The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the proposed amendment to the Pinellas Countywide Plan Map, changing the land use designations on 34.6 acres of land in Safety Harbor, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the contract purchaser of 34.6 acres of land (“the Property”) located near the northeast corner of 10th Street South and McMullen-Booth Road in the City of Safety Harbor. Respondent is the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, in their capacity as the CPA. The Proposed Amendment The Amendment would change the land use designations for nine parcels within the Property. The Amendment would make the following changes to the current land use designations: However, the parties’ dispute focuses on the 15.8-acre parcel that is now designated Industrial Limited (“IL”). The Amendment would change the designation of the parcel to Residential Medium (“RM”). Existing Land Uses on the Property and Surrounding Area Located on the 15.8-acre parcel (referred to hereafter as the “IL parcel” or “Richman parcel”) are numerous industrial buildings and structures associated with a citrus processing facility that is no longer in operation. There are no uses being made of the other eight parcels that comprise the Property. The balance of the Property is undeveloped and relatively undisturbed. There are wetlands as well as a creek on the Property. There is an extensive tree canopy in the undeveloped area. Access to the IL parcel is via 10th Street South (S.R. 590), which is a two-lane, undivided roadway on the southern boundary. There is no rail access to the IL parcel. To the north and east of the Property are relatively affluent neighborhoods of single-family residences on lands designated Residential Suburban and Residential Low. The residences on the north are separated from the IL parcel by the large undeveloped area, but the residences to the east are immediately adjacent to the IL parcel. McMullen-Booth Road, a six-lane arterial roadway, runs along the northwestern boundary of the Property. On the southwestern boundary, adjacent to the IL parcel, are lands designated Residential/Office/Retail where there is a drug store, car wash, and bank. Across 10th Street South, on the southeast corner of its intersection with McMullen-Booth Road, is a gas station/convenience store. Also across 10th Street South, opposite the entrance to the citrus processing facility, is land designated IL and used for warehousing, auto-repair, and other uses. The Scenic Non-Commercial Corridor McMullen-Booth Road has been designated by Pinellas County as a Scenic Non-Commercial Corridor (“SNCC”). The SNCC designation includes lands bordering both sides of McMullen-Booth Road. The SNCC designation identifies preferred land uses within the corridor to achieve the CPA’s goal to preserve and enhance the scenic qualities of the corridor. The western half of the IL parcel is within the McMullen-Booth Road SNCC. Under the SNCC policies, the preferred land use for the western half of the parcel is “Mixed Use.” The Amendment would allow for land uses consistent with the SNCC. The Development Agreement The proposed Amendment is accompanied by a Development Agreement between Richman and the City of Safety Harbor which provides more specifically for how the Property would be developed. Among other items, the Development Agreement provides for: 246 apartment units in three-story and four-story buildings; a 25,000-square-foot office building fronting on McMullen-Booth Road; a 182-foot buffer between the nearest apartment unit and the residences to the east; a requirement that no three-story building will be located within 450 feet of the eastern property line; and the preservation of more than 10 acres of the undeveloped area, including the creek and wetlands. Action on the Proposed Amendment Changing a land use designation in the City of Safety Harbor requires an amendment to the Countywide Plan Map, which depicts all land use designations in Pinellas County and its municipalities. Countywide Rules are used in conjunction with the Countywide Plan and they address amendments to the Countywide Plan Map. The Countywide Plan and Countywide Rules are created and administered by the CPA. Proposed amendments to the Countywide Plan Map are reviewed by the Pinellas County Planning Advisory Committee (“PAC”), which is comprised of planners from most of the local governments in Pinellas County. The PAC makes a recommendation to the Pinellas Planning Council on a proposed amendment. The PAC recommended approval of the Amendment. The staff of the Pinellas Planning Council prepared an “Agenda Memorandum,” which included the following findings which are supported by the preponderance of the evidence presented in this case and, therefore, are findings of fact in this Recommended Order: The RM land use is well-suited to serve as a transition from non-residential areas to the west and south and the residential neighborhoods to the east and north. The area is not part of a larger consolidated industrial area, but the Richman parcel, together with the IL parcel across 10th Street South, could function as a small industrial park. The IL category, with all potential uses allowed, is “in the broadest sense” inconsistent with single-family uses to the north and east. The IL parcel can accommodate certain “target employers.” At the final hearing, target employers were identified as “office light industrial and research and development.” The environmentally sensitive areas on the Property and adjacent to single-family residences limit the types of industrial uses that could be located on the IL parcel. The Amendment does not foreclose the opportunity to attract target employers to other parcels within the Property. “On balance,” the Amendment is consistent with the Countywide Rules. The Council staff recommended approval of the Amendment. As partial mitigation for the loss of the IL land use, the staff recommended that Richman work with the County to attract target employers to other parcels within the Property. The Council held a public hearing and voted to recommend approval of the Amendment. The Pinellas County planning staff recommended approval of the Amendment to the CPA. The CPA, at a public hearing, voted to deny the Amendment, based primarily on concern over the loss of industrial lands. Relevant Criteria Section 5.5.3.1 of the Countywide Rules states: In the consideration of a regular Countywide Plan Map amendment, it is the objective of these Countywide Rules to evaluate the amendment so as to make a balanced legislative determination based on the following six (6) Relevant Countywide Considerations, as they pertain to the overall purpose and integrity of the Countywide Plan. Of these six criteria, the parties stipulated that only the consideration stated in Section 5.5.3.1.1 is at issue in this case. That section states: Consistency with Countywide Rules. The manner in, and extent to, which the amendment is consistent with Article 4, Plan Criteria and Standards of these Countywide Rules and with the Countywide Plan as implemented through the Countywide Rules. The parties disputed what criteria are “implemented through the Countywide Rules.” Richman contends that to be implemented through the Countywide Rules, a policy must be contained in the Countywide Rules. The CPA contends that there are provisions of the Plan that must be considered even if they do not also appear in the Rules. As set forth in the Conclusions of Law, in order for a provision of the Countywide Plan to be implemented through the Countywide Rules so that the provision can act as a criterion applied by the CPA in the approval or denial of a proposed amendment to the Countywide Plan Map, the provision must be repeated, paraphrased, or adopted by reference in the Countywide Rules. In this regard it is noted that Resolution 06-3 of the Pinellas Planning Council, which discusses the need to reserve industrial parcels for target employers, was referred to in the Council's Agenda Memorandum and discussed in the public hearing before the CPA. However, Resolution 06-3 is not implemented through the Countywide Rules and, therefore, is not a source of criteria applicable to the Amendment. The SNCC designation for McMullen-Booth Road is in the Countywide Rules and, therefore, must be considered by the CPA in its review of the Amendment. Section 2.3.3.6.1 of the Countywide Rules is relevant to the issues raised and states in part: Category/Symbol – Industrial Limited (IL) Purpose – It is the purpose of this category to depict those areas of the county that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a limited industrial manner; and so as to encourage the reservation and use of consolidated areas for industrial and industrial/mixed use in a manner and location consistent with surrounding use, transportation facilities, and natural resource characteristics. In addition to this statement of purpose, the section addresses locational characteristics, traffic generation characteristics, density/intensity characteristics, density/intensity standards, and “other standards.” Section 2.3.3.6.1 identifies the “primary uses” allowed in the IL land use category as office, research/development, light manufacturing/assembly, wholesale/distribution, and storage/warehouse. The “secondary” uses allowed are residential, retail/commercial; personal service/office support, commercial/business service, commercial recreation, temporary lodging, institutional, transportation/utility, recreation/open space, transfer/recycling, incinerator facility, and agricultural. The CPA’s desire for certain target employers to use the IL parcel fails to account for the fact that there are industrial uses of the site that are allowed under the IL land use category in the Countywide Plan that would cause noise, odor, truck traffic, or other conditions that are incompatible with adjacent residential uses. Understandably, the CPA would like to see the Richman parcel used in the future by one of the target employers, but the CPA does not acknowledge that the IL designation authorizes other uses that would be incompatible with surrounding uses. At the final hearing, the County’s Director of Economic Development testified that the Richman parcel is “perfect” for an IL land use, but that testimony only makes sense in the context of certain target employers. In the context of all the IL uses that are allowable under the Countywide Plan and Countywide Rules, the site is imperfect and impracticable because of the proximity of single-family homes and the access from an undivided, two-lane street used by residential traffic. Several years of marketing efforts by Richman and the County have not generated a single offer to purchase or lease the Richman parcel for any of the allowed IL uses, including target employers. Following the CPA’s denial of the Amendment, the staff of the Pinellas Planning Council undertook a review of its current policies regarding the preservation of industrial lands and recommended amending the Countywide Rules to identify industrial properties “worthy of preserving” and to develop criteria for the evaluation of proposed amendments to convert industrial land. These recommendations highlight the current lack of adequate guidance in the Countywide Rules. The determination by the CPA that the Amendment is inconsistent with the Countywide Rules is based primarily on three propositions which are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. First, that the Richman parcel is being reserved for IL uses. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the parcel is inappropriate for several authorized IL uses and the CPA wants the parcel reserved only for a few target employers. Second, that the IL designation is not inconsistent with the McMullen-Booth Road SNCC. The identification of preferred land uses in the corridor would have no effect unless it was a factor to be considered by the CPA when it reviews proposed amendments to the Countywide Plan Map. The IL designation within the McMullen-Booth SNCC is inconsistent with the goal of the corridor and is a factor (not a requirement) in favor of changing current IL designation to another designation that qualifies as Mixed Use. Third, that the Richman parcel is part of a “consolidated area” for industrial uses in a location “consistent with surrounding uses” as described in Section 2.3.3.6.1. The preponderance of the evidence shows that this is not a consolidated area for industrial uses. It was once a consolidated area, but past land use decisions have eliminated more than half the industrial acreage. If Richman had proposed to consolidate its parcel with the IL parcel south of 10th Street South to create a large, integrated warehousing and distribution operation served by rail, the proposal would have been consistent with the core purpose for IL lands as expressed in Section 2.3.3.6.1. The impracticability of such a proposal, however, highlights the problem with the current IL designation for the Richman parcel. The County’s 2008 Target Employment and Industrial Land Study found that two-thirds of the “target industries” operating in Pinellas County are on lands not designated industrial, because these uses can often be accommodated on lands designated for office uses. The 2008 study recommended that the industrial designations of lands in five “prime industrial areas” be preserved. Richman’s IL parcel is not in one of these prime industrial areas. When all relevant factors are considered, the CPA appears to be taking a stand for preservation of industrial lands in the wrong place.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Countywide Planning Authority issue a Final Order approving the Amendment. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. McLaren, Esquire Edward D. Armstrong, III, Esquire Hill, Ward and Henderson, P.A. 3700 Bank of America Plaza 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Gordon Beardslee, General Planning Administrator Pinellas County Department of Strategic Planning and Initiatives 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Michael Crawford, Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 310 Court Street, Second Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756-5137 Kenneth Welch, Commission Chairman Board of County Commissioners Pinellas County 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Nancy S. Meyer, Esquire David S. Sadowsky, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Miami's small scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 12550 on June 24, 2004, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On December 31, 2003, Intervenor submitted an application to the City for an amendment to the FLUM which would change the land use designation on a 7.91-acre tract of property from Industrial and General Commercial to Restricted Commercial. The property is located at 1818 and 1844 Northwest North River Drive, Miami, and is situated on the north side of the Miami River. It is bordered by Northwest North River Drive to the north, the Miami River to the south, and a recently renovated condominium development known as Serenity to the east. At one time (the specific date is unknown), the property was used as a boat repair facility and commercial marina. The property is currently unused. The application was submitted concurrently with an application for a zoning change in connection with Intervenor's intent to develop a mixed use project on the property. The applications were reviewed by the City's Planning and Zoning Department (Planning Department). The Planning Department recommended that the applications be approved. In doing so, it determined that the land use change furthers the objectives of the Plan, and that the land use pattern in the neighborhood should be changed. On April 7, 2004, the City Planning Advisory Board voted 4-3 in favor of recommending approval of the application. However, that vote constituted a denial due to the failure to obtain five favorable votes. Both the FLUM and zoning applications were initially presented for first reading to the City Commission (Commission) on April 22, 2004. At that meeting, the Commission voted to approve both applications. The applications were again presented to the Commission on June 24, 2004. At that time, Balbino's application for a major use special permit was also presented to the Commission. After consideration, the Commission adopted Ordinance No. 12550, which amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation on the property, as requested by Intervenor. (It also granted the rezoning request and approved the issuance of a major use special permit.) The Ordinance was signed by the City's Mayor on July 7, 2004. Because the amendment is a small scale development amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, it was not reviewed by the Department. See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. On August 5, 2004, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the FLUM amendment generally alleging that the amendment involved a use of more than ten acres and therefore was not a small scale development amendment, that the amendment was internally inconsistent with other provisions in the City's Plan, and that the amendment was not supported by adequate data and analysis. After an intervening appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, which involved the timeliness of their Petition, on March 1, 2006, Petitioners filed their Amended Petition which added additional grounds for finding the amendment not in compliance. On August 17, 2006, Intervenor, who is the contract owner of the property, petitioned to intervene in this proceeding. That request was granted on August 18, 2004. The Parties Durham Park is a non-profit corporation comprised of approximately ninety homeowners who reside within the Durham Park area. It lies on the south side of the Miami River across from Balbino's property. According to its president, Horacio Aguirre, every homeowner is automatically a member of the association but no dues are assessed. A list of members is not maintained. At the hearing, Mr. Aguirre acknowledged that the association is not engaged in any business and does not own any property. Although its corporate purpose is not of record, the association occasionally meets to discuss issues that "impact the neighborhood," including the amendment being challenged here. No minutes of meetings are kept. Once, in September 2003, the association published a newsletter. Mr. Aguirre appeared before the City Commission on behalf of Durham Park and offered comments in opposition to the plan amendment. Ann Stetser resides in a ten-story condominium at 1700 Northwest North River Drive, which is on the north side of the River and just east of the subject property. The Serenity condominium development lies between her condominium and Intervenor's property. Ms. Stetser offered oral or written comments to the City regarding the small scale amendment. Therefore, she is an affected person and has standing to bring this challenge. Mr. Payne resides in the City of Davie in Broward County but owns and operates a tug boat company known as Towing and Transportation, which is located in the Lower River portion of the Miami River. Mr. Payne submitted timely comments to the City regarding the small scale amendment and thus is an affected person with standing to bring this action. Miami River Marine Group, Inc. is a private, non- profit trade association comprised of approximately fifty-five members, each of which is a private business. Its mission "is to protect the working river." The executive director of the association, Fran Bohnsack, appeared before the City Commission on behalf of the association and offered comments in opposition to the proposed amendment. The parties agree that Miami River Marine Group, Inc. is an affected person and has standing to participate. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It initially adopted the Plan in 1989. The Plan has been amended from time to time. Balbino is the contract purchaser of the subject property. Balbino submitted comments concerning the amendment to the City at its meeting on June 24, 2004, and is an affected person with standing to participate in this proceeding. Relevant Provisions of the Plan The section of the Plan entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various land use categories in the Plan. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 13-16. It describes the Industrial land use category as follows: Industrial: The areas designated as "Industrial" allow manufacturing, assembly and storage activities. The "Industrial" designation generally includes activities that would otherwise generate excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, or negative visual impact unless properly controlled. Stockyards, rendering works, smelting and refining plants and similar activities are excluded. Residential uses are not permitted in the "Industrial" designation, except for rescue missions, and live-aboards in commercial marinas. The section also describes the "General Commercial" land use classification as follows: General Commercial: Areas designated as "General Commercial" allow all activities included in the "Office" and the "Restricted Commercial" designations, as well as wholesaling and distribution activities that generally serve the needs of other businesses; generally require on and off loading facilities; and benefit from close proximity to industrial areas. These commercial activities include retailing of second hand items, automotive repair services, new and used vehicle sales, parking lots and garages, heavy equipment sales and service, building material sales and storage, wholesaling, warehousing, distribution and transport related services, light manufacturing and assembly and other activities whose scale of operation and land use impacts are similar to those uses described above. Multifamily residential structures of a density equal to R-3 or higher, but not to exceed a maximum of 150 units per acre, are allowed by Special Exception only, upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents. This category also allows commercial marinas and living quarters on vessels for transients. Finally, the section describes the "Restricted Commercial" land use category as follows: Restricted Commercial: Areas designated as "Restricted Commercial" allow residential uses (except rescue missions) to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions; any activity included in the "Office" designation as well as commercial activities that generally serve the daily retailing and service needs of the public, typically requiring easy access by personal auto, and often located along arterial or collector roadways, which include: general retailing, personal and professional services, real estate, banking and other financial services, restaurants, saloons and cafes, general entertainment facilities, private clubs and recreation facilities, major sports and exhibition or entertainment facilities and other commercial activities whose scale and land use impacts are similar in nature to those uses described above, places of worship, primary and secondary schools. This category also includes commercial marinas and living quarters on vessels as permissible. The Plan is based on a pyramid structure. See Joint Exhibit 2, Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map, page 13, paragraph 4. That is, each land use classification permits all land uses within previously listed categories, except as otherwise specifically provided in the Plan. Therefore, with the exception of residential uses, all uses permitted under the Restricted Commercial designation are permitted under the Industrial classification. The Restricted Commercial category is a logical designation for the property because of its proximity to residential neighborhoods. Those residential properties would clearly be more detrimentally affected by industrial activities that may generate excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, or negative visual impact, which are now authorized under the Industrial designation. The Miami River The Miami River runs northwest to southeast for more than five miles from the Miami International Airport to Biscayne Bay (the mouth of the River). For planning purposes, it includes three sections: the Upper River, the Middle River, and the Lower River. Although the demarcations of those sections are in dispute, the best evidence of the appropriate demarcations of the three sections is found in the Miami River Master Plan (Master Plan), which was adopted by the City in 1992. See Joint Exhibit 1. The Master Plan clearly depicts the geographic scope of the Mid-River (or Middle River) as extending west to Northwest 27th Avenue and the Up River (or Upper River) as being that portion of the Miami River lying west of Northwest 27th Avenue. Based on these demarcations, the Lower River would run from the mouth of the Miami River to the 5th Street Bridge, the Middle River from the 5th Street Bridge to Northwest 27th Avenue, and the Upper River from Northwest 27th Avenue westward. It is undisputed that Intervenor's property is located on the Middle River. The parties agree that Restricted Commercial is a reasonable land use designation for the Middle River. Petitioners' expert witness also agreed that the Middle River "is supposed to be a mix of residential." In its discussion of the Middle River, the Master Plan provides: The Mid-River area contains most of the existing housing located along the Miami River. The wide variety of dwelling types, ranging from single family homes to high- rise apartment/condominium buildings, are mostly occupied by middle-income households. This is an important segment of the population for the City to retain in order to support the local economy and tax base. A number of opportunities remain for development of new housing by building on vacant lots or by increasing the density of existing developed lots. New housing construction should be encouraged, except on lands reserved for water dependent uses. In the proposed SD-4.1 waterfront commercial zoning district (See page 1.14) residential development could be permitted as an accessory use to a marina. The property is located within the referenced proposed SD-4.1 waterfront commercial zoning district. According to the Master Plan, the strategy for the Middle River is to "[b]ring the neighborhoods back to the river." The Master Plan further provides that "[d]iverse residential neighborhoods interspersed with commercial districts make the Mid-River unusual. The strategy is to develop centers of activities at strategic locations that will become gateways to the river and give identity to the neighborhoods." In contrast, the Master Plan describes the Up-River as "a working river." It also notes that "[m]arine industries in the Up-River area create a busy, economically vital district that is important to preserve. The challenge is to protect these industries from displacement by non-water-dependent uses and to nurture growth in marine industries without negatively impacting nearby residential neighborhoods." In describing the Upper River, the Master Plan provides: The character of the river changes dramatically west of NW 27th Avenue bridge. In fact, it is not really the river there; it is the man-made Miami Canal (and the Tamiami Canal branching off to the west). In contrast to the gently curving paths and irregular edges of the natural river, the canal banks are rigidly straight and significantly closer together at 90 feet. The most striking difference in the up-river area is the change in land use. The Miami Canal is almost entirely industrial in character, with commercial shipping being the predominant use. Most of the larger cargo vessels on the Miami River are loaded and unloaded in this area, resulting in an incredibly busy, narrow river channel. Due to the industrial nature of the up-river corridor, many of the urban design recommendations made for the mid-river and downtown areas are not applicable. The emphasis in this area should be to promote growth in shipping and related industries and to provide adequate roadways for the vehicles and trucks associated with these businesses. Allapattah The property is located in a community development target area known as Allapattah. Community development target areas are neighborhoods to which the City directs community block grants for revitalization. In need of revitalization, Allapattah has deteriorated over time and is one of the poorest neighborhoods in the City. Allapattah has been designated as a neighborhood development zone, a designation used in connection with community development programs. Also within the Allapattah neighborhood, and less than one mile from the subject property, is an area known as the Civic Center. The Civic Center includes Jackson Hospital, Cedars Hospital, the Justice Building, the County Jail, and government offices. More than 25,000 persons work in the Civic Center area. The area continues to expand. Urban Infill Area It is undisputed that the property is located within an urban infill area. Among the purposes of an urban infill designation are the promotion of the efficient use of infrastructure, including transportation and the prevention of urban sprawl. The Civic Center area is a major transportation hub and includes a metro rail station that is located approximately a five-minute drive from the property. The property is also served by several bus routes. As to urban sprawl, the amendment will fulfill a need for housing for persons who work in the Civic Center area. By doing so, the amendment is also expected to promote job creation. The Size of the Parcel Petitioners first contend that the parcel actually comprises 10.41 acres and therefore exceeds the threshold size (ten acres or fewer) for small scale development amendments. Petitioners point out that the approved companion rezoning and special permit encompasses 10.41 acres, while the application for the FLUM amendment is for 7.91 acres. Petitioners argue that the total area encompassed by the rezoning and special permit applications is the correct number to use in determining the actual size of the parcel. The application for the FLUM amendment included a site drawing on which the surveyor certified that the "NET TOTAL LOT AREA" of the property is 7.91 acres. This acreage includes upland and submerged lands and comprises all of the land under Intervenor's ownership and/or control. (Slightly more than one- half of the 7.91 acres is upland property, while the remainder is submerged land in the Miami River where Balbino will construct a marina.) The site drawing also includes areas adjacent to the property (from the boundaries of the property to the centerline of the adjacent rights-of-way and the centerline of the Miami River) and the surveyor's calculation of the sizes of those areas. The sum of the acreage of those areas and of the property is referred to as the "gross total lot area." To determine the size of the property for a future land use map amendment, for at least the last twenty-two years the City has employed the "net lot area" concept. Under that concept, defined in the City's Zoning Ordinance, an applicant may only seek a future land use map amendment with respect to property under its ownership or control, and the only property on which a land use classification is changed as a result of such an application is that which is within the ownership or control of the applicant. Approval of an application for a future land use map amendment does not result in a change in land use classification for lands not within the ownership or control of an applicant, such as a public right-of-way. Petitioners seek to contravene the City's longstanding use of net lot area in determining the size of property subject to a future land use map amendment by contending that it is the gross lot area that should be considered in determining the size of the property subject to the FLUM amendment. By doing so, however, they are improperly attempting to apply a zoning concept to the City's Plan process. More specifically, the concept of "gross total lot area" is relevant only for use in a mathematical calculation of "floor area ratio." Floor area ratio is a mathematical calculation pursuant to which the City determines the square footage of buildings that may be built on a particular piece of property. The City's Zoning Ordinance permits a property owner to include portions of the acreage of adjacent rights-of-way, bays, parks, or other open spaces in the floor area calculation. The floor area calculation will not be affected by the FLUM amendment. The City's net lot area approach is the correct methodology to be used in determining the size of the parcel. Therefore, the map amendment involves or uses only 7.91 acres and was properly considered by the City as a small scale development amendment. Consistency of the Amendment with the Plan At the hearing, Petitioners failed to present any evidence bearing on the consistency (or lack thereof) of the amendment with the following Plan objectives and policies: LU- 1.2.3, LU-1.3.1, HO-1.1, HO-1.2, SS-1.4, SS-2.1, SS-2.2, SS-2.5, SW-1.1, SS-2.1, SS-2.5, SW-1.1, PR-1.1, PR-1.4, CM-1.1, CM-2.1, CM-4.2, NR-1.1, NR-1.2, NR-3.2, and CI-1.3. Accordingly, Petitioners' challenge to the amendment based upon alleged inconsistencies with these objectives and policies must fail. Remaining for consideration are allegations that the amendment is inconsistent with Goal LU-1, Policy LU-1.3.6, and Objectives LU-1.2, LU-1.3, LU-1.6, SS-2.2, PW-1.2, TR-1.1, PA- 3.3, CM-3.1, CM-4.1, NR-1.3, NR-2.1, and CI-1.4. Goal LU-1 in the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provides that a goal of the Plan shall be to: Maintain a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods; (2) fosters redevelopment and revitalization of blighted or declining areas; (3) promotes and facilitates economic development and the growth of job opportunities in the city; (4) fosters the growth and development of downtown as a regional center of domestic and international commerce, culture and entertainment; (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts; and (6) protects and conserves the city's significant natural and coastal resources. The property is surrounded by residential neighborhoods. By eliminating the potential for development on the property of industrial uses that may generate "excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, or negative visual impact," the amendment will enhance the quality of life in those surrounding neighborhoods. The Allapatah neighborhood, in which the property is located, is a declining area. The amendment is therefore consistent with subpart (2) of Goal LU-1, which is concerned with the redevelopment and revitalization of declining areas. Petitioners have also alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with subpart (3) of the Goal because it will negatively impact marine industrial uses along the Miami River. However, no persuasive evidence to support this contention was offered. Subpart (4) is not relevant to this case because it pertains to the downtown area and the property is not located in that part of the City. As to subpart (5), Petitioners offered no evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with the concept of the promotion of the efficient use of land. On the other hand, the evidence shows that the amendment will minimize land use conflicts by placing a land use classification on the property that is consistent with adjacent residential areas. Petitioners failed to offer any evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with subpart (6), which pertains to the protection and conservation of natural and coastal resources. FLUE Objective LU-1.2 provides that one of the objectives of the Plan is to: Promote the redevelopment and revitalization of blighted, declining or threatened residential, commercial and industrial areas. Because the property is in the Allapatah neighborhood, which is a declining residential area, the amendment will promote redevelopment and revitalization of that area and is therefore consistent with the Objective. FLUE Objective LU-1.3 provides as follows: The City will continue to encourage commercial, office and industrial development within existing commercial, office and industrial areas; increase the utilization and enhance the physical character and appearance of existing buildings; and concentrate new commercial and industrial activity in areas where the capacity of existing public facilities can meet or exceed the minimum standards for Level of Service (LOS) adopted in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE). The concurrency analysis performed by the City shows that approval of the amendment will not result in a failure of existing public facilities to meet or exceed applicable LOS minimum standards. At the same time, the new Restricted Commercial land use category permits the types of land uses that Objective LU- 1.3 seeks to encourage, namely, commercial and office uses. FLUE Policy LU-1.3.6 provides: The City will continue to encourage a diversification in the mix of industrial and commercial activities and tenants through comprehensive marketing and promotion efforts so that the local economy is buffered from national and international cycles. Particular emphasis is on, but not limited to, Southeast Overtown/Park West, Latin quarter, Little Haiti, Little River Industrial District, River Corridor, the Garment District and the Omni area. In considering the amendment, the City gave particular significance to the fact that the Restricted Commercial designation would allow greater flexibility in the development of the property. Such greater flexibility is consistent with the promotion of a diversification in the mix of industrial and commercial activities. The mix of uses permitted under the Restricted Commercial land use classification will promote urban infill and serve to prevent urban sprawl. As such, the amendment is consistent with Policy LU-1.3.6. FLUE Objective LU-1.6 provides as follows: Regulate the development or redevelopment of real property within the City to ensure consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This Objective (and its underlying policies) is not relevant because it pertains specifically to land development regulations. Even so, there was no evidence to show that the amendment is inconsistent with the Objective. Potable Water Element Objective PW-1.2 and Natural Resource Conservation Objective R-2.1 are identical and provide as follows: Ensure adequate levels of safe potable water are available to meet the needs of the City. Petitioners presented no evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with either Objective. Rather, they asserted that in evaluating the amendment application, the City failed to do an independent analysis to address the availability of potable water. (The City relied on information provided by Metro-Dade County.) The City's concurrency analysis revealed that potable water supplies will be available to the City even after the amendment becomes effective. Petitioners also failed to provide any evidence that the potable water usage under the Restricted Commercial classification would exceed that which may occur under the Industrial land use classification. Further, Petitioners failed to provide any evidence that there is a potable water deficiency in the City, or that the amendment would cause one. Finally, there was no evidence that the reliance on information provided by other local governments was unreasonable. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.1 provides as follows: All arterial and collector roadways under County and State jurisdiction that lie within the City's boundaries will operate at levels of service established by the respective agency. All other City streets will operate at levels of service that are consistent with an urban center possessing an extensive urban public transit system and characterized by compact development and moderate-to-high residential densities and land use densities, and within a transportation concurrency exception area (TCEA). The City will monitor the levels of service of all arterial and collector roadways to continue to develop and enhance transportation strategies that promote transit and minimize the impacts of the TCEA. Petitioners contend that the concurrency analysis performed by the City assumed that an unreasonably high percentage of persons accessing the property would use a form of transportation other than an automobile. However, Petitioners' expert conceded that he had no expertise in traffic analysis, and that the City's analysis was performed by persons who did. Because the challenge is based on criticism that is not supported by credible expert testimony, the assertion must necessarily fail. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-3.1 provides as follows: Allow no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(137) defines "water-dependent uses" as "activities which can be carried out only on, in or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body for water-borne transportation including ports or marinas; recreation; electrical generating facilities; or water supply." Witness Payne, who is a tug boat captain, stated that the United States Coast Guard requires vessels over five hundred gross tons to "leave the port, seek shelter" in the event of a hurricane and that Intervenor's property is a destination for boats seeking shelter from a hurricane. Because the land use on the property is Industrial, there is no requirement that a marina or any other water-related facility be located on the property as an available site for boats seeking shelter from a hurricane, even in the absence of the amendment. In addition, the Restricted Commercial land use category permits commercial marinas; therefore, the amendment in no way prevents the property from serving as a destination for boats over five hundred gross tons seeking shelter. Finally, because the property can already be developed in such a manner that it would be used by large numbers of persons (e.g., offices and malls), there is no basis upon which to conclude that the amendment will have any impact on the potential for loss of human life and destruction of property by hurricanes. Natural Resources Element NR-1.3 provides as follows: Maintain and enhance the status of native species of fauna and flora. Although the parties agree that there are manatees in the Miami River, Petitioners failed to provide any evidence identifying locations along the Miami River where such manatees are found, or any evidence that the amendment would have any impact on those manatees. It is fair to conclude that by eliminating the potential for development that might include such uses that involve noise, fumes, smoke, and hazardous wastes, this will enhance the status of native species of flora and fauna. Capital Improvements Element Objective CI-1.4 provides as follows: Ensure that public capital expenditure within the coastal zone does not encourage private development that is subject to significant risk of storm damage. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, this Objective does not provide that the City should discourage development in the coastal zone. For example, there are other areas of substantial development within the coastal zone, such as Brickell Avenue. The amendment does not trigger the expenditure of public funds for capital improvements. This is clearly demonstrated by a comparison of development permitted under the Industrial and Restricted Commercial land use classifications. Due to the intensity of development allowed under either land use classification, there is no basis upon which to conclude any development under the Restricted Commercial land use classification will require any greater infrastructure expenditures than development under the Industrial land use classification. Based on the foregoing, it is fairly debatable that the map amendment is internally consistent with other provisions of the Plan. Data and analysis Petitioners contend that the amendment "is not based on the best available, professional acceptable, existing data," as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005 and Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes. However, they failed to offer any evidence that the City failed to consider any relevant data in existence at the time the amendment was adopted, or that the City failed to appropriately react to that data. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the City had sufficient data and analysis available at the time the amendment was adopted to justify its approval. For example, the staff considered data provided by Balbino in its application package; data (such as potable water and wastewater transmission capacities) supplied by Metro-Dade County; the Miami River Master Plan; maps; the target area plans for Allapattah; the current Plan, including the extensive data and analysis supporting the Plan found in Volume II; and other related information, including support by citizen groups from the Allapattah area. In response to that data, among other things, the staff performed a concurrency management analysis concerning the availability of public facilities and levels of service (although actual levels of service cannot be determined until the City knows what is going to be built on the site), and it performed a land use study focusing on the area around the subject property and the compatibility of uses in the area with the new land use designation. A summary of the staff's efforts are found in a fact sheet and analysis package which accompanied the amendment. One of Petitioners' primary criticisms on this issue is that the City relied upon Metro-Dade County to provide certain data pertaining to concurrency matters (traffic and potable water). However, Petitioners failed to prove that this data was insufficient to support the adoption of the amendment or that it was unreasonable to rely on that information. Moreover, at least with respect to traffic, small scale amendments are exempt from the requirement that plan amendment applications be accompanied by a traffic concurrency study. Petitioners also contend that the City ignored certain data which shows that the amendment disrupts the existing land use pattern supporting water-dependent uses. As noted above, however, the City performed an extensive land use study to consider, among other things, these very concerns and concluded that the new land use designation is compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with the Plan. It is fairly debatable that the challenged plan amendment is supported by professionally acceptable data and analysis, and that the City reacted to that data and analysis in an appropriate manner. The Port of Miami River Petitioners also argue that the Port of Miami River Sub-Element must be considered in determining whether the amendment is in compliance. This Sub-Element is found within the Plan's Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element. It is an optional element not required under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Plan defines the Port of Miami River as: Simply a legal name used to identify some 14 independent, privately-owned small shipping companies located along the Miami River, and is not a "port facility" within the usual meaning of the term. The identification of the shipping concerns as the "Port of Miami River" was made in 1986 for the sole purpose of satisfying a U.S. Coast Guard regulation governing bilge pump outs. The private shipping companies identified as comprising the Port of Miami River are listed in Volume II of the Plan. The location of each of those companies is also shown. See Joint Exhibit 3, Section VIII, page 35. An updated list is found in the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. (A few companies are located outside the City's boundaries in unincorporated Dade County.) None are located on 18th Avenue, where the subject property is found. Over the years, the City has consistently interpreted this Sub-Element as applying only to properties that are listed in Volume II of the Plan. Because Intervenor's property is not included within the definition of the Port of Miami River, in reviewing the application, the City adhered to its long-standing interpretation that the Sub-Element was not applicable or relevant to the analysis of the amendment's consistency with the Plan. See Monkus, supra at 33- 34. Under the majority opinion in Payne II, however, the Sub-Element appears to be relevant and is "intended to apply to the 'uses along the banks of the Miami River", and not just to specific companies named in the definition.3 Even so, only Objective PA-3.3 would require consideration.4 That objective reads as follows: The City of Miami shall coordinate its Port of Miami River planning activities with those of ports facilities and regulators including the U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, and Miami-Dade County's Port of Miami. Petitioners failed to present any evidence concerning a lack of coordination activities relative to the FLUM amendment. Coordination does not mean that adjacent local governments or other interested persons have veto power over the City's ability to enact plan amendments. City of West Palm Beach et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 191 at *34, DOAH Case Nos. 04-4336GM, 04-4337GM, and 04-4650GM (DOAH July 18, 2005, DCA Oct. 21, 2005). Rather, the City needs only take into consideration input from interested persons. Id. at *35. The City established that pursuant to its Resolution No. 00-320, before any resolution, ordinance, or issue affecting the Miami River is considered, the City Manager is required to inform the Miami River Commission (MRC) of that impending matter. The MRC serves as a clearinghouse for all interests of the Miami River, including residential, economic, and industrial interests, as well as the other entities listed in the Objective. See §§ 163.06 et seq., Fla. Stat. The evidence shows that the MRC was notified before the amendment was considered, and that it provided a recommendation to the Commission. At the same time, Petitioners, their expert witness (Mr. Luft), and other interested persons were also given an opportunity to provide input into the process before the amendment was adopted. Therefore, the requirements of the Objective and Sub-Element have been met. Other Issues Finally, in their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Petitioners contend that "[t]he FLUM amendment renders the Port of Miami River Sub-Element (goals, objectives, and policies) vague, ambiguous, permissive, and without measurable and predictable standards." They also assert that the amendment "is an over-allocation of residential land use and is not economically feasible." Because these issues were not specifically raised in the Amended Petition or the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, to the extent they are not otherwise discussed above, they have been waived. Even if the issues had been adequately pled, there is insufficient evidence to support these claims.
Conclusions For Petitioners: Andrew W. J. Dickman, Esquire Law Offices of Andrew Dickman, P.A. Post Office Box 771390 Naples, Florida 34107-1390 For Respondent: Rafael Suarez-Rivas, Esquire Assistant City Attorney 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue, Suite 945 Miami, Florida 33130-1910 For Intervenor: Paul R. Lipton, Esquire Pamela A. DeBooth, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-3224 David C. Ashburn, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1838
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 small scale development plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2006, 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 16th day of May, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: The City of Oakland Park and Its Roadways The City of Oakland Park is an incorporated municipality located in Broward County, Florida. It is situated in the geographic center of the County. A six-lane divided expressway, I-95, runs north/south through the middle of the City. Among the major east/west thoroughfares in the City is Oakland Park Boulevard. It is a six-lane divided roadway that is functionally classified by the Florida Department of Transportation as an urban principal arterial. The roadway is lined almost exclusively with commercial development. I-95 can be accessed at Oakland Park Boulevard. The Stroks' Property and Its Surroundings Mr. and Mrs. Strok own 20.709 acres of contiguous land in the City. The land is among the few remaining undeveloped properties in the City. The Stroks' property abuts Oakland Park Boulevard to the south. Its southernmost point is a relatively short distance to the west of the Oakland Park Boulevard/I-95 interchange. At present, Oakland Park Boulevard provides the only vehicular access to the Stroks' property. Commercial development lies immediately to the east and to the west of that portion of the Stroks' property fronting on Oakland Park Boulevard. Further north on the property's western boundary is a residential neighborhood of single family homes. Single family homes also lie to the east of the Stroks' property north of Oakland Park Boulevard, but they are separated from the property by a canal. Oakland Park Boulevard, in the vicinity of the Stroks' property (Segment 366), is heavily travelled. Currently, it is operating well over its capacity and therefore, according to standards utilized by the Florida Department of Transportation, is providing a Level of Service (LOS) of "F." There are no formal plans at the moment to expend public funds on capital improvements that would increase the capacity of Oakland Park Boulevard. Whether the Stroks' property is ultimately used primarily for commercial purposes or for single family residential purposes, the development of the property will increase the traffic volume on this segment of Oakland Park Boulevard, as well as other roadway segments in the County that are now operating over capacity, but are not programmed for any capital improvements. As a general rule, however, commercial development generates more traffic than single family residential development. The City's 1989 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map The City adopted its 1989 comprehensive plan on April 5, 1989. Adopted as part of the plan was a Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which was based upon appropriate surveys, studies and data concerning the area. Over Petitioners' objections, all but a small portion of the Stroks' property was designated for commercial use on the FLUM. 1/ Under the City's two prior comprehensive plans, the Stroks' entire property was designated for commercial use. "Commercial uses" are defined in Chapter IV, Section 1.32 of the City's 1989 comprehensive plan as "activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the sale, rental and distribution of products, or performance of services." Furthermore, Chapter IV, Section 3.02(C) of the plan provides as follows with respect to lands designated for commercial use on the FLUM: Each parcel of land within an area designated in a commercial land use category by the City's land Use Plan Map must be zoned in a zoning district which permits any one or more of the following uses, but no other uses: Retail uses. Office and business uses. Wholesale, storage, light fabricating and warehouses uses, if deemed appropriate by the City. Hotels, motels and similar lodging. Recreation and open space, cemeteries, and commercial recreation uses. Community facilities and utilities. a. Special Residential Facility Category (2) development . . . . b. Special Residential Facility Category (3) development . . . . Non-residential agriculture uses. Residential uses are permitted in the same structure as a commercial use provided that the local government entity applies flexibility and reserve units to the parcel and: The residential floor area does not exceed 50% of the total floor area of the building; or The first floor is totally confined to commercial uses. Recreational vehicle park sites at a maximum density of ten (10) sites per gross acre if permanent location of recreational vehicles on the site is permitted by the City land development regulations, or twenty (20) sites per gross acre if such permanent location is prohibited by the local land development regulations, subject to allocation by the City government entity of available flexibility or reserve units. Transportation and communication facilities. The decision to designate in the City's 1989 comprehensive plan almost all of the Stroks' property for commercial use was not made without consideration of the adverse impact commercial development would have on traffic in the vicinity of the Stroks' property. Although it was recognized that such development would add more traffic to the already congested roadways in the area than would single family residential development, the prevailing view was that the additional traffic that would be generated by commercial development, as compared to that which would be generated by single family residential development, would be relatively insignificant. The designation of the major portion of the Stroks' property for commercial use is not inherently incompatible with the designations assigned other parcels of property in the surrounding area. The Stroks' property was designated for commercial use under Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan. The Broward County Charter mandates that the land use plans of the County's incorporated municipalities be in substantial conformity with the County's land use plan. Goals, Objectives and Policies The City's 1989 comprehensive plan also includes various goals, objectives and policies. Those of particular significance to the instant case provide in pertinent part as follows: Goal 1- Protect and enhance the single family residential, multiple-family residential, non-residential and natural resource areas of Oakland Park. Objective 1.1- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, revise the development code to assure that all new development . . . avoids traffic problems now impacting the City . . . . Policy 1.1.5- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the development code shall be amended to specify that no development permit shall be issued unless assurance is given that the public facilities necessitated by the project (in order to meet level of service standards specified in the Traffic Circulation, Recreation and Infrastructure policies) will be in place concurrent with the impacts of the development. A concurrency management system shall be included that specifies the latest DCA and City criteria for what constitutes "assurance" in addition to budgeted projects or signed development agreements. Goal 2- To develop an overall transportation circulation system which will provide for the transportation needs of all sectors of the community in a safe, efficient, cost effective and aesthetically pleasing manner. Objective 2.1- Provide for a safe, convenient and efficient motorized and non-motorized transportation system. Policy 2.1.1- Monitor annual traffic accident frequencies by location. Policy 2.2.2- Improve selective enforcement at high accident locations. Policy 2.1.4- Within one year of Plan submission, or when required by legislative mandate, provide safe and convenient on-site traffic flow through development review procedures. Policy 2.1.7- Reduce the amount of through traffic on local streets and collectors through the implementation, within three years of plan adoption, of a Local Area Traffic Management Program (LATMP) . . . . Policy 2.1.11- Improve the efficiency of traffic flow on existing roadways by implementing the policies of Objective 2.1. Objective 2.2- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, coordinate the traffic circulation system with existing and future land uses as shown on the Future Land Use Map. Policy 2.2.1- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide a Development Management System that will allow development to occur in concurrence with the Future Land Use Map and in concert with development of the traffic circulation system. Provide daily and peak hour LOS "D" on all arterial and collector roadways where existing plus committed traffic allows, and maintain traffic conditions on all other roadways segments. Provide daily and peak hour LOS "C" on all local roadways. LOS shall be based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and the FDOT Generalized Daily and Peak Hour Level of Service Maximum Volumes. Other methods may be utilized but are subject to technical review and acceptance by the City. Policy 2.2.2- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of local roadway segments where traffic operations are at LOS "C" or better. This list may be based on the February 21,1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development or other sources as appropriate. Policy 2.2.3- After 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.1, under the following circumstances: There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "C" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "C" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.4- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are at LOS "D" or better. This list shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. Policy 2.2.5- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.1, under the following circumstances: There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.6- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are worse than LOS "D" and there is a scheduled improvement in the City 2010 Traffic Circulation Plan. Traffic operations shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. These links will be identified as "Planned Improvement Facilities" and the LOS will be "Maintained" within 10% of identified existing plus committed conditions, where traffic conditions are measured by volume to capacity ratios. Policy 2.2.7- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.3, under the following circumstances: The proposed impacts will "Maintain," within 10% of existing plus committed traffic conditions and the scheduled 2010 improvement will be able to operate at LOS "D" once constructed. There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.8- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are worse than LOS "D" and there is no scheduled improvement in the City 2010 Traffic Circulation Plan. 2/ Traffic operations shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. These links will be identified as "Constrained Facilities" and the LOS will be "Maintained" within 10% of identified existing plus committed conditions, where traffic conditions are measured by volume to capacity ratios. Policy 2.2.9- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.5, under the following circumstances: The proposed impacts will "Maintain," within 10% of existing plus committed traffic conditions. There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. Policy 2.2.10- The City will annually update existing traffic counts and review updated Broward County Trips assignments. Based on the update the City may reclassify any roadway segment within the City. The City may also reclassify a roadway segment if development from outside the City has effected traffic conditions within the City. Policy 2.2.11- Subsequent to plan adoption, modify the land development regulations such that after 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, require trip generation studies from all proposed development within the City and traffic impact studies for developments generating more than 10% of adjacent roadway capacity and allow development contingent upon the provision of LOS Standards. Objective 2.4- Provide for the protection of existing and future rights of way from building encroachment. Policy 2.4.2- Modify land development regulations to ensure consistency with the Broward County Trafficways Plan right-of-way requirements during development review activities. Goal 9- To ensure the orderly and efficient provision of all public services and facilities necessary to serve existing and future local population needs. Objective 9.2- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide that development or redevelopment proposals are approved consistent with existing service availability or coincident with the programmed provision of additional services at the adopted level of service standards and meets existing and future facility needs. Policy 9.2.1- Within one year of Plan submission, or when required by legislative mandate, revise development procedures to review development proposals cognizant of the City's adopted level of service standards, existing levels of service and where appropriate, the timeframe for implementation of additional facility improvements. Policy 9.2.2- After 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, condition the approval of proposed development or redevelopment projects on the basis of project related needs being concurrently available at the adopted level of service standards specified in Policy 9.2.4. Policy 9.2.3- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, allow for phasing of development related infrastructure improvements concurrently with project impacts on public facilities. Policy 9.2.4- The Level of Service (LOS) for capital facilities shall be: * * * for Arterials and Collectors- LOS "D" or "Maintain" for Local Roadways- LOS "C" ADT, PSDT and PKHR Objective 9.3- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide that private developers participate on a proportionate share basis in any facility improvement costs necessary to maintain LOS standards. Policy 9.3.2- Establish a preference for the actual construction of adjacent site road improvements in lieu of impact fee payments. Policy 9.3.3- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, establish in the land development regulations a process for assessing new development on a pro rata share of the costs necessary to finance public facility improvements in order to maintain the adopted level of service standards specified in Policy 9.2.4. Development Review Requirements Chapter IV, Section 4 of the City's 1989 comprehensive plan prescribes development review requirements. It provides in pertinent part as follows: Following the effective date of the Land Use Plan, the City shall not grant a permit for a proposed development unless the City has determined that public facilities are adequate to serve the needs of the proposed development or unless the developer agrees in writing that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the proposed development until public facilities are adequate to serve its needs. Public facilities may be determined to be adequate to serve the needs of a proposed development when the following conditions are met. Traffic circulation . . . public facilities and services will be available to meet established level of service standards, consistent with Chapter 163.3203(g) Florida Statutes and the concurrence management policies included within this Plan. Local streets and roads will provide safe, adequate access between buildings within the proposed development and the trafficways identified on the Broward County Trafficways Plan prior to occupancy. Capital Improvements Implementation Chapter VII of the plan deals with the subject of capital improvements implementation. It contains a section which addresses the matter of level of service standards. This section provides in pertinent part as follows: The minimum criteria for Comprehensive Plans requires that Level of Service Standards for the City of Oakland Park be included for public facilities described in the plan. The Level of Service Standards for the City of Oakland Park are provided in the following Table 2. Subsequent to the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, all future development approvals will be conditioned upon the provision of services at the local level of service standards. Table 2 sets forth the following level of service standards for roadways: Principal Arterials- LOS "D" or "Maintain" Minor Arterials- LOS "D" or "Maintain" Collectors- LOS "C"- AADT, 3/ PSDT 4/ PKHR 5/ Submission and Approval of the Stroks' Plat On June 6, 1989, the Stroks submitted to the County Commission for its approval a final plat of their property. The plat reflected the Stroks' plan to have 15 single family dwelling units, 180,000 square feet of office space and 36,000 square feet of commercial space constructed on the property. County staff analyzed the plat to ascertain the impact that the proposed development would have on traffic. In performing their analysis, they relied on the County's TRIPS computer model. Broward County assesses impact fees against a developer where it is projected that a development will add traffic to road segments in the County that are over-capacity, but are planned for improvement. The TRIPS computer model is used to determine the amount of the assessment. County staff did a TRIPS run on the Stroks' plat on September 13, 1989 and determined that the development proposed in the plat would generate a total of 6,879 trips on road segments throughout the County, including over-capacity road segments that were not planned for improvement, as well as over-capacity road segments that were planned for improvement. 6/ The County Commission approved the Stroks' plat on September 19, 1989. A short time earlier, the City Council had also approved the plat. Petitioners' Motives Petitioners are all residents of the City of Oakland Park. In filing their petitions challenging the City's 1989 comprehensive plan, they were motivated only by a desire to improve the quality of life in their city. They had no ulterior motive. They filed the petitions because they felt that it was in the best interest of the City that they do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs issue a final order finding that the City of Oakland Park's 1989 comprehensive plan is "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of th Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1990.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Carter-Pritchett Advertising, Inc.’s (Petitioner), applications for the outdoor advertising sign permits referenced herein and filed by the Petitioner should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has filed two applications for permits to locate a two-sided outdoor adverting sign on State Road 82 (Immokalee Road), approximately 3,500 feet east of Colonial Boulevard in Fort Myers, Florida. The applications were assigned numbers 57413 and 57414 by the Respondent. The Respondent is the state agency charged with regulation of outdoor advertising signs within controlled portions of federal-aid primary highways, which include the site of the proposed signs at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent denied the applications on the grounds that the proposed location of the sign could not be permitted under the land use designation relevant to the site and did not qualify for permitting as an unzoned commercial/industrial area. The Petitioner has conceded that the parcel upon which the signs would be located does not meet the statutory definition of an unzoned commercial/industrial area. The issue in this case is whether the permit can be issued on the basis of the land use designation applicable to the parcel. The City of Fort Myers Future Land Use Map classifies the relevant parcel as being within a "Mixed Use" land development category. Property that is categorized as Mixed Use may be developed to include low and medium density single-family residential uses, medium and high density multi-family residential uses, as well as commercial and professional offices, industrial uses, and recreation and open space. The City of Fort Myers Comprehensive Plan (Policy 2.16) requires that development of parcels that are designated as Mixed Use must be approved through a "Planned Unit Development" process. In this case, development of the relevant parcel was approved by adoption of a Planned Unit Development Ordinance (PUD Ordinance No. 3356) by the City Council for the City of Fort Myers on November 20, 2006. The Ordinance allows for construction of a 106,722 square foot mini-storage facility on the parcel. The signage at issue in this proceeding would be located on the parcel with the mini-storage facility. The effective date of the Ordinance was the date of adoption, and the Ordinance requires that all construction be completed within a five-year period, which expires November 20, 2011. Section 6 of the Ordinance provides as follows: Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the planned unit development will result in cancellation of the development approval and the planned unit development approval shall become void and the underlying land use designation of Mixed use (MU) shall be restored. The language of the Ordinance clearly indicates that the planned unit development designation is provisional and based on compliance by the developer with a number of conditions. Among the conditions are requirements that the developer: enter into a development agreement with the city to address transportation impacts of the project; contribute $58,500 to the City Art Fund prior to the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy; complete construction within a five-year period; install new vegetation if required after removal of exotics to meet code minimums; and obtain a certificate of occupancy before outdoor storage may be utilized. At the time of the hearing, none of the conditions had been met. There was no evidence offered to suggest that any of the conditions would be met by the November 20, 2011, deadline. The designation can be extended by the Fort Myers City Council; however, at the time of the hearing, no request for an extension had been approved. Absent compliance with the conditions prior to the November 20, 2011, deadline, the provisional land use designation will become "void" and the underlying land use designation will revert to Mixed Use as specifically stated in the PUD Ordinance. The signs at issue in this proceeding would not permittable under a Mixed Use designation by the City of Fort Myers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying the Petitioner's applications for the sign permits referenced herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 22nd day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Clark Menchion, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 E. Bruce Strayhorn, Esquire Strayhorn & Strayhorn 2125 First Street, Suite 201 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Deanna Hurt, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie C. Kopelousos, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether an amendment to the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, PC-92-20, which was adopted by ordinance number 92-50 rendered the Broward County Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance", within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is a state agency. The Department is charged pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), with responsibility for, among other things, the review of comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. The Respondent, Broward County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the local government charged with the responsibility pursuant to the Act for developing a comprehensive plan for future development in the unincorporated areas of the County and the approval of amendments to the County's comprehensive plan. The Intervenor, Susan Edn, is a resident of, and owns real property located in, Broward County, Florida. Ms. Edn submitted written and oral comments to the County concerning the plan amendment at issue in this proceeding. General Description of the County. The County is a generally rectangular-shaped area located on the southeastern coast of Florida. The County is bounded on the north by Palm Beach County, on the south by Dade County, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by Collier and Hendry Counties. The County's Comprehensive Plan. The County adopted a comprehensive plan as required by the Act on March 1, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "County Plan"). Volume 1 of the County Plan includes the Broward County Land Use Plan, which applies to, and governs, future land use throughout the County, including the unincorporated areas of the County. The Future Land Use Element. The County Plan includes a Future Unincorporated Area Land Use Element dealing with future land use in the unincorporated areas of the County. See Volume 2 of the County Plan, Edn exhibit 15. The Future Land Use Element of the County Plan required by the Act consists of the Broward County Land Use Plan and the Future Unincorporated Area Land Use Element. The Future Land Use Element identifies a number of land-use categories, including a "residential" category. Densities of development on land designated "residential" are also established. There are eight designated residential future land uses identified and defined in the Future Land Use Element of the County Plan. Those designations and densities are as follows: Estate (1) Residential: up to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. Low (2) Residential: up to 2 dwelling units per gross acre. Low (3) Residential: up to 3 dwelling units per gross acre. Low (5) Residential: up to 5 dwelling units per gross acre. Low-Medium (10) Residential: up to 10 dwelling units per gross acre. Medium (16) Residential: up to 16 dwelling units per gross acre. Medium-High (25) Residential: up to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. High (50) Residential: up to 50 dwelling units per gross acre. The density of development for the Rural Estate category is up to 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. The density for the Rural Ranch category is up to 1 dwelling unit per 2.5 gross acres or up to 1 dwelling unit per 2 net acres. The County Plan includes Goal 08.00.00, titled Public Facilities and Phased Growth, and Objective 08.01.00, which provide: GOAL 08.00.00 PHASE GROWTH CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES. OBJECTIVE 08.01.00 COORDINATE FUTURE LAND USES WITH AVAILABLE REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Coordinate future land uses with the availability of regional and community facilities and services sufficient to meet the current and future needs of Broward County's population and economy without endangering its environmental resources. The following policies related to Goal 08.00.00 and Objective 08.01.00 are included in the County Plan: POLICY 08.01.04 In order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Broward County's residents, development should not be permitted in those portions of Broward County with inadequate potable water and wastewater treatment facilities. . . . . POLICY 08.01.09 Private septic tanks and wells in Broward County should be phased out and replaced with centralized water and wastewater systems, where necessary, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Broward County's residents. POLICY 08.01.10 Local government entities shall require existing development on septic tanks and private wells to hook up to centralized sewer and water facilities as they become available. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment which is the subject of this proceeding is inconsistent with the policies quoted in finding of fact 14 or any other goal, objective or policy of the County Plan. The Subject Amendment: PC-92-20. The Board of County Commissioners of the County adopted Ordinance 92- 50 on December 9, 1992. Ordinance 92-50 included nineteen amendments to the County Plan, including amendment PC-92-20. PC-92-20 (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Amendment"), is the amendment to the County Plan challenged in this proceeding by Ms. Edn. The Challenged Amendment amends the land use designation of approximately 2,453 acres of land. Of the 2,453 total acres, the designation of 2,272 acres is changed from Estate (1) Residential to Rural Ranch and the designation of the remaining 180.7 acres of land is changed to Rural Estate. Pursuant to the Challenged Amendment the change in designation also results in a change in density from one dwelling unit per acre to a density of one dwelling unit per two and one-half acres for the Rural Ranch and a density of one dwelling unit per two net acres for the Rural Estate. The Subject Property. The 2,453 acres of land which are the subject of the Challenged Amendment are located in the unincorporated area of the County, east of Southwest 148th Avenue, south of Griffin Road, west of Flamingo Road and north of Sheridan Street. Dwellings currently exist on approximately 85 percent to 90 percent of the subject property. Existing dwellings are served by septic tanks and wells. Pursuant to the County Plan, without the Challenged Amendment, the 10 percent to 15 percent of the subject property not yet developed may be developed at a higher density using septic tanks and individual wells. The subject property is not currently serviced by a sewer service provider or a water service provider. The County Plan recognizes and accepts the foregoing existing conditions. See Map 12-1 of the County Plan Map Series titled "Existing and Proposed Sanitary Sewer Service Area", and Map 14-1 of the County Plan Map Series, titled "Existing and Proposed Potable Water Service Area." The Challenged Amendment does not modify the existing conditions of the subject property except to decrease the density of development allowed on the property. The subject property is not located within a public wellfield zone of influence. See County Plan Land Use Plan Natural Resource Map Series, titled "Existing and Planned Waterwells & Zones of Influence." The Department's Review of the Challenged Amendment. The Department reviewed the Challenged Amendment as originated by the Act. After review of the Challenged Amendment, the Department raised no objections. As part of the Department's initial review of the Challenged Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), the Department considered comments of various entities, including the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the South Florida Water Management District and others concerning the Challenged Amendment. Some of those comments were critical. The critical comments concerning the Challenged Amendment pertain to the use of wells for potable water and the use of septic tanks in the effected area. Those concerns were considered by the Department and ultimately determined to be insufficient to find the Challenged Amendment not "in compliance." The Department's conclusion was based, in part, upon the fact that the Challenged Amendment will reduce the demand on sewer by 477,400 gallons per day and the demand on water by 380,800 gallons per day. The Department's conclusion was also based upon the fact that the majority of the area effected has already been built-out. Ms. Edn offered the critical comments of various governmental entities who provided comments to the Department pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), into evidence. Evidently, Ms. Edn believes that those comments were not adequately considered by the Department or that they prove that the Challenged Amendment is not "in compliance." The evidence failed to prove either suggestion. The evidence failed to prove that the Department's consideration of critical comments about the Challenged Amendment was not adequate or that the Department's conclusions concerning those comments were not reasonable and proper. On the contrary, the evidence proved that the Department did consider all comments and decided that the Challenged Amendment was "in compliance" despite the critical comments. The evidence also proved that the Department's rationale for still finding the Challenged Amendment in compliance was reasonable. Additionally, Ms. Edn failed to present evidence to support a finding that the entities that made critical comments concerning the Challenged Amendment during the initial review of the Challenged Amendment still believe those comments are valid. Therefore, the evidence failed to prove that the critical comments concerning the Challenged Amendment were still valid as of the date of the final hearing of this matter. Data and Analysis-Sewer and Potable Water Services. The evidence failed to prove that the County did not provide data and analysis concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on sewer and potable water services. Facility and service capacity data and analyses concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on the availability of, and the demand for, sewer and potable water services was provided to the Department by the County. Based upon the data and analysis provided, the Challenged Amendment will tend to reduce the demand on sewer and potable water services. The evidence failed to prove that the data and analysis provided was inadequate. Data and Analysis-Soil Suitability. The evidence failed to prove that the County did not provide data and analysis concerning soil suitability. The County submitted data and analysis concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on soil and natural resources, including waterwells and zones of influence, to the Department. The County concluded that the Challenged Amendment would preserve the natural function of soils in the area and Ms. Edn failed to prove the inaccuracy of the County's conclusion. See the County Land Use Plan Natural Resource Map Services titled "Soils." Data and Analysis-Wellfield Protection. The evidence failed to prove that the County did not provide data and analysis concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on wellfield protection. The County relied upon the County Land Use Plan natural Resource Map Series titled "Existing and Planned Waterwells and Zones of Influence" and concluded that the area impacted by the Challenged Amendment is not located within a public wellfield zone of influence. The evidence failed to prove the inaccuracy of the County's conclusion. Data and Analysis-Biscayne Aquifer. The evidence failed to prove that the County did not provide data and analysis concerning the impact of the Challenged Amendment on the Biscayne Aquifer. The South Florida Water Management District has not designated the area of the County impacted by the Challenged Amendment to be a "prime groundwater recharge area" for the Biscayne Aquifer. Proliferation of Urban Sprawl. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, (1992 Supp.) and Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)7, Florida Administrative Code, comprehensive plans are required to discourage the proliferation of "urban sprawl". The Department has provided a definition of "urban sprawl" in a November 1989 Technical Memorandum: . . . scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low-density single- dimensional development. The evidence failed to prove that the foregoing definition or any other pronouncement in the Technical Memorandum constitutes policy of the Department. The evidence also failed to prove that the reduced densities allowed by the Challenged Amendment constitute "urban sprawl." The State Comprehensive Plan. The State Comprehensive Plan is contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Goals and Policies of the State Comprehensive Plan are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with any provision of the State Comprehensive Plan. The Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. The South Florida Planning Council has adopted the Regional Plan for South Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Regional Plan"). The Regional Plan was adopted pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, to provide regional planning objectives for the County, Dade County and Monroe County. In the petition filed in this case, Ms. Edn alleged that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with Goal 13.4.10 of the Regional Plan. Goal 13.4.10 of the Regional Plan provides the following: Within the study area of the Southwest Broward/Northwest Dade Subregional Study, any existing or new user of on-site disposal systems in Broward County and within the Dade County urban development boundary should be required to hook up to a centralized wastewater collection when available. The evidence failed to prove that centralized wastewater collection is "available" to require existing or new users of on-site disposal systems in the area of the Challenged Amendment to hook up to. The evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the Regional Plan.
Findings Of Fact 1. The Commission adopts the hearing officer's Findings of Fact Numbers 1 through 445, set out in pages.12 to 143 of the Recommended Order. 2. In reviewing Ultimate Findings Number 446 through 592, on pages 144 to 202 of the Recommended Order, the Commission is guided by the principle that ultimate findings are usually mixed with ideas of law and policy, and involve either conclusions of _law or determinations of mixed questions of law and fact. See Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Company, 300 U.S. 481, 491 (1937). The Commission adopts Findings Number 446 through 592 to the extent that they represent findings of fact. Conclusiohs of Law 3, The Commission adopts the legal conclusions stated within Ultimate Findings Numbers 446 through 470 on pages 144 through 154 of the Recommended Order, 472 through 473 on pages 154 through 155 of the Recommended Order, 475 through 487 on pages 156 through 161 of the Recommended Order, 489 through 530 on pages 162 through 177 of the Recommended Order, 531 through 537 on pages 178 through 180 of the Recommended Order, 540 through 548 on pages 181 through 186 of the Recommended Order, 550 through 551 on pages 186 through 187 of the Recommended Order, and 553 through 592 on pages 187 through 202 of the Recommended Order, particularly with respect to internal plan consistency and consistency of the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, F.Ss. 4. The Commission does not adopt the Ultimate Findings listed below with respect to Future Land Use mapping requirements in the Act because the required mapping is incorporated by reference in the Future Land Use Map Series in the notation on page 77, Map 16, of the Future Land Use Element of the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. : (a) The Commission does not adopt Ultimate Findings 471 on page 154 of the Recommended Order, 474 (insofar as it refers to an "unidentified potential wellfield") on pages 155 _ through 156 of the Recommended Order, 488 on pages 161 through 162 of the Recommended Order, 538 and 539 (to the extent they find that floodplains were omitted from the Future Land Use Map) on pages 180 through. 181 of ‘the - Recommended Order, 549 on page 186 of the Recommended Order, and 552 on page 187 of the Recommended Order. 5. The Commission adopts Conclusions of Law Numbers 1 through 74 on pages 202 through 229 of the Recommended Order, 76 through 78 on pages 230 through 231 of the Recommended Order,: 80 through 92 on pages 231 through 236 of the Recommended Order. 6. The Commission does not adopt the Conclusions of Law listed below with respect to Future Land Use mapping requirements in the Act because the required mapping is incorporated by reference in the Future Land Use Map Series in the notation on page 77, Map 16, of the Future Land Use Element of the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. (a) The Commission does not adopt Conclusions of Law 75 on pages 229 through 230 of the Recommended Order, and 79 (to the extent it says the County did not include floodplains on its Future Land Use Map) on page 231 of the Recommended Order. . 7. .The Act clearly requires that local government comprehensive plan goals and policies be based on appropriate data. See sections 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), F.S. The Commission concludes that there is competent substantial evidence in the record that supports a determination that the Comprehensive Plan is internally inconsistent based on repeated failures to reconcile its future directives with the requisite factual basis and analysis provided. 8. The Commission concludes that the elements of the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan are internally inconsistent with respect to efficiency of land use, protection of natural resources, protection of agricultural resources, efficiency of provision of public facilities, and coastal management. See sections 163.3177(2) and 163.3184(10)(a), F.S. 9. ‘The Commission concludes that the Comprehensive Plan does not meet the minimum criteria required by the Act and Rule 93-5, with respect to the following elements: Future Land Use; Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water and 6 Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge ("Infrastructure"); Conservation; Coastal Management; and Capital Improvements. 10. The Future Land Use Element, as well as the remainder of the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan, is inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and Rule 90-5 with respect to the following: (a) The Commission concludes that the County's designation of densities for certain agricultural areas at one unit per acre on the Future Land Use Map is inconsistent with projected population demand established by data and analysis for the Comprehensive Plan. (b) The Future Land Use Element does not contain required objectives coordinating future: land uses with appropriate topography, soil conditions, and the availability of public facilities and services. {c) The Future Land Use Element does not contain required objectives ensuring the protection of natural resources, coordinating coastal area population densities with applicable plans, and ensuring the availability of suitable land for utility facilities necessary to support proposed development. (d) The Future Land Use Element does not contain required policies toward activities providing for compatibility of adjacent land uses; drainage, stormwater Management and open space; protecting potable water wellfields and environmentally sensitive land; and establishing. standards for densities or intensities of use for each land use designation. 11. The Comprehensive Plan's Infrastructure Element is inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and Rule 9J-5. (a) The Infrastructure Element is not correlated to the future land uses and does not indicate ways to provide for the County's sanitary sewer, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater recharge needs. : (b) The Infrastructure Element, as well as the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan, does not contain required objectives addressing the correction of existing facility deficiencies, the coordination of the extension and ‘increase of facilities to meet future needs, the maximization of the use of existing facilities, the conservation of potable water, and the protection of the function of natural groundwater recharge areas and natural ~ drainage features. (c) The Infrastructure Element does not contain required policies toward using potable water conservation strategies and techniques and toward regulating land use. and development to protect the functions of natural drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas. 12. The Conservation Element, as well as the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan, does not meet the following requirements of section 163.3177, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. (a) The Conservation Element does not contain required objectives effectively conserving, appropriately using, and protecting: the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources and waters that flow into estuarine or oceanic waters; soils and native vegetative communities; and fisheries, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and marine . habitat. {b) The Conservation Element does not contain required policies toward protecting native vegetative communities from destruction by development activities and restricting activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife. (c) The Conservation Element does not contain required policies protecting and conserving the natural functions of existing soils, fisheries, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, floodplains, harbors, wetlands, and marine habitats. 13. The Coastal Management Element, as well as the remainder of the Compreherisive Plan, does not contain objectives and policies required by the Act and Rule 9J-5: (a) The Coastal Management Element does not contain objectives protecting, conserving, or enhancing remaining coastal wetlands; wildlife habitat; and coastal barriers; nor does the element contain objectives directing population concentrations away from known coastal high hazard areas, maintaining or reducing hurricane evacuation times, and preparing post-disaster redevelopment plans to reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazards. (b) The Coastal Management Element does not contain required policies limiting the impacts of development upon wetlands, water quality, water quantity, wildlife habitat, living marine resources, and beach and dune systems; restoring or enhancing disturbed or degraded natural ' resources including beaches and dunes, estuaries, wetlands, and drainage systems; mitigating future disruptions to disturbed or degraded hatural resources; mitigating hazards by regulating floodplains, stormwater management, sanitary . sewer and septic tanks, and land use to reduce the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazards; addressing hurricane evacuation; providing for post~disaster redevelopment; identifying areas in need of redevelopment; and limiting development in coastal high hazard areas and relocating or replacing infrastructure away from these areas. 14. The Capital Improvements Element, as well as the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan, does not include the following required objectives consistent with the Act and Rule 9J-5: (a) The Capital Improvements Element does not address the County's needs for capital facilities, including land acquisitions, to meet existing deficiencies, accommodate desired future growth, and replace worn-out facilities; 10 (b) The Capital Improvements Element fails to demonstrate the County's ability to provide or require the provision of the items identified elsewhere.in the Comprehensive Plan; and (c) The Capital Improvements Element does not adequately relate to managing the land development process . so that public facility needs created by previously issued land development orders or future development do not exceed the County's ability to ensure provision of needed capital improvements. , 15. The Commission concludes that the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, F.S., ("State Plan") construed | as a whole. See section 163.3184(1)(b), F.S. This consistency determination requires the Commission to assess whether the local government comprehensive plan is compatible with and takes action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the State Plan. Section 163.3177(10)(a), F.S. (a) The Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Water Resources goal of the State Plan to protect existing water supplies, “£loodplains, surface and groundwater quality and quantity; to consider alternative methods of wastewater treatment; and to reserve from use the water necessary to support essential nonwithdrawal demands. 11 (b) The Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Coastal and Marine Resources goal of the State Plan; in particular, the Charlotte County/city of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan fails to encourage land uses that are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources. . , (¢) The Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the State Plan's Natural Systems and Recreational Lands goal, - which requires Florida to protect and acquire natural habitats and ecological systems and restore degraded systems to a functional condition. ) (d) Comprehensive Plan provisions also conflict with the State Plan's Land Use goal, which requires that development shall be directed to areas that already have in place, or have agreements to provide, land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally sensitive manner. (e) The Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the State Plan's Downtown Revitalization goal, which encourages the centralization of commercial, governmental, retail, residential, and cultural activities within downtown areas. (£) The Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Public Facilities goal, which requires the planning and financing of new facilities to serve new residents ina timely, orderly, and efficient manner. 12 Rulings on Exceptions The Commission notes that Charlotte County filed exceptions to the hearing officer's Recommended Order, which stipulated that in the event the Commission adopted the Agreement between the . County and the DCA, the County would waive its right to file such : exceptions. ‘At a meeting with Cabinet Aides on March 7, 1990, Sandra Augustine, counsel to the County, stated that the county would not seek a ruling on the exceptions provided that the Commission adopted the remedial actions specified in the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum and the remedial actions specified in paragraph 21 of this order. Determination of Compliance and Order 16. It is hereby concluded by the Administration Commission that the 1988 Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by the Charlotte County Commission on December ° 16, 1988, is not in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and with Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., and is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, F.S. 17. Pursuant to Chapter 28-39.005(1), F.A.C., the Commission has requested the DCA to provide a recommendation as to the remedial actions which would bring the County's Comprehensive Plan into compliance, as well as the type and extent of funds which should be withheld or other sanctions, as specified in section 163.3184(11), F.S. The DCA and Charlotte County have authorized a Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and 13 Sanctions ("Joint Agreement"), which is attached as Exhibit B to this Order, and an Addendum to Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions ("Addendum"), which is attached as Exhibit c to this Order.’ 18. Having determined that the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda's Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance with the provisions of the Act and Rule 93-5, F.A.C., the Commission orders that the remedial actions specified in Part I-A of the Joint Agreement, as amended by the Addendum, be implemented by the County in order to bring the plan, as adopted and submitted to the DCA, into compliance. 19. A plan amendment or amendments prepared pursuant to section 163.3187, F.S., and accomplishing the remedial actions specified in paragraph 18 of this order, with the exception of the remedial actions specified in Part I-A 4.a. of the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum, shall be prepared by the County and transmitted to the DCA no later than May 15, 1990. The plan amendment or amendments submitted pursuant to this : paragraph shall include policies pertaining to the County's intent as it relates to Part I-A 4.a. of the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum. (a) The DCA shall, by May 30, 1990, certify to the Commission that the County's plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has been received. In the event the plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has not been received by the DCA by May 15, 1990, the DCA shall notify 14 the Commission by May 30, 1990; and the Commission shall review the matter for implementation of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.s. (b) The DCA shall report to the Commission on the progress of its review of the Charlotte County plan amendment or amendments submitted pursuant to this paragraph by September 30, 1990. (c) The DCA shall forward a recommendation to the Commission regarding the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph no later than January 31, 1991. The Commission shall consider the DCA's recommendation in the Commission's determination of the ., County's conformance.with.the remedial..actions specified.in this Paragraph. 20. A plan amendment or amendments prepared pursuant to section 163.3187, F.S., and accomplishing the remedial actions specified in Part I-A 4.a. of the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum shall be prepared by the County and transmitted to the DCA no later than June 1, 1992. (a) The DCA shall, by June 15, 1992, certify to the Commission that the County's plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has been received. In the event the plan amendment (s) pursuant to this paragraph has not been received by the DCA by June 1, 1992, the DCA shall notify the Commission by June 15, 1992; and the Commission shall 15 review the matter for implementation of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.s. (b) The DCA shall report to the Commission on the _ progress of its review of the Charlotte County plan amendment or amendments submitted pursuant to this paragraph by October 1, 1992. (c) The DCA shall forward a recommendation to the Commission regarding the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph no later than - January 31, 1993. The Commission shall consider the DCA's recommendation in the Commission's determination of the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph. 21. The Administration Commission further orders that the County: (a) Adopt a Conservation Overlay as part of the Conservation Element and Future Land Use Map identifying natural resources and environmental features; (b) Amend the goals, objectives and policies of the Conservation Element to provide protection to the identified natural resources and environmental features, in conformance with statutory and rule provisions and in furtherance of the State Comprehensive Plan; and (c) Amend the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element and other pertinent elements, to 16 ensure consistency with the revised Conservation Element and the Future Land Use Map. 22. A plan amendment or amendments prepared pursuant to section 163.3187, F.S., and accomplishing the remedial actions specified in paragraph 21 of this order shall be prepared by the County and transmitted to the DCA no later than June i, 1991. (a) The DCA shall, by June 15, 1991, certify to the Commission that the County's plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has been received. In the event the plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has not been received by the DCA by June 1, 1991, the DCA shall notify the Commission by June 15, 1991; and the Commission shall ‘review the matter for implementation of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.s. (b) The DCA shall report to the Commission on the progress of its review. of the Charlotte County plan amendment or amendments submitted pursuant to this Paragraph by October 1, 1991. , (c) The DCA shall forward a recommendation to the Commission regarding the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph no later than January 31, 1992. The Commission shall consider the DCA's recommendation in the Commission's determination of the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph. 17 23. Comprehensive Plan.amendments outside the scope of this order shall be reviewed by the DCA in the same manner as any other plan amendment, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. 24. The fact’ that the Coastal Management Element is included in the Commission's finding of noncompliance in this order shall be a consideration if the Department of Natural Resources is asked to issue permits under section 161.053, F.S., or if the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund is requested to sell, convey any interest in, or lease any sovereignty lands or submerged lands at any time prior to the Commission's determination that the County has complied with the provisions of this order. 25. .Since all issues raised in General Development Corporation and General Development Utilities, Incorporated's ("GDC/GDU") Petition to Intervene for Limited Purpose or, in the alternative, to Remand to DOAH for Evidentiary Hearing ("GDC/GDU Petition") are addressed by the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum, the GDC/GDU Petition is moot. 26. The Commission has considered the immediate imposition of sanctions, pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.S., in this case. However, based upon the following mitigating factors, the Commission elects not to impose sanctions at this time, while retaining jurisdiction as noted below in paragraph 27 of this order. 18 (a) In this caSe, Charlotte County, pursuant to section 163.3184(10), F.S., proceeded with a DOAH hearing on disputed issues embodied. within the adopted local plan. In particular, the definition of urban sprawl was an issue that had not been litigated, and the County, in good faith, litigated the issue in the DOAH forum. The hearing officer's Recommended Order, issued on November 20, 1989, upheld the DCA's original finding that the adopted local plan was not in compliance with Chapter.163, Part II, F.S., DCA Rule Chapter 9U-5, F. A. C.; and Chapter 187, F.S., largely based upon the disputed urban sprawl issue, which is a component of several plan elements. (b) During the pendency of the DOAH hearing process, the County exercised restraint in issuing development orders » and permits in the area of the County subject to the disputed issues. This course of action by the County is evidence of the County's sensitivity to the need for protection of State resources while the urban sprawl issue underwent review. (c) No precedent existed in law for the urban sprawl determination until the hearing officer's Recommended Order was published. Subsequent local governments have the advantage of the hearing officer's findings and conclusions as a guide in preparing local comprehensive Plans that \ adequately discourage urban sprawl. Once the hearing 19 officer's ruling was known, the County proceeded rapidly, and in good faith, to reach a settlement with the DCA. 27. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the provisions in this order. Lf the Commission determines that the County has complied with the actions specified in this order, the Commission will conclude its jurisdiction over this action. If the Commission determines that the County has not complied with the remedial actions specified in this order, the Commission shall review the Matter for implementation of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.S. 28. Any party to this order has the right to seek judicial review of the order pursuant. to section 120.68, F.S., by the filing of a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Clerk of the Commission, Patricia A. Woodworth, Office of Planning and Budgeting, Executive Office of the Governor, Room 415 Carlton Building, 501 South Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal, accompanied by the | applicable filing fees, with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of the day this order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. 20 tad DONE and ordered this /S day of March, 1990, in Seu) A. WOODWORTH Secretary to the Administration Commission Tallahassee, Florida. cc: Members of the Commission Counsel of Record 21 Honorable, Bob Martinez Governor The Capitol, PL 05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Bob Butterworth Attorney General The Capitol, PL 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Doyle Connor Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol, PL 09 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 David J. Russ, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 - Sandra J. Augustine, Esquire ' County Attorney 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 Kenneth G. Oertel Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 c. Guy Batsel Batsel, McKinley & Ittersagen, P.A. Manor Pointe Professional Center 1861 Placida Road, Suite 104 Englewood, Florida 34223 Alan S. Gold, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 22 Thomas G. Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer The Capitol, PL 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol, PL 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol, PL 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399- -0001 Pelham Secretary Department, of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire Farr, Farr, Haymans, Moseley, Emerich and Sifrit, P.A. Post Office Drawer 1447 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-1447 J. Michael Rooney, Esquire City Attorney City of Punta Gorda Post Office Box 400 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive . Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David Emerson Bruner, Esquire Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 114-B North Collier Boulevard Marco Island, Florida 33937 af, LIGLHXa Valuold "ALNNOD 3LLOTYVHO wowtoa some swsagne samo: assert dVW XSdNI “2 s78¥4 er ytevs - ' yor-ta HHSHAOL SIHSNMOL OF FIVE WLe- STF CHS NMOL . F9z-"Ser GIHSNMOL aze~ Sep oIHSAMOL UV FTaVL 2 FTGVE Z F1GVL toasen Shaeweens aaa 5 zee-sie $4 FAz- Git Faz-sie : HUSNMOL eHSNMOL -- ~ AF == net 2 F18V4 aaa + 2 F1AUL l - oe | | l searing 3 1 WLs-S0d 393-"soF aa FeS-SOb | HSNMOL . DIHSNMOL | HSUMOL + . . a A . : AN _- can) i = Tete ae emit - 4 ap _ soot sR —"} " z aunola —_——-+ ae enw —_—, wee, pone ney —_ ——_ EXHIBIT B STATE OF FLORIDA SAM tek ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION FLORIDA ‘4-8 AND WATER g Spluoicatory commission DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, . Petitioner, vs. CHARLOTTE COUNTY and CITY‘ OF PUNTA GORDA, " : ) ) ) ..) CASE NO. 89-0810GM ) Respondents. ) ) NOTICE OF FILING JOINT AGREEMENT ON _ REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS The undersigned hereby gives notice of filing the attached joint agreement on remedial actions and sanctions in this case. Respectfully submitted, D ECEIVE) favidb.( Rubs, Senior Attorney Departmen of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive JAN 22 1990 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 (904) 488-0410 Office of Planning & Budgeting Office.of Director CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to the Parties listed below this LU day of January, 1990. uss Senior Attorney J. Michael Rooney, Esquire city Attorney P. O. Box 400 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Michael P. Haymans P. O. Drawer 1447 Punta Gorda,’ Florida 33951-1447 Kenneth G. Oertel 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite :c Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Sandra J. Augustine, Esquire County Attorney 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 1/18/90 JOINT AGREEMENT ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS ~ CHARLOTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The parties to this proceeding do hereby enter into the following Joint Stipulation on Remedial Actions and Sanctions and request that the Administration Commission approve and include the terms of this Joint Stipulation as part of the final order in this matter: . I. REMEDIAL ACTIONS A. The County of Charlotte (hereinafter "County") will amend its Comprehensive Plan to include the following: 1. The County shall amend its Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") to limit residential densities, in the areas located south and east of the Peace River and outside of the Urban Service Area ("USA"), in the following manner: ae The areas currently identified as , Agriculture/Conservation on the FLUM shall he : Limited to a density of one unit per 40 acres. b. The C. M. Webb Wildlife Management Area will retain-its designation of Preservation. c. The areas previously identified as Agriculture I and Agriculture II on the FLUM shall be limited to a density of one unit per 10 acres, with the exception of existing (as of January 1, 1990), platted lands which are subdivided into individual lots of less than 10 acres in size, whereby one unit per subdivided lot is the maximum density allowed, except when vested rights, related to allowable densities, are determined to exist under the vested rights provisions of Charlotte County Ordinance 88-44. It is not the intent of this provision to exempt these areas from any applicable concurrency requirements. ao ‘qd. The areas shown on the FLUM with a designation other than those mentioned in a, b, or ¢ above, : shall retain their current’ designation. 2. The County shall amend its FLUM to limit residential densities on the bridgeless barrier islands in the following manner: a. All areas one acre or greater in size (as of January 1, 1990) shall be limited to a density of one unit per acre, except where vested rights, related to allowable densities, are determined to exist under the vested rights provisions of the Charlotte County Ordinance 88-44. It-is not the intent of this provision to exempt these areas from any applicable concurrency requirements. b. All platted areas (as of January 1, 1990) less than one acre in size shall have an allowable density of one unit per subdivision lot, except where vested rights, related to allowable densities, are determined to exist under the vested rights provisions of the Charlotte County Ordinance 88-44. It is not the intent of this provision to exempt these areas from any applicable concurrency requirements. 3. The County shall amend its designated Urban Service Area boundaries to reflect the following: a. The inclusion of the area known as Charlotte Ranchettes, located near the northwest boundary of the Cc. M. Webb Wildlife Management area. b. The inclusion of the existing mobile home and commercial areas on Burnt Store Rd. just north of the Burnt Store Isles area. : ce. The exclusion of the bridgeless barrier islands (Knight Island, Don Pedro Island, and Little Gasparilla Island). 4. The County shall address orderly growth within the Urban Service Area in the following manner: a. Utilize the results of the Sewer and Water Study, currently being undertaken, to establish a series of districts or zones which will prioritize the areas within the USA for infrastructure expansion. The study is expected to be completed by January 1, 1992. _b. As an interim measure, the County shall amend ; the plan to include a policy which will prohibit the _ extension of water lines, within the unincorporated area of the County, without the simultaneous extension of sewer lines. This will have the effect of limiting the provision of utilities to : areas that are built-out to a degree which would make expansion financially feasible, and directing growth to the areas that have existing infrastructure. . ¢. The County shall develop land use policies which will prevent sprawl from occurring within the USA. These policies should address such land use tools as replatting, redevelopment, utility regulation, and transfers of development rights (TDR's).: d. The County shall incorporate into its plan a policy which will prohibit the public provision of urban services outside of the urban service area, with the exception of police, fire, EMS, garbage, and certain road maintenance, where appropriate. 5. The County shall amend the FLUM to create a separate designation for RV parks, and shall develop -goals, - - objectives, and policies which will assure that areas so designated will accommodate vehicles/structures on a temporary recreational basis. . 6. The County shall amend the language of its goals, objectives, and policies in the drainage element, such that they will be consistent with the rules, regulations and policies of the applicable water management aistricts. It is the intent of this provision to prohibit post-development stormwater discharge at a greater rate than pre-development discharge, consistent with water management district rules. 7. The County shall incorporate the provisions ’ of Ordinance 89-53 (Special Surface Water Protection Districts) into its Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies to assure the protection of those surface water resources. 8. The County shall amend all appropriate text and data to reflect the changes outlined herein. B. Charlotte County agrees to discontinue its rule challenge regarding the urban sprawl issue. II. PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTING, REVIEWING AND APPROVING THE ABOVE REQUIRED AMENDMENTS. 3 IIr. Iv. Ve A. The Comprehensive Plan amendments required in Part I (with the exception of 4.a.) above shall be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter, "Department") within 90 days of the date of this agreement. B. The procedures for reviewing the above referenced amendments shall be as outlined in Chapter 163. F.S. Cc. The Comprehensive plan amendments required in 4.a. of Part I above shall be transmitted to the Department in the County's Spring, 1992 submission period. However, the amendments to be included in the submission outlined in part A above, will include policies pertaining to the County's intent as it relates to 4.a. Upon receipt of the amendments, the Department shall review them in the same manner as any other plan amendment, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. ” SANCTIONS A. The' County of Charlotte shall prepare. and transmit Comprehensive Plan amendments, in accordance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 97-5, Florida Statutes, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. B. In the event that County does not submit the required amendments in a timely fashion or does not amend the Comprehensive plan in a manner which is in conformance with the Final Order, the County may be subject to sanctions, the nature and extent to which will be determined by the Administration Commission in a manner consistent with the extent to which the failure to comply with the Final Order warrants. ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER MATTERS A. Sanctions approved under the terms of the Final Order shall be of no force and effect unless the Department of Community Affairs affirmatively notifies the appropriate state agencies that such sanctions have attached. B. Jurisdiction over these proceedings and parties is retained for the purpose of enforcing the Final Order. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT _ The representatives of the parties hereto have full authority of their principals to enter into this agreement. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS BY: __ DATE:__January 22, 1990 Secretary | . . Thomas G. Pelham COUNTY _OF CHARLOTT, BY DATE: is) 9) Board gf County issionéers ATTEST: : Approved as to Form and Legal Oo Sufficiericy Barbara T. Scott . Be Clerk of the Circuit Court Bayete Va ~ , , : Sandra J. Augustine, BY'(_.-7_. Tad . Cte County Attorney EXHIBIT c STATE OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Petitioner, vs. CHARLOTTE COUNTY and CITY oF PUNTA GORDA, Respondents, and BABCOCK FLORIDA COMPANY, a Florida corporation, WILBUR H. COLE, FEBRUARY TRUST, and PALM ISLAND RESORT, Intervenors. Sef NOTICE OF FILING ADDENDUM TO JOINT AGREEMENT ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS CHARLOTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN = A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The undersigned hereby gives notice of filing the attached Addendum to the Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions previously filed in this case. D Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 (904) 488-0410 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail this 28h day of February, 1990, to the parties listed below. J. Michael Rooney, Esquire City Attorney P.O. Box 400 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-0400 : Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P.O. Drawer 1447 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-1447 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire 2700 Blair Stone Road; Suite c Tallahassee, Florida 32314- 6507 Sandra J. Augustine, Esquire County Attorney 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 Alan S. Gold, Esquire 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 ADDENDUM TO JOINT AGREEMENT ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS CHARLOTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ° The Department of Community Affairs and Charlotte County, Florida, hereby enter into this Addendum to the Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions/Charlotte County Comprehensive Plan (hereafter "the Settlement Agreement") previously entered into by the parties on January 22, 1990. 1. The parties agree to amendment of Section I.A.4 of the Settlement Agreement, to provide as follows: 4. The County shall address orderly growth within the Urban Service Area in the following manner: a. Utilize the results of the Sewer and Water Study, currently being undertaken, to establish a series of districts or zones which will prioritize the areas within the USA for infra- structure expansion. The study is expected to be completed by January 1, 1992. cr b. The County shall develop land use policies which will prevent sprawl from occurring within the USA. These policies should address such land use tools as replatting, redevelopment, utility regulation, and transfers of development rights (TDR's). a c. . The County shall incorporate into its plan a policy which will prohibit the public provision of urban services ,outside. of the urban service area, with the: exception of police, fire, EMS, garbage, and certain road maintenance, where appropriate. - 2. In all other respects, the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties on January 22, 1990, .shall remain in full force and effect. 3. The parties hereby request that the Administration Commission approve and include the terms of this Addendum to the Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions as part ef the ~ final order in Case No. 89-0810 GM (DOAH). 4. The representatives of the parties hereto have full authority of their principals to enter into this agreement. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS yp binne DFvps— pare: 2 -DL—9™ Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary COUNTY OF CHARLOTTE pATE: 27-22-90 of County Commissioners ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Barbara T. Scott, Clerk of AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Circuit Court.and Ex-officio Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners / Sandra J.\\Au By. Abby County Attorney Deputy Clerk : jo: addendum/89-153/022290
Conclusions This cause came before the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission (the "Commission") on March 13, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida, pursuant to sections 163.3184(10) and 163.3184(11), Florida Statutes (F.S.), for consideration of a Recommended Order from the Division of Administrative Hearings, concerning Charlotte County's and the City of Punta Gorda's jointly adopted local government comprehensive plan. Based on review of the Recommended order, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, consideration of a Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions ("Joint Agreement") between Charlotte County and the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), a 1 copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, and consideration of the Addendum to Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions between Charlotte County and the DCA, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C, the Commission issues its final order as follows.
Findings Of Fact By applications dated July 30, 1979, the Respondent National Advertising Company applied for eight permits to construct four double-faced outdoor advertising signs on U.S 41 and Pine Island Road, in Lee County, Florida. The applications in question stated that the signs were to be located in an unincorporated area of Lee County zoned commercial or industrial. This was consistent with the official zoning maps of Lee County, which reflected that the property upon which the signs were to be located was zoned commercial. The applications were approved by the Department on July 31, 1979, and one structure was erected. This structure bears permit numbers 11293-10 and 11294-10. Subsequently, it was determined that the zoning on the subject property was agricultural rather than commercial as stated on the permit applications. This problem was caused by a transposition error on the Lee County zoning maps which mistakenly classified the subject property as commercial. On November 1, 1979, notices of violation of Chapter 14-10.05, Florida Administrative Code were issued against the permits which alleged that the structures were in violation of law due to inappropriate zoning. The inspector who approved the Respondent's applications relied upon the representation made by the Respondent that the zoning on the property was commercial and did not independently verify this information. In reliance on the Lee County zoning maps, a representative of the Respondent entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the property on which the signs were to be located, secured Department of Transportation permits and, subsequently, county building permits. Following the erection of the first sign, the Department was informed by another sign company that the zoning on the property was improper. The Department "red-tagged" the completed sign and the remaining permitted structures, thus halting further construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Florida Department of Transportation revoking permit numbers 11293-10, 11294-10, 11296-10, 11295-10, 11299-10, 11297-10 and 11298-10, issued to the Respondent National Advertising Company to construct four double-faced outdoor advertising signs on U.S. 41 in Lee County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30 day of June, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether the small scale development amendment adopted by Respondent, Santa Rosa County (County), by Ordinance No. 2005-R-70 on February 23, 2006, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The record in this case is extremely brief, thus accounting for the brevity of this Recommended Order. Petitioners, Larry Seal and Michelle Seal, reside at 7564 East Bay Boulevard, Navarre, Florida, an unincorporated community within the County. Although Boardwalk did not present any evidence at the hearing, for background purposes only, the parties' pleadings show that Boardwalk is a limited liability corporation which owns a 1.15-acre parcel in Navarre, Florida, and is seeking to have the land use designation on that property changed from Single-Family Residential to Commercial. The pleadings also show that the amendment was adopted by the County on February 23, 2006. Mr. Seal resides within the County. Also, he attended the County meeting on February 23, 2006, and offered comments in opposition to the amendment. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. Mrs. Seal did not attend the final hearing. However, Mrs. Seal's interests are represented by her husband. See Petitioners' Exhibit 1. Whether she owns property adjacent to Intervenor's parcel, as alleged in the Petition, and whether Mr. Seal made comments on her behalf at the County meeting, was not established through Mr. Seal's testimony. Without citing specific portions of the Plan, in their Petition, Petitioners alleged only that the small scale development amendment adopted by the County is internally inconsistent with the Plan.2 Despite this lack of specificity, no discovery was taken by the parties prior to the hearing. At the hearing, Mr. Seal, who is a lay person, asserted that the amendment was inconsistent with Housing Element Policies 51B4 and 51B5 and with undisclosed portions of the Future Land Use Element. (Copies of the Plan itself were not introduced into evidence.) However, it became evident that the two cited policies in the Housing Element relate to land development regulations and are therefore irrelevant.3 See, e.g., Brevard County v. Dept. of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case Nos. 00- 1956GM and 02-0391GM (DOAH Dec. 16, 2002; DCA Feb. 25, 2003) 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 20 at *7 (consistency with land development regulations is not a compliance criterion); Robbins et al. v. Dept. of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 97-0754GM (DOAH Oct. 30, 1997; DCA Dec. 9, 1997) 1997 Fla. ENV LEXIS 231 at *18 (land development regulations are not relevant to a plan or plan amendment compliance determination). Mr. Seal also asserted that the amendment contravened a resource extraction policy in the Conservation Element but later withdrew that assertion. That policy also appears to have no application to the map amendment. After the County's objection to testimony regarding land development regulations was sustained, Mr. Seal indicated that he did not intend to present any other evidence since the remainder of his prepared testimony related to that subject. Although he was given an opportunity to present further relevant evidence, he rested his case. The County and Boardwalk elected not to offer any evidence in response to Mr. Seal's testimony. Except for a Special Power of Attorney executed by Mr. Seal's wife, no documentary evidence, such as copies of relevant portions of the Plan, the existing and proposed FLUM, drawings or aerial photographs of the property and adjacent area, the application, or the Ordinance which adopted the amendment, was offered into evidence by any party.4 Because Boardwalk did not present any evidence, there is no basis upon which to determine whether it presented written or oral comments, recommendations, or objections to the County during the adoption of the amendment. (In its Motion to Intervene, Boardwalk did allege that such comments were made.) Therefore, there is no evidence to establish that Intervenor is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding.
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 small scale plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-R-070 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2006, 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 6th day of June, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Background The Parties Respondent, City of Hialeah (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 plans and amendments thereto. Petitioners, Edmond J. Gong and Dana L. Clay (petitioners), reside in Coconut Grove, Florida and own at least two parcels of property within the City. The parties have stipulated that petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to challenge the remedial amendment in issue here. The Nature of the Dispute In 1991 and 1992, the City adopted three sets of land use amendments to its comprehensive plan known as amendments 91-1, 91-2 and 92-1. Each set of amendments generated objections by the DCA, and the matters were later sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings and were assigned Case Nos. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM and 92-7517GM, respectively. Petitioners did not participate in any of these proceedings. To resolve the objections raised by the DCA, the City and DCA negotiated a stipulated settlement agreement in December 1993, which was executed by the City on January 28, 1994. Pursuant to that agreement, on April 21, 1994, the City adopted a remedial amendment (Ordinance 94-27) known as amendment 94R-1. After reviewing the amendment, on June 2, 1994, the DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent to find such amendment in compliance. On June 7, 1994, the South Florida Regional Planning Council also found the amendment to be in compliance. Finally, on July 11, 1994, the DCA's motion to dismiss Case Nos. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM and 92-7517GM was granted. Petitioners, who participated in the local hearings concerning the adoption of amendment 94R-1, timely filed their petition for administrative hearing on June 23, 1994, challenging the propriety of that amendment for various reasons. The petition was assigned Case No. 94-3506GM. Although petitioners failed to plead any procedural issues in the initial petition, respondents have agreed that petitioners may raise certain procedural objections regarding amendment 94R-1 since the procedural issues were raised in their objections and comments filed with the City during the adoption process of the amendment. Procedurally, petitioners argue that the local government did not comply with all statutory requirements in noticing its proposed approval of the settlement stipulation and its later intent to adopt an ordinance. As to the DCA, petitioners argue that the state agency did not comply with the law in publishing its cumulative notice of intent on June 2, 1994, and that the notice contained erroneous rule citations and lacked a geographical map. Substantively, petitioners complain that before final approval of amendment 94R- 1 was given, the local government and DCA did not consider the enactment of Chapter 94-338, Laws of Florida, which created a multijurisdictional tourism, sports and entertainment special district known as the Blockbuster Park Special District, and they did not consider the traffic impacts of a recently opened connector to Interstate 75 and an interchange within the City that connects traffic from the connector to the Florida Turnpike. Finally, they contend that the amendment improperly redesignated more than ten acres of land from residential to commercial land use. Amendments 91-1, 91-2 and 92-1 involve ten amendments to the plan, all originally found not to be in compliance by the DCA. To cure three of those deficiencies, the City rescinded three ordinances leaving seven plan amendments to be remediated. Petitioners challenge the validity of these seven amendments but none change the use on their property. In reality, though, petitioners rely principally on their procedural objections in seeking to have a determination made that the amendment is not in compliance. Were the Notice Requirements Met? After the DCA and City reached an agreement in principle to resolve the DCA's objections to the plan amendments, a settlement agreement was prepared for execution by the City's mayor and DCA Secretary. Before the mayor could sign the agreement, however, the City Council's approval and authorization were required. Such approval and authorization to sign the agreement came in the form of a resolution adopted at a public hearing held on January 25, 1994. The agreement was later signed by the mayor and DCA Secretary on January 28 and March 3, 1994, respectively. The City had originally intended to consider the item at its January 11, 1994 meeting. Timely publication of notice was given for that meeting on December 27, 1993, in the regular edition of The Miami Herald, a newspaper of general paid circulation published daily in Dade County. At the January 11 meeting, however, the City discussed the matter but then deferred final action on the item until its next meeting on January 25, 1994. Accordingly, it republished a notice of its January 25 meeting in the Zone 4 Northwest Neighbors section of the Herald. The Zone 4 Northwest Neighbors section is an insert in the Herald each Thursday and Sunday and contains news pertaining to the northwest portion of Dade County, including the City. Because all copies of the Herald delivered and sold in northwest Dade County contain this particular Neighbors insert, the City complied with the requirement that the advertisement be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation within the jurisdiction of the City. Since petitioners reside and work outside of northwest Dade County, they say they did not receive the Neighbors insert in their paper and thus they were not aware of the January 25 hearing. There is no requirement, however, that the advertisement be published in other parts of Dade County. It is noted that even though they should have received notice of the January 11 hearing through the advertisement published in the regular edition of the Herald on December 27, 1993, they did not attend the hearing. The four-inch notice published on page 15 of the January 16, 1994 edition of the Neighbors section reads as follows: At its regular meeting of January 25, 1994, the Hialeah City Council will consider the following Resolution in addition to other business. Members of the public are invited to attend; the meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. at Hialeah City Hall, 501 Palm Avenue, Hialeah, Florida. RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIALEAH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER A STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CASE NOS. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM AND 92-7517GM, ENTITLED "DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS VS. CITY OF HIALEAH" NOW CONSOLIDATED BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPART- MENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. Applicable state law (s. 163.3184(16), F.S.) called for the notice to be published at least ten days prior to the hearing. In addition, general provision 3 of the settlement agreement provided in part as follows: This agreement has been approved by the governing body at a public hearing advertised in an adver- tisement published at least 10 but not more than 15 days prior to the hearing in the format prescribed for advertisements in Section 163.3184(15)(c) and Section 163.3187. Assuming the day of the hearing is not counted in computing the ten days, the City would have had to publish the notice by Saturday, January 15, 1994, in order to meet the ten-day requirement. Because the Neighbors section was not published on Saturdays, but rather only on Thursdays and Sundays, the City opted to publish the notice on Sunday, January 16, 1994, or just nine days before the hearing. This was necessary since the item was deferred at the January 11 hearing, and the City presumably was unable to meet the deadline for having an ad published only two days later in the Thursday, January 13, 1994 edition of Neighbors. Even so, petitioners were unable to show any prejudice by virtue of the City failing to meet the ten-day notice requirement. The settlement agreement called for the City to adopt certain remedial amendments by ordinance. These amendments are contained in Ordinance No. 94-27. Although state law (s. 163.3184(16)(d), F. S.) requires that the City hold only one advertised public hearing on a compliance amendment at the adoption stage, in accordance with the City Charter, two hearings were scheduled for that purpose on March 22 and April 12, 1994. A single one-quarter page advertisement in the regular edition of the Herald was published on March 17, 1994, or five days before the first hearing. The law (s. 163.3184(15)(b)2., F. S.) also requires that the hearing be "approximately 5 days after the day that the second (i. e., adoption stage) advertisement is published." The advertisement referred to both hearing dates and noted that their purpose was "to receive comments from interested parties on the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the City of Hialeah and the Florida Department of Community Affairs related to the 1990 and 1991 Cycles I and II plan amendments to Hialeah's Comprehensive Plan." The advertisement also contained a list of the ten plan amendments and a map showing the portion of the City affected by each of those amendments. Although petitioners contended that the map was illegible in some respects, they nonetheless read the notice in the newspaper and attended both hearings to voice their objections to the ordinance. Notwithstanding petitioners' objections, on April 12, 1994, the City adopted the ordinance. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the City complied with the notice requirements for both hearings. Assuming arguendo that the statutory notice requirements were not strictly met, petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were prejudiced by such an error. After reviewing the ordinance, on June 2, 1994, the DCA published in the Neighbors section of the Herald a cumulative notice of intent to find the plan amendments and remedial plan amendment in compliance. The advertisement was one-quarter page in size, identified the plan amendments in issue, advised readers that the amendments were in compliance, gave a location where such amendments and comments could be reviewed, and offered a point of entry to affected persons. Therefore, its content was sufficient to inform the public of the action being taken. The DCA concedes that in the notice, however, it cited rule 9J-11.012(8) as the provision dealing with the contents of a petition to challenge the amendments found to be in compliance when in fact the correct citation should have been rule 9J-11.012(7). There is no section (8) in the rule. The notice also cited former rule 22I-6.010 as the rule dealing with intervention when in fact that rule has been renumbered as rule 60Q-2.010. Even so, petitioners were unable to show how they were prejudiced by these minor errors, especially since they knew the nature of the action being proposed by the DCA, and they timely filed their petition for hearing to challenge the amendment. The DCA policy is to publish its notice of intent to find an amendment in compliance in the same local newspaper as the local government uses for its publication. The DCA also pointed out that by advertising in the Neighbors section as opposed to the regular edition of the Herald, it saved several thousand dollars. Therefore, the DCA used the Neighbors section of the Herald. At the same time, the DCA has never included in its advertisement a map showing the location of the land use changes being proposed. This is because the local government advertisements have already included a map, and the DCA notice is simply for the purpose of advising the public which ordinances are in or out of compliance. In the absence of any showing of prejudice, and in view of petitioners' failure to demonstrate to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment as a whole is incompatible with, does not further or take action in the direction of realizing, the goals of the law, the cited procedural errors are insufficient to support a finding that amendment 94R-1 is not in compliance. The plan amendment Since 1986, petitioners have owned two parcels of undeveloped property in the southern one-half and northwestern one-quarter of Tract 24 of Section 28, which is located in the western part of the City. The property consists of approximately six acres located at the northeastern intersection of West 76th Street and the Hialeah-Hialeah Gardens Boulevard. The property has been designated on the future land use map as low density (single-family) residential, which allows up to twelve units per acre. Petitioners have not specifically pled or shown how amendment 94R-1 adversely affects their property. Instead, they simply argue that the plan amendment is not in compliance because the City did not consider the impacts of "drastically changed circumstances" before adopting the remedial ordinance, and the City improperly reclassified a small tract of land. These claims will be considered below. Effective June 3, 1994, Chapter 94-338, Laws of Florida, became law. That law created a multijurisdictional tourism, sports and entertainment special district more commonly known as Blockbuster Park. That legislation, however, is not relevant to this proceeding for several reasons. First, there is no mechanism to consider multijurisdictional impacts in the local planning process. Second, the special act did not become law until after the amendment process here had been completed. Since the City was only required to consider the best available data present at the time the amendment was being reviewed and adopted, consideration of the special law was neither necessary or appropriate. Third, the act itself does not authorize a development. If and when a development order is approved, the City can update its plan to take into account any impacts from the project. As to the contention that the City and DCA failed to take into account the six-lane connector road completed on December 31, 1993, or two years after the plan amendments were adopted, the impact of the connector road is identified and discussed on pages 21 and 23C of the future land use element contained in the remedial amendments. At hearing, it was further explained that the connector road is a limited access regional road under the control of Dade County, and not the City. This means that there is no access to the connector from properties which front on the road, and local access will be limited to three major road intersections. No land use changes along the road have been proposed, and the City has adequately addressed the circulation map requirements in the plan and how the internal circulation routes would be compatible with the major connectors. This being so, it is found that the City and DCA gave adequate planning consideration to the connector. Finally, petitioners contended that certain land was improperly redesignated from single-family residential to multi-family and commercial use. They complain that this is inappropriate since the land is close to a school and does not lie near a major intersection. The evidence shows, however, that such redesignation was appropriate since the land is located at an intersection and lies just across the street from an existing five-acre commercial tract. Moreover, the multi-family part of the tract will serve as a buffer between the commercial use at the intersection and the existing single-family use to the south. Then, too, the proximity of a nearby school to the west will serve to reduce trip time for persons shopping in the area while dropping off or picking up children from the school. Finally, some types of commercial use in residential neighborhoods can serve valid planning purposes, and the City has already established a pattern of having some schools located near commercially designated property. The redesignation is found to be reasonable and based on appropriate planning considerations. Although no proof was submitted by petitioners regarding any other parts of the plan amendment, respondents demonstrated that all remaining parts are supported by adequate data and analysis and are in compliance. Accordingly, petitioners have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that remedial amendment 94R-1 is 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 the City of Hialeah comprehensive plan amendment to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3506GM Petitioners: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4-20. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5-8. 21-24. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 27-29. Covered in preliminary statement. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. 32-35. Rejected as irrelevant. 36-38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 39-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 42. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent DCA: 1-12. Covered in preliminary statement. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 13. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 16-19. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6-8. 20-22. Partially accepted in finding of 9. 23-25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 29-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 31-55. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-17. Respondent City: Because the City's proposed recommended order was not timely filed, the undersigned has considered the contents of the proposed order but has not made specific rulings on each proposed finding of fact. See Sunrise Community, Inc. v. DHRS, 14 F.A.L.R. 5162 (DHRS, 1992), affirmed 619 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edmond J. Gong Ms. Dana L. Clay 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 370 Miami, FL 33126 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 William M. Grodnick, Esquire 501 Palm Avenue, 4th Floor Hialeah, FL 33010 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
