guarantee reasonable public access to City-owned natural areas. * * * Policy 7.2.1: The City shall accept donations, contributions, volunteer assistance, or other forms of fiscal or physical private assistance in meeting recreational needs. * * * Objective 7.3: Provide, or require the provision of, adequate recreation sites and facilities consistent with level of service standards and population demand. * * * Policy 7.3.14: The City shall retain all public park land and waterfront rights-of- way in perpetuity, unless a land swap of equal or greater value and acreage to the City’s park inventory is agreed upon by the City Commission. The vacation of a waterfront right-of-way may occur as specified in policy 5.7.3 of the Coastal Management Element. * * * Objective 7.5: Provide appropriate recreation facilities for the full range of citizenry needs. * * * Policy 7.5.2: The City shall locate and utilize recreation sites in areas that will stimulate ancillary economic activity and promote redevelopment of rehabilitation efforts. Petitioner introduced no evidence to demonstrate that the Plan Amendment will render the City’s recreation facilities inadequate for the population or inconsistent with the level of service standards. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Goal 7A, Policy 7.1.1, and Objectives 7.3 and 7.5. Petitioner’s contention that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 7.1 and Policies 7.1.2, 7.1.4, and 7.2.1, is misdirected. These policies require public access to, and public parking for, City-owned recreation areas, with an emphasis on public access to beaches. The lot does not provide public beach access, so the Plan Amendment is not contrary to those directives. The Plan Amendment has no impact on the City’s duty to provide public access to recreation sites and the beach. Nor does the Plan Amendment interfere with the City’s ability to accept contributions or other assistance with meeting recreational needs. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Objective 7.1 and Policies 7.1.2, 7.1.4, and 7.2.1. With respect to Policy 7.5.2, Petitioner did not introduce any evidence that retaining the lot in the Recreation land use category would accomplish the goals of stimulating economic activity or promoting redevelopment. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 7.5.2. Petitioner’s position is that the lot is public park land, which the City must retain according to the terms of Policy 7.3.14. The facts do not support Petitioner’s position. Although Mr. Lane agreed that the City’s website identifies the property at the lot’s address as a park, the website shows no recreational amenities or activities available thereon. Further, Mr. Lane testified that the only reference in the City’s records to this lot as a park is that single webpage. The comprehensive plan defines two types of parks: neighborhood and community. A neighborhood park must be a minimum of a half-acre, and a community park must be a minimum of 2.5 acres. The lot does not meet the minimum acreage requirement for either a neighborhood or community park. The lot has not been utilized as either a neighborhood or community park, and has been limited to an overflow parking area for at least the last 44 years. Further, public access to the property is discouraged. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 7.3.14. Data and Analysis The lot is previously disturbed, contains no endangered or threatened species, and no environmentally sensitive habitat. All supporting infrastructure is available to serve residential development of the lot, including sewer and water service. The lot is located in a developed single family subdivision and is appropriate for residential use. The Plan Amendment is supported by relevant and appropriate data. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioner offered no evidence that the Plan Amendment fails to provide meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land. Petitioner seems to contest the City’s change in land use of the lot as contrary to establishing predictable use of land. That position is misguided. Adoption of a local government comprehensive plan does not permanently fix the land use designations. Amendments are allowed if they meet the criteria of the Community Planning Act.
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 Panama City Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance 2690.1 on July 23, 2019, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2020.
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Boca Raton's (City's) amendments to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Transportation Element of its Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 4987 and 4991 on December 11, 2007, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City is a municipality in eastern Palm Beach County located approximately half way between West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale. It adopted the Ordinances which approve the land use amendments being challenged. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the City. MCZ is a joint venture real estate company (and an Illinois limited liability company) that acquired ownership of the Club in December 2004. MCZ applied to the City for the plan amendments being challenged and plans to redevelop the property which is the subject of the land use change. Through its agent and consultants, MCZ timely submitted comments to the City during the adoption of the plan amendments. Robert Dukate owns and resides on property facing one of the Club's golf courses, on which are the 29.58 acres that MCZ wishes to develop. He acknowledged that he drafted the Petition (without the assistance of counsel) which was filed in this case. Mr. Dukate timely submitted comments to the City during the adoption of the amendment. The parties agree that he is an affected person. See § 163.3184(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Save Boca is a Florida-for-profit limited liability corporation formed on June 14, 2007, or approximately two months after MCZ filed its application for approval of the plan amendments. According to Petitioners' Exhibit 5, it has around eighty members, although Mr. Dukate stated at hearing that it has "[a]pproximately 70," of which around thirty-five own property at the Club, and twenty-eight live directly adjacent to the proposed development. The corporation's Operating Agreement approved on June 24, 2007, indicates that Save Boca is a "member managed organization." Petitioners' Exhibit 12. However, it has only one manager, Lillian Dukate (Mr. Dukate's wife), who also serves as its Treasurer. Even though Ms. Dukate is the sole manager of the corporation and signed the Petition, she had no role in the drafting of the document. She added that she only reviewed "a little" of the Petition before it was filed in February 2008 and "just kind of skimmed through it just to see what it was." There is one other officer, Ann Pinkocze, who serves as Secretary but has no involvement with the corporation except for signing checks. The Petition alleges that the organization "submitted oral and/or written comments and objections to the amendment during the adoption process." This was confirmed at hearing by Mr. Dukate who indicated that the organization hired an attorney (Jane West, Esquire) to submit oral or written comments to the City Commission during the adoption process. There is some confusion regarding the nature and purpose of the organization. Neither the Articles of Incorporation nor the Operating Agreement (the only two documents pertaining to the operation of the corporation) provides that information. At hearing, Mr. Dukate, who was responsible for its formation, stated that the corporation was formed "for the purposes of saving green space within the City of Boca Raton at the request of many residents in this particular community." He added that it is not necessarily limited to activities within the City and denied that it was formed specifically to oppose these plan amendments or "reap the benefits of any negotiations [it] might have with the developer." Although Section III.6 of the Operating Agreement requires that the organization conduct "an annual membership meeting," and it provides that "any member may call a special membership meeting at any time by communicating to all other members the plan to schedule a special meeting," there is no evidence that the organization has ever held a meeting or passed a resolution. This fact was partially acknowledged by Mr. Dukate when he confirmed that no meetings have been held since the City adopted the amendments in December 2007. Minimal activities conducted by the organization include the filing of a Petition and participating in this matter, sending emails and correspondence to members of the Boca Teeca community, and the hiring of one expert and counsel shortly before the hearing. According to a letter he wrote to his neighbors on June 22, 2007, or around a week after Save Boca was formed, Mr. Dukate urged them to join Save Boca "to coordinate the process" of negotiating with MCZ on behalf of the community in order to reduce the impact of the project as much as possible. Intervenor's Exhibit 21. In an earlier email authored by Mr. Dukate on June 10, 2007, concerning the possibility of hiring an attorney to oppose the project, he stated that "[c]onsidering the amount of money that the city was extracting from this developer -- $3myn [$3 million] + $185K for the median beautification + more money for work-force housing -- we should have no trouble getting in excess of $300k for our community, or almost $10k/house." Intervenor's Exhibit 22. Through cross-examination at hearing, Intervenor sought to establish that there was no action ever taken by the corporation to approve the filing of a petition in this case. However, that issue was not pursued in the Joint Proposed Recommended Order and it is assumed that claim has been abandoned. The Operating Agreement indicates that all management decisions will require "the approval of a majority of managers" and that "[a]ction by written consent may be taken without a meeting, without prior notice, and without a vote." Petitioners' Exhibit 12, page 1. Ms. Dukate is the only manager and she alone could presumably make a decision to initiate a legal proceeding on behalf of Save Boca. Except for the Petition itself, there is no evidence of any other "written consent." Background As noted above, MCZ purchased the Club in December 2004. The Club consists of approximately 212 acres on which are located a residential community known as Boca Teeca, three nine- hole golf courses (known as the north, west, and south courses), a clubhouse, an inn, and maintenance facilities. The Club is bounded on the west by Interstate 95 (I-95), on its southern border by Yamato Road, by a railroad track which lies just west of North Dixie Highway (State Road 811) on its eastern side, and by a canal on its northern boundary. Northwest Second Avenue (a part of which is also known as Boca Raton Boulevard), a City- maintained road, runs in a north-south direction through the eastern half of the property, while Jeffrey Street intersects with Northwest Second Avenue and runs from there through the center of the property in a northwest direction and eventually crosses over I-95 where it becomes Clint Moore Road. MCZ plans to redesign the Club by significantly upgrading the eighteen-hole championship golf course, creating a new nine-hole executive golf course from an existing nine-hole championship course, creating new enhanced social facilities, and constructing 211 new townhome units. The townhomes will be constructed on approximately 29.58 acres in the southwest portion of the property just east of I-95 and south of Jeffrey Street. Nine holes of the existing golf course are currently located on that site and will be eliminated, to be replaced by a nine-hole executive course in another area of the Club. It is fair to infer that one of the driving forces behind this challenge is Petitioners' opposition to the construction of 211 townhomes on what is now open space (currently a nine-hole golf course) lying to the west-southwest of the homes of Mr. Dukate and presumably some other Save Boca members. By application filed with the City on April 10, 2007, MCZ sought approval of the two plan amendments in question, including a change in the 29.58 acres from Recreation and Open Space to Residential Medium (Ordinance No. 4987) and a text amendment (consisting of a new goal, policy, and four objectives and an amendment to an existing policy) to the City's Transportation Element (Ordinance No. 4991). The FLUM amendment allows a density on the property not to exceed 9.5 units per acre, although MCZ has agreed to not exceed 7.1 units per acre. See Policy LU.1.1.2. The text amendments specifically provide for the adoption of an Alternate Traffic Concurrency Standard (ATCS). The effect of the text amendments is to allow a new interim level of service (LOS) standard (1,960 two-way peak hour trips) for that portion of Northwest Second Avenue extending from Yamato Road to Jeffrey Street to account for the anticipated impacts of the proposed development. This was necessary since the traffic volume on the roadway has been, and is currently, exceeding the upper limit of its established LOS E (1,550 vehicles at peak hour). Any development approved pursuant to the ATCS must also employ certain mitigation measures, such as improved turn lanes. The amendments were considered at a meeting of the City's Planning and Zoning Board on June 7, 2007. With one dissenting vote, the Board recommended approval to the City. The amendments were then considered and approved by the City Council at a public hearing conducted on September 11, 2007. On September 25, 2007, the amendment package was transmitted to the Department for its review. (The amendment package included four Ordinances; however, only two are in issue.) On November 30, 2007, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comment Report (ORC), which cited objections relating to ensuring adequate potable water and transportation capacity to support the proposed map amendments and establishing a level of service (LOS) standard "consistent with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C." More specifically, in terms of traffic impacts, the Department was concerned that the City had only evaluated the impacts of the proposed development rather than the maximum development potential that would be allowed under the new land use category. On December 11, 2007, the City Council voted to adopt Ordinance Nos. 4987 and 4991, which approved the change in the FLUM and amended the Transportation Element. The amendment package was transmitted to the Department for its final review on December 17, 2007. That package included revised data and analysis in response to the ORC. See Finding of Fact 44, infra. On January 25, 2008, a Department staff report was issued recommending that the two Ordinances be found in compliance. This was approved by the Office of Comprehensive Planning on January 28, 2008. On February 4, 2008, the Department published its Notice of Intent in the Boca Raton News. On February 25, 2008, Petitioners filed their Petition contending that Ordinance Nos. 4987 and 4991 were not in compliance. As grounds, they asserted that Ordinance No. 4987 (the FLUM amendment) is inconsistent with Objective REC. 3.1.0 of the Plan, while they generally contended that Ordinance No. 4991 (the text amendment) is inconsistent with the EAR and various provisions within the Transportation Element of the Plan, is not supported by adequate data and analysis, and violates the concurrency statute. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners first contend that the FLUM amendment is inconsistent with Objective REC 3.1.0, which requires the City to "[d]esignate, acquire, or otherwise preserve a system of open space" that, among other things, "provides visual relief from urban development." The Petition alleges that the amendment "reduces the availability of open space, as well as, the availability of land designated for recreational use within the city and does not provide visual relief from urban development." Petition, paragraph 15. Mr. Dukate's residence is approximately 150 feet from the location of the proposed townhome development and overlooks a golf course, some trees, and I-95 in the distance. The proposed townhomes are designed to resemble villas in a Key West architectural style and are clustered in groups of six connected by pedestrian walkways. The height restriction for all units is thirty-five feet. However, the townhomes closest to the single-family homes have been designed as two- story units. There will be significant landscaping and a buffer between the townhomes and I-95 and the existing single-family homes to the east. The evidence shows that if the property is developed, it will provide visual relief from urban development. In addition, the proposed development provides substantial open space on site, over sixty percent more than is required by the City's Land Development Code. The FLUM amendment also furthers the cited Objective by providing pedestrian and bicycle linkages between parks, schools, residential, and commercial areas. Although the issue of compatibility was not raised in the Petition except in the context of proving standing, the City's Principal Planner, Jennifer Hofmeister, established that her review of the FLUM amendment was a "lot more detailed and specific than a lot of other local governments would do [for] their compatibility analysis." Ms. Hofmeister concluded that the two uses are compatible under the current Plan. In making her analysis, she reviewed the adjacent land uses on the FLUM, the proposed site plan submitted by MCZ, including the maximum height of the townhomes, and the densities allowed by single- family neighborhoods and the new land use. Ms. Hofmeister further noted that higher density housing has existed adjacent to single-family homes in the area just north of Yamato Road since the Club was developed in 1973 or 1974. She also pointed out that in the field of planning, medium density (such as townhomes) is considered a transitional land use in the residential land use category and is compatible with a single- family neighborhood. Petitioners' planning expert, Deborah Golden-Gestner, acknowledged that while she had reviewed parts of the application file, such as the Department of Transportation's (DOT) traffic comments, she had never seen or reviewed the challenged plan amendments before she presented testimony at the final hearing. Ms. Golden-Gestner contended that the City's review process was flawed because it failed to consider the 1973 master plan for the Boca Teeca community, which limited development to 1,774 units, of which 1,682 have been built to date. Therefore, she concluded that the FLUM amendment violates the terms of that plan since it allows 211 more units to be built. However, consistency with a master plan is not a compliance consideration. Further, the 1973 master plan was not raised as an issue in the Petition. Assuming arguendo that the master plan is data that could have been considered by the City (although this argument was not made by Petitioners), Ms. Hofmeister established that the property subject to the FLUM amendment (a golf course) has been purchased by a separate entity (MCZ) and is subject to a different master plan. Petitioners have not shown beyond fair debate that the FLUM amendment is inconsistent with the cited Objective or is otherwise not in compliance. Ordinance No. 4991 amends the Transportation Element of the Plan in several respects. First, it revises Policy TRAN. 1.3.1., which prescribes the LOS standards to be maintained on roadways during peak hour and daily conditions, by providing that an exception to those LOS standards is permitted if it is "approved pursuant to Goal 5 of the Transportation Element." At the same time, the Ordinance creates a new Goal 5 which reads as follows: GOAL TRAN. 5.0.0: IT IS THE GOAL OF THE CITY OF BOCA RATON TO IMPLEMENT INTERIM CONCURRENCY MEASURES FOR CONSTRAINED ROADWAYS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PENDING THE ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF A MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT ("MMTD") FOR THE CITY. The City also created the following rather lengthy objective and policies to implement the above goal: OBJECTIVE TRAN. 5.1.0: The City Council shall adopt interim traffic concurrency measures that are compatible with, and supportive of, MMTD concepts and principles, including the provision of alternative modes of transportation, funding mechanisms to support transit, applicable roadway improvements and transportation mode connectivity. POLICY TRAN. 5.1.1: The Boca Raton City Council established as its "Major Issue" pursuant to the 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the adoption of an MMTD for the City. As an interim measure, pending adoption of MMTD Goal, Objective and Policy amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council desires to implement a procedure for the approval of an alternative traffic concurrency standard ("ATCS") over roadways that are constrained and exceed the adopted level-of-service as provided in Policy TRAN 1.3.1. Any development approved pursuant to the ATCS shall employ mitigation measures as provided below and must be consistent with all other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Any development approved pursuant to the ATCS shall implement mitigation measures including, but not limited to, the following: All development shall include on-site and off-site non-vehicular transportation improvements including sidewalks, shared use pathways, transit facilities and/or bike lanes. These improvements shall be constructed to either tie into or expand existing public facilities as a means to provide connectivity to existing regional transit facilities. All development shall continue to test for concurrency pursuant to the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. Any required roadway network improvements otherwise consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, such as turn lanes and signalization improvements shall be constructed by, and at the expense of, the petitioner [developer]. All development shall include a Transportation Demand Management program, traffic calming techniques, a complementary mix of land uses, appropriate densities and intensities of land, access to transit facilities, access management plans and pedestrian friendly site design. Any development approved pursuant to this Comprehensive Plan goal shall enter into an agreement documenting any and all mitigation measures, including any funding necessary to implement MMTD improvements (i.e. mitigation measures) proposed to mitigate roadway level-of-service impacts. POLICY TRAN. 5.1.2: The City shall adopt appropriate Land Development Regulations prior to the approval of any development pursuant to the Code. POLICY TRAN. 5.1.3: Any request for development approval pursuant to the ATCS shall be authorized by the City Council through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and shall be processed in accordance with the Conditional Land Use Amendments and Rezoning provisions found at Chapter 23, Article VI, of the Land Development Code. POLICY TRAN. 5.1.10: Policy TRAN. 1.4.8. establishes NW 2nd Avenue from Yamato Road to the northern City Limit as a 2-lane, undivided, constrained roadway, in order to, among other reasons, maintain the residential character of the adjacent neighborhoods. The following establishes the ATCS for the proposed Ocean Breeze development ("Development") (Universal Conditional Approval Request (UC-06-04)) to satisfy traffic concurrency under Goal 5 of the Transportation Element, pursuant to the purposes stated in this Goal and Objective, subject to the following mitigation measures and conditions: The level-of-service for NW 2nd Avenue between Yamato Road and Jeffrey Street is hereby established as 1,960 two-way peak hour trips. The Ocean Breeze developer shall enter into a written mitigation agreement to implement the below described mitigation measures, including but not limited to those measures provided in POLICY TRAN. 5.1.1., as more specifically defined below. The developer shall contribute $6,000,000 to the City to offset roadway capacity constraints. These dollars shall be used by the City to improve NW 2nd Avenue as a 4-lane divided highway or to fund MMTD improvements that will impact the Development. The Mitigation Agreement shall specify the disposition of funds in the event the Development Order expires. The developer shall construct the following off-site MMTD improvements: sidewalks along NW 2nd Avenue and Jeffrey Street to tie the proposed development into the City's pedestrian and bikeway system. The Mitigation Agreement shall not be transferred or assignable without the written consent of the City and it shall be entered into prior to the issuance of a Development Order. * * * (Although the terms of a mitigation agreement between a local government and a developer are not normally included in the comprehensive plan, the testimony was that local governments are now incorporating this type of language in their plans.) Petitioners have alleged that the amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 4991 are not in compliance for a number of reasons, some of which are quite general in nature and do not identify the specific parts of the lengthy text amendments that are actually being challenged. First, they argue that the amendments are inconsistent with a statement found at page 37 of the City's 2005 EAR, which reads as follows: For any significant future development to occur in this area, Boca Raton Blvd. would need to be widened to a four (4)-lane divided roadway. Developers would be required to fund this improvement. The estimated cost to widen Boca Raton Blvd. to a four (4)-lane divided road is approximately 14.3 million dollars based upon the FDOT Transportation Cost Manual. Petitioners generally assert that because the Mitigation Agreement entered into by the developer and the City only provides for $6 million for the widening of Northwest 2nd Avenue (Boca Raton Boulevard) and not the $14.3 million referred to in the EAR, the amendment and the EAR are inconsistent. An EAR is the first step in updating a local government's comprehensive plan and is prepared every seven years to determine if the plan's goals, objectives, and policies are being met, or if new goals, objectives, and policies need to be implemented. See § 163.3191, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.003(44). Once an EAR is found to be sufficient by the Department, the next step is for the local government to adopt EAR-based amendments which incorporate the recommended revisions in the EAR. However, there is no requirement in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5 that plan amendments be consistent with EAR provisions. See § 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. In fact, the City may deviate from changes recommended in the EAR, so long as the action taken is supported by adequate data and analysis. In this case, the proposed amendments are not EAR-based amendments, and the Department did not review, and was not required to review, the City's EAR to determine whether the proposed amendments were consistent with that document.6 Petitioners further allege that the City is basing the amendments on the adoption and implementation of the MMTD, which "may, or may not be adopted." Petition, paragraph 18. They go on to allege that this in turn violates GOAL TRAN. 1.0.0, which provides that a goal of the City shall be to provide a safe transportation system. The purpose of a MMTD is to promote alternative forms of transportation, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes, in order to reduce automobile trips. The 2005 EAR identified the adoption of a MMTD as a major issue for the City. Intervenor's Exhibit 7, Chapter 3. While the City is currently in the planning stages for the establishment of a MMTD, it must first have money in the budget to implement the changes and then prepare amendments to the Plan and Code of Ordinances. The precise date when this will occur, if at all, is unknown. The evidence established that the plan amendments are neither contingent nor dependent on the implementation of the MMTD. Indeed, the traffic analysis supporting the amendments has not assumed that any trips would be removed from the roadway by the implementation of the MMTD. Further, the Department did not consider the implementation of the MMTD in its review of the amendments nor deem it necessary. If the City does in fact implement the MMTD at some future date, it will need to amend its Plan by a separate amendment. Therefore, the MMTD is not relevant to determining whether the amendments are in compliance.7 Petitioners further allege that the plan amendment, which specifically modifies the LOS to allow for 1,960 two-way trips on a segment of Northwest Second Avenue, violates Policy TRAN. 1.4.8 by allowing "congestion which will jeopardize the safety of not only the motorists but especially the pedestrians and the reduction of the quality of life and lead to degradation of the residential character of the community." Petition, paragraph 19. The policy allegedly contravened provides that "NW 2nd Avenue from Yamato Road to the northern city limits shall remain a 2-lane undivided constrained facility in order to maintain the residential character and provide a pedestrian and bicycle friendly culture to adjacent neighborhoods." The segment of roadway at issue is Northwest Second Avenue between Jeffrey Street and Yamato Road, which cuts through the eastern half of the Club and is a local road. Although classified as a "2-lane undivided constrained facility" in the Plan, this roadway is actually considered an undivided three-lane roadway because it has a number of dedicated left turn lanes. Like all City (or local) roads, this segment is designated LOS E, which allows for 1,550 two-way peak trips. This LOS has been consistently exceeded since 1994. (Local governments have the discretion to establish LOS standards on local roads that are not consistent with any LOS standards established by the DOT. See § 163.3180(10), Fla. Stat.) The LOS as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual and accepted by the City and Palm Beach County (County) is ultimately defined in terms of driver delay. The City Traffic Engineer, Douglass Hess, established that various improvements which are required by the City as conditions of approval for these amendments will help improve the LOS along this segment. Specifically, the developer will be required to install sidewalks along Northwest Second Avenue and turn lane improvements at the intersection of Northwest Second Avenue and Jeffrey Street. The turn lane improvements include a redesign of the north-bound turn lane (by expanding the lane from 120 feet to 300 feet long), which will allow for more storage of cars, and the addition of a new south-bound turn lane which will direct traffic to West Jeffrey Street. Mr. Hess also analyzed the intersection of Northwest Second Avenue and Jeffrey Street on a chart demonstrating the average motorist's delay during the morning and afternoon peak hours under three different scenarios. See Intervenor's Exhibit The first scenario was as the intersection currently exists in 2007 peak season; the second is 2010 conditions without the development; and the third demonstrated 2010 conditions with the development, including the lane improvements. The Exhibit reflects that the average delay in seconds during morning and afternoon peak hours under existing traffic conditions in 2007 is now 74.8 and 73.1 seconds, respectively, or LOS E. Under 2010 traffic conditions with development, including the required improvements, the average delay in seconds will be reduced to 30.5 and 47.3 seconds during morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively, or within the standards for LOS C and D. Therefore, any congestion will greatly improve with this development and the improvements required by the City. Petitioners further allege that Policy TRAN. 1.3.7 is violated "due to a lack of accurate [traffic] data being provided to the city" (Petition, paragraph 17), and "[i]ncreasing the peak-hour traffic level of service standards for a development results in having no standards at all and should not be allowed under the policies of responsible growth planning and therefore violates the concurrency requirements required by the State of Florida" Petition, paragraph 20. Policy TRAN. 1.3.7 provides that "[p]roposed land use changes shall only be approved when traffic impact studies or mitigation measures ensure that adopted roadway level-of-service standards will be upheld." The new LOS for the segment in question is 1,960 two-way peak trip hours, of which only seventy-eight are attributable to the proposed development at the Club during the peak hour. In determining the impact of the development, the City Traffic Engineer considered a number of factors. First, he noted that the traffic volumes on this segment of roadway had actually been declining over the past several years. Even so, he elected to increase the existing traffic by a compounded growth rate of 1.15 percent per year. Second, based upon data provided by the County and City, he also included committed traffic that has not yet materialized on the roadway network. This is traffic that is associated with the approved projects within the area that have not yet reached full build-out of the development. Finally, he added to the roadway network the traffic associated with the Club development. The foregoing analysis resulted in the volume on the relevant segment of roadway to be 1,908 in the peak hour. Because of concerns noted by the Department in its ORC, which asked that the City assume a total build-out of the proposed new zoning category rather than the reduced number of units proposed by MCZ, the City made a second analysis of the traffic impacts. In its second analysis, the City evaluated the impacts using a horizon year of 2012, rather than 2010. Even though the developer proposed to construct only 211 townhomes, the City assumed that there would be 281 dwelling units on the property. With these new assumptions, the traffic volume increased to 1,958, which was still within the proposed LOS standard of 1,960 vehicles during the peak hour. The City reacted appropriately to this data and analysis when it adopted the challenged amendments. In challenging Ordinance No. 4991, Petitioners relied primarily upon the testimony of Larry Hymowitz, a Transportation Planner with the DOT who submitted comments to the Department on November 21, 2007, as part of the Department's review process. See Petitioners' Exhibit 10. The DOT is one of the agencies that is required by law to be provided with copies of proposed amendments for review and to then forward its comments to the Department. In criticizing the same amendment, Ms. Golden- Gestner also relied heavily upon the DOT's comments. Although Mr. Hymowitz concluded that there was a lack of information submitted by the City to demonstrate that adequate mitigation had been proposed to offset the increased traffic from the project, he did not review the adoption package or any other documentation dated after September 2007. Therefore, he was unaware of the additional data and analysis submitted by the City. In this respect, his analysis was flawed. Mr. Hymowitz also incorrectly assumed that the LOS for the Boca Raton Boulevard segment was LOS D, or 1,250 trips per peak hour. In doing so, he overlooked a footnote in the City's transmittal package to the Department which explained that links within the jurisdiction of the City are assigned LOS E. Moreover, the only objection noted by the DOT in its written comments was related to potential traffic impacts on I-95 and U.S. Highway 1. The evidence establishes, however, that the impact of the proposed development on I-95 between Glades Road and Yamato Road (which are the roadways having the two closest ramps onto I-95) was only six trips during peak hour, which is considered to be insignificant and requires no mitigation. Similarly, the impacts on U.S. Highway 1 were small, and the impacted sections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D throughout the building of the project and into the horizon year of 2012. Petitioners' traffic consultant, Mr. Wyman, concluded that because Northwest Second Avenue is already a constrained roadway, and the project will generate new traffic, the City should require "proper" mitigation, such as four-laning the roadway or scaling back the development. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Wyman questioned the accuracy of the City consultant's traffic report. He stated that if he had prepared the traffic report, he would have used more conservative estimates for pass-by trips and different directional components in the traffic count calculation. He agreed, however, that the traffic counts were done "professionally and correctly," he stated that he "respected" the methodology used by the City's consultant, and he agreed that a traffic study includes some subjective analysis by the person performing the study. Finally, in a similar vein, Petitioners have raised a broad contention that "concurrency" requirements under Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes, have been violated. Petition, paragraph 20. (Although the statute runs for eight pages, a more specific citation to a particular part of the statute was not given.) In responding to this broad contention, the Department's Regional Planning Administrator pointed out that the Department is not required to make a concurrency determination in its review of a plan amendment. Rather, its review is limited to determining whether the local government is properly planning for its public facilities. In doing so, the Department determines whether the City (a) has the facilities available at the present time to meet the needs of the proposed development, or (b) the City has plans for facilities to be in place when the impacts of the development occur. Thus, the actual concurrency determination is made by the local government at the time a development order or permit is issued. In this case, the Department determined that the new LOS standard of 1,960 trips on the impacted roadway segment was sufficient to accommodate the development of the project at the maximum development potential. Finally, contrary to Petitioners' assertion, in establishing the new LOS, the City was not required to include any capital improvements in its schedule of capital improvements since none are necessary to maintain that standard. Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 4991 are not supported by adequate data and analysis, are inconsistent with other Plan provisions, violate the concurrency statute, or are otherwise not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the City's plan amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 4987 and 4991 are in compliance. Jurisdiction is retained for the purpose of considering Intervenor's Motions for Sanctions, Fees, and Costs, if renewed within thirty days after a final order is entered in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 2008.
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction And Closing File in this proceeding.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110, TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCY CLERK, 107 EAST MADISON STREET, MSC 110, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-4128, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. Final Order No. DEO-11-0028 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Economic Development, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this JS Thay of November, 2011. Y ‘ Miriam Snipes, Agenéy Clerk DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail: Mr. Benjamin Gross, Esq. City of Daytona Beach 301 S. Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 grossb@codb.us By Hand Delivery: David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue The issue is whether a development order adopted by Respondent City of Marathon by Resolution PC00-09-04 is consistent with the comprehensive plan, land development regulations, and statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent City of Marathon (Marathon) was incorporated on November 30, 1999. It adopted as its land development regulations (LDR) the LDRs of Monroe County in effect at the time of Marathon's incorporation. Marathon is within The Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. This case involves a development order that Marathon issued to Respondent Banana Bay of Marathon, Inc. (BB). As Planning Commission Resolution 00-09-04, the development order authorizes BB to add 12 motel rooms to an existing motel in return for imposing certain restrictions on the use of wet slips at its adjacent marina that is part of the same motel/marina development. The restrictions require the removal of cable television connections from 12 slips and limitation upon vessels using these 12 slips to those without plumbing facilities. For the remaining wet slips at the marina, the development order requires BB to limit their use to no more than 18 vessels at one time and to provide mandatory sewage pumpout for these vessels. At various points in the record and this recommended order, references to a "transfer" of 12 marina slips for 12 motel rooms refer to the conditions set forth in this paragraph. BB owns 7.39 acres of upland and 2.67 acres of adjacent bay bottom in Marathon at mile marker 49.5 (Subject Property or, as developed, Banana Bay). The Subject Property runs from U.S. Route 1 to the water. The Subject Property contains 60 motel rooms in two buildings, a conference room, a motel office, support buildings, three apartments suitable for employee use, and a marina. The marina includes 40-50 slips, depending upon the size of the moored vessels. The Subject Property is zoned Suburban Commercial (SC) and Mixed Use (MU). About 2.4 acres (104,544 square feet) running about 350 feet from U.S. Route 1 is SC. About 4.99 acres (217,364 square feet) is zoned MU. The additional 2.67 acres of adjacent bay bottom are also zoned MU, although the submerged acreage is unimportant for reasons discussed below. Twenty-five of the motel rooms are in SC, and 35 of the motel rooms are in MU, although the distinction between zoning districts is also unimportant for reasons discussed below. LDR Code Section 9.5-267 authorizes ten "rooms" per ”acre" as "allocated density" for motel uses in SC and MU and 15 "rooms" per "buildable acre" as "maximum net density" for motel uses in SC and MU. (There is no difference between "hotels" and "motels" in this case; all references to "motels" include "hotels.") Three fundamental questions emerge concerning the application of these two density limitations to this case. The first is whether BB must satisfy both the "allocated density" and "maximum net density" limitation. This is not a difficult issue; BB's proposal must satisfy each of these density limitations. The second question is what is included in the areas under each of these density limitations. Notwithstanding the use of "gross acres" in the "allocated density" formula, it is necessary to net out certain areas--just less than is netted out in the "maximum net density" formula. The third question is what constitutes a "room." When applied to marine-based units, the definition of a "room" presents a difficult and important issue. As a whole, the LDRs imply that no marine-based dwelling units should count as "rooms," but one provision specifically requires the inclusion of "live-aboard" units in density calculations. The first question requires little analysis. As noted below in the discussion of the two types of areas, "allocated density" and "maximum net density" provide two separate measures of the intensity of use of land. The allowable density for "maximum net density" is never less than the allowable density for "allocated density" because "maximum net density" is a safeguard to ensure that, after netting out from the parcel those areas reserved for open space, setbacks, and buffers, the intensity of use will not be excessive. Nothing whatsoever in the LDRs suggests that Marathon may issue a development order for a proposal that satisfies the "maximum net density," but not the "allocated density." These two densities limitations operate in tandem, not in the alternative. The calculation of the "allocated density" requires consideration of the second and third questions identified above. The issue of area seems straightforward. LDR Code Section 9.5-4(D-3) defines "density or allocated density" as "the number of dwelling units or rooms allocated per gross acre of land by the plan." LDR Code Section 9.5-4(D-4) defines "maximum net density" as "the maximum density permitted to be developed per unit of land on the net buildable area of a site, as measured in dwelling units or rooms per acre." LDR Code Section 9.5-4(G-4) defines "gross area" as "the total acreage of a site less submerged lands and any dedicated public rights-of-way." LDR Code Section 9.5-4(N-4) defines "net buildable area" as "that portion of a parcel of land which is developable and is not open space required by section 9.5-262 or 9.5-343 or required minimum bufferyard under article VII division 11 or required setbacks under section 9.5-281." The area of land involved in determining "allocated density" is greater than the area of land involved in determining "maximum net density." But the area of land involved in determining "allocated density" is itself a net amount. The LDRs expressly require reducing the gross areas by any submerged land and dedicated public rights-of-way. However, any reasonable application of the LDRs also requires reducing the gross areas used for the motel "allocated density" calculation by the minimum areas required to support other uses on the Subject Property. If the only use of the Subject Property were motel rooms, the "allocated density" limit of ten units per acre (10:1) would allow 73.9 rooms. But the Marathon Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 18, 2000, correctly netted from the Subject Property the land areas required to support the commercial aspects of the hotel and the commercial apartments. These reductions leave a total of 5.86 acres available to support the motel rooms. At a density of 10:1, the Subject Property could therefore support a total of 58 motel rooms. The Planning Commission incorrectly used the 15:1 ratio for "maximum net density" in concluding that the Subject Property could support a total of 67.65 motel rooms. Evidently, the Planning Commission used the "maximum net density" because it was not using "gross area" or "gross acres" (the terms are synonymous under the Code) in calculating the area. The netting reduction necessary to calculate whether BB's proposal satisfies the "maximum net density" limitation would require the calculation of the area of the Subject Property that must be devoted to open space, setbacks, and buffers. The Planning Commission probably undertook this step in calculating the "maximum net density" for the Subject Property, as its figures seem to include unstated deductions for the 20 percent open space plus another factor, probably for setbacks and buffers--all of which are discussed in its report. However, the Planning Commission erroneously neglected to apply the "allocated density" limitation to the "gross acres," exclusive of submerged land, public rights-of-way, and the minimum land required to support the other upland uses. As noted above, doing so would have yielded no more than 58 motel rooms. At present, the Subject Property contains 60 hotel or motel rooms. The Subject Property therefore cannot support the addition of another 12 hotel or motel rooms, given its "allocated density" of only 58 rooms. In general, BB justifies the addition of 12 rooms to the front motel by arguing that it is only transferring these units from the 12 existing wet slips. It is unnecessary to determine whether a transfer under these facts is lawful when, if these 12 slips count as units, the Subject Property is already 14 units over its "allocated density." The resolution of the third question--what constitutes a "room"--dispenses with this argument. Thirty of the existing 40-50 boat slips in the marina have water, electric, and cable hook-ups and are presently used for some form of habitation. Most vessels berth at the marina for two or three days, although the average stay is slightly over one month. The average stay at the 30 slips offering utilities, though, is two to three months. Typically, two persons use a vessel berthed at the marina for more than a couple of days. BB seals the discharge ports of all vessels mooring at the marina for any appreciable period of time. BB provides a sewage pumpout service for these and other vessels. The wastewater from the marina operations goes to a septic tank, in contrast to the wastewater from the motel operations, which goes to an onsite package plant. Persons mooring at the marina for at least two months normally obtain telephone service and may obtain cable television service, in addition to the potable water and electrical services provided by BB. The marina also provides rest rooms, laundry facilities, showers, a bar, limited food service, and a mail box. However, BB rules require that all persons berthing at the marina register a permanent address because the slips are "not considered permanent housing." At the request of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the Monroe County Planning Department, BB has limited rental agreements at the marina to a maximum of one month, although some persons enter into back-to-back rental agreements. Persons staying more than one week often have cars. Contrary to BB's contentions, none of these slips provides additional density for the Subject Property, and therefore the 12 slips are not available for transfer to the motel. For the same reason, as discussed below, the proposed transfer of the 12 units would also violate the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO). In two respects, the record reveals that the conversion of marine-based residential uses to upland residential uses might facilitate the achievement of important land use planning objectives. First, the wastewater collected from the marina is directed to a septic tank, and the wastewater collected from the motel is directed to a package plant. Absent a significantly reduced flow from the marine-based residential use, the upland residential use would therefore impact the adjacent waters to a lesser extent. Second, marine-based residential users may be more reluctant to evacuate for an approaching hurricane than upland residential users. Absent a significantly greater number of visitors during hurricane season if the 12 units were taken from the marina slips and added to the motel, the upland residential use might therefore facilitate timely hurricane evacuation of the vulnerable Keys. However, the record was relatively undeveloped on these two points, and these possible advantages to the conversion of marine-based residential uses to upland-based residential uses do not override the LDRs. The LDRs may treat the more intense residential use associated with "live-aboards" differently than the less intense residential use associated with other moored vessels. Although the LDRs' treatment of "live-aboards" may not be entirely consistent, any inconsistency is irrelevant in this case because the moored vessels at the Banana Bay marina do not qualify as "live-aboards." As stipulated for the purpose of this case, LDR Code Section 9.5-4(T-4) defines a "transient residential unit" as "a dwelling unit used for transient housing such as a hotel or motel room, or space for parking a recreational vehicle or travel trailer." LDR Code Section 9.5-4(D-31) defines a "dwelling unit" as "one (1) or more rooms physically arranged to create a housekeeping establishment for occupancy by one (1) family with separate toilet facilities." LDR Code Sections 9.5-4(D-23) through 9.5-4(D-30) identify the various types of dwellings that may contain "dwelling units.” These dwellings are, respectively, detached zero-lot-line dwellings, multifamily apartment dwellings, attached dwellings, detached individual dwellings, duplex dwellings, commercial apartment dwellings, rooftop dwellings, and townhouse dwellings. The frequent references to "open yards" in these definitions precludes the application of these definitions to moored vessels, even "live- aboards." The exclusion of all moored vessels, including "live-aboards," from density calculations is also suggested by two other portions of the LDRs. As is typical, LDR Code Section 9.5-120.1 provides that the mechanism for enforcing density limitations is in the issuance of building permits, but this enforcement mechanism is of doubtful use in regulating vessel moorings, which do not typically involve the issuance of a building permit. Also, the density definitions discussed above both refer to the development of various types of residential uses on "land." Moreover, none of the zoning districts established in Marathon's LDRs measures the intensity of marina uses, including vessels moored for extended periods as live-aboards, by imposing some sort of marine density limitation, either by including the moored dwelling units or the submerged acreage. Because the LDRs did not intend to include such marine-based uses in density calculations, LDR Code Section 9.5-267, which is a table setting forth "allocated densities" and "maximum net densities," covers only upland-based uses, including recreational vehicle or campground spaces per acre, and does not extent to marine-based uses, such as live-aboard marina slips. However, two provisions in the LDRs require density calculations to include "live-aboards." LDR Code Section 9.5-308, which seems to be an older provision in the LDRs, provides that "each live-aboard shall count as a dwelling unit for the purpose of calculating density limitations in the district in which it is permitted." Better incorporated into the present regulatory scheme of the LDRs, LDR Code Section 9.5-120.1 defines a "residential dwelling unit" as a "dwelling unit," including a "transient rental unit," as defined in LDR Code Section 9.5-4(T-3), and "live-aboard vessels," as defined in LDR Code Section 9.5-4(L-6). However, LDR Code Section 9.5-4((L-6) states that a "live-aboard vessel" is "any vessel used solely as a residence or any vessel represented as a place of business, a professional or other commercial enterprise, or a legal residence." The record does not suggest that any of the moored vessels were used "solely" as a residence, as distinguished, for instance, from a vessel used for residential and recreational purposes, or that any of the mixed-use vessels served as the occupants' legal residence. Absent a finding that the moored vessels constitute "transient residential units," ROGO does not support this proposed transfer of residential uses from marine-based to upland-based. LDR Code Section 9.5-123(f)(3) authorizes the transfer of an existing "residential dwelling unit" from one site to another within the same subarea. However, LDR Code Section 9.5-122 defines a "residential dwelling unit" to extend only to "live-aboards." For the reasons already discussed, the less intense residential uses associated with the vessels moored at Banana Bay's marina preclude their treatment as "residential dwelling units" eligible for transfer to the motel. Petitioner has proved that the development order is materially inconsistent with the LDRs. LDR provisions governing the density and intensity of residential development go to the heart of effective land use planning, especially in an area as sensitive as the Keys. For these reason, it is unnecessary to consider the consistency of the development order with the more general provisions of Marathon's comprehensive plan, on which Marathon's LDRs are based.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order denying the request of Banana Bay of Marathon, Inc., to approve the transfer of 12 slips to 12 rooms in a motel on the Subject Property. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 7th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara L. Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Mitchell A. Bierman Weiss Serota 2665 South Bayshore Drive Suite 420 Miami, Florida 33133 James S. Mattson James S. Mattson, P.A. Post Office Box 586 Key Largo, Florida 33037
The Issue Whether land Santa Rosa County has zoned "Planned Business District" lies in a commercial or industrial zone within the meaning of Section 479.01(2), Florida Statutes (1985) and Rule 14-10.0051(2), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact By applications dated July 18, 1986, petitioner Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising (Salter) sought permits to mount back to back signs, ten feet high and 36 feet wide, on a metal "unipole" 40 feet above the ground, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, on the south side of U.S. Highway 98 in Santa Rosa County, 11.5 miles east of State Road 399. The site proposed for the signs lies outside any incorporated municipality, about halfway between Gulf Breeze and the Okaloosa County line. The proposed site is near the northeast corner of a parcel with 1,300 feet fronting U.S. Highway 98. The signs would stand 50 feet from the highway right of way, some 1,066 feet east of the nearest building, which is part of a privately owned zoo, forthrightly named "The Zoo." Whether The Zoo will ever expand, as Pat Finn, the proprietor, reportedly hopes, is not clear from the evidence. Mr. Finn gave Salter written permission to apply for the permits, and executed a lease in Salter's favor. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Salter applied for and obtained written approval from Santa Rosa County's planning department to erect the signs for which it now seeks permits. No other highway signs have been permitted in the immediate vicinity since October 1, 1984. Across the street, mechanics repair automobiles and motorcycles at a commercial garage. Also on the north side of the highway is a lumber company, about a quarter of a mile from the site, and an establishment selling campers, maybe half a mile from the site. For several miles in either direction, much of the property along this four-lane divided highway is undeveloped, but there are occasional shopping centers, Convenience stores, restaurants and other commercial establishments, including a boat dealer and tent merchant. For several miles in either direction, with the exception of one or two residences, all residential development is more than 300 feet back from U.S. Highway 98, and most of it is more than 500 feet back. In response to recent legislation, Santa Rosa County hired Robert Eugene Arn, Jr., in the spring of 1986, to head its planning department and to review zoning in the county, including in the area in question. According to Mr. Arn, erection of the proposed signs is permissible under Santa Rosa County's present zoning. Before his arrival, an ad hoc committee had examined aerial photographs, considered present and potential land uses in the area, and otherwise informed itself on the circumstances over a period of about a year. The county adopted a zoning ordinance, effective June 24, 1986, covering south Santa Rosa County. Consistently with the purposes of the ordinance, and with the comprehensive plan, the proposed site has been zoned "Planned Business District" (PBD), allowing commercial activity on parcels of adequate size, without requiring variances or special exceptions for commercial uses, which uses need not be incidental to other, primary land uses. In pertinent part, the ordinance provides: PLANNED BUSINESS DISTRICT Within this district as shown on the zoning map of the South Santa Rosa County Planning Area, Florida, the following regula- tions shall apply: INTENT AND PURPOSE, PERMITTED USES: Intent and Purpose: It is the purpose of this article to permit Planned Business Developments along major arterials and to encourage the development of this land with highway frontage as planned communities, and business and commercial centers; encourage flexible and creative concepts of site planning; preserve the natural amenities of the land by encouraging functional open areas; accomplish a more desirable environment that would not be possible through the strict application of the minimum requirements of these regulations; provide for an efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of streets and utilities where access to regional systems is impractical and thereby lowering development and housing costs; and provide a stable environmental character compatible with surrounding areas; limit access on to major arterials to central locations in order to reduce safety hazards posed by unlimited or uncontrolled access. Permitted Uses: The uses permitted within this district shall include the following: Residential units, including single- family attached and detached dwellings, two-family dwellings and multiple-family dwellings. Churches, schools, community or club buildings and similar public and semi-public facilities. Non-residential uses, including commercial or retail uses, offices, clinics and professional uses. Mobile homes (as defined in Section 1.1.) are prohibited in Area #1 (as defined in Section 1.1.). The basis for this restric- tion is found in the already developed nature of Area #1 and the need to protect established property values from uses that could potentially adversely affect such values. DEFINITIONS: In addition to the definitions contained in Section 1 of this ordinance, the following terms, phrases, words and derivations shall have the following meaning: Planned Business Development: An area of land of at least fifteen (15) acres devoted by its owner to development as a single entity for a number of dwelling units, and/or commercial uses in accordance with a plan which does not necessarily comply with the provisions of Sections 3 through 6 of this ordinance with respect to lot size, lot coverage, setbacks, off-street parking, bulk or type of dwelling, density and other regulations. Plan: The proposal for development of a Planned Business Development, including a plat of subdivision, all covenants, grants of easements and other conditions relating to use, location and bulk of buildings, density of development, common open space and public facilities. The plan shall include such information as required by Article D of this Section. PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: When a parcel of land is zoned for Planned Business District (PBD), such parcel shall not be subdivided into smaller parcels less than fifteen (15) acres in size without first complying with the provisions of this Section for Master Planning. The procedure for obtaining approval for the purpose of undertaking a Planned Business Development shall be as follows: Preliminary Planned Business Development and Master Plan Approval: The applicant shall submit to the Planning Director, his application for the approval of the Planned Business Development and shall submit the following exhibits at the same time: (a) A statement of objectives describing: The general purpose of the proposed development. The general character of the proposed development. A Master Plan. A Master Plan, drawn at a scale suitable for presentation, showing and/or describing the following: Proposed Land Uses. Final Development Plan: If approval for the Planned Business Development is granted, the applicant shall submit a Final Planned Business Development Plan covering all or part of the approved Master Plan within twelve (12) months, to the Planning Director. The Final Development Plan shall include the following exhibits. A statement of objectives: The general purpose of the proposed development. The general character of the proposed development. (5) Revision of a Planned Unit Development: Any proposed major and substantial change in the approval Preliminary Planned Business Development Master Plan which affects the intent and character of the development, the density or land use pattern, proposed buffers, the location or dimensions or arterial or collector streets, or similar substantial changes, shall be reviewed by the Planning Department in the same manner of the initial site plan approval. A request for a revision of the Preliminary Planned Business Development Master Plan, shall be supported by a written statement and by revised plans demonstrating the reasons the revisions are necessary or desirable... By use of the master plan mechanism, the ordinance reserves many areas for future designations. But, at the same time that it adopted its zoning ordinance, Santa Rosa County adopted maps showing a corridor in which commercial development is contemplated, extending 300 to 500 feet either side of the highway. Single family residences would normally be 300 to 500 feet back from the highway, although nothing in the ordinance precludes single family residences adjacent to the highway. The property across the road from the proposed site has been zoned PBD and "HCD", or highway commercial development. Land zoned HCD can be developed commercially, but multiple family housing is also allowed. DOT has granted permit applications for sites zoned HCD. DOT has never denied such an application, as far as the record reveals, but DOT's Mr. Culpepper testified that DOT would deny an application for a site zoned HCD if it were located in a (multi-family) residential area. DOT's stated reason for proposing to deny Salter's most recent applications is "unpermittable zoning": "PBD is not acceptable zoning for a state sign permit." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. At hearing, Mr. Culpepper explicated the Department's position, testifying that, if the area in question were the subject of a master plan specifying commercial uses, the signs could be permitted; but that, because PBD zoning allows both residential and commercial uses, and the ultimate fate of the property is not yet legally specified, no permit can issue. Of course, as much of the property as has been developed is now given over to a commercial use, The Zoo, with its parking lot and gift store. Santa Rosa County's current policy is to allow land uses antedating adoption of zoning ordinances to persist, even if they are non-conforming. No master plan covering the area in question has been filed.
