Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The parties Respondent, Jefferson County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. At issue in this case is a plan amendment adopted by the County. Petitioner, Jack Hamilton, is a resident of Jefferson County. He owns and operates a nursery, orchard and cattle operation on his property on the east side of Highway 19, approximately two miles north of Monticello, Florida. The land, which is approximately 135 acres in size, is presently designated in a land use category known as Agriculture 2. For the last twenty years or so, the Jefferson Nursing Center (JNC), a nursing home, has been situated on a seven acre parcel of land surrounded on three sides by petitioner's property. Here, petitioner challenges a plan amendment which allows nursing homes, including JNC, in the Agriculture 2 category. The parties have stipulated that petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law and thus he has standing to bring this action. The nature of the dispute The County adopted its comprehensive plan (plan) on July 19, 1990. Through inadvertence, in the original plan, institutional uses such as churches, schools, nursing homes, parks and recreation areas were not specifically allowed as permitted uses in any residential or agriculture district even though such uses were commonly found in both types of districts. Even so, on an undisclosed date, the plan was determined by the DCA to be in compliance. On April 1, 1994, the County submitted to the DCA various amendments relating to a proposed petroleum pipeline project. During the course of preparing those amendments, the County became concerned for the status of all of the existing churches, nursing homes, schools, and other institutional uses in the County, because of their not being specifically mentioned in the plan. To avoid any question about the status of these uses and their treatment in the Land Development Code, which implements the plan, the County included an amendment to Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5-9 to provide for the adoption of land development regulations to permit all public land uses. On June 8, 1994, the DCA issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report concerning the proposed public land uses amendment. Among other things, the DCA determined that the language in the amendment was too broad. In response to the ORC, on August 3, 1994, the County adopted revised Ordinance 94-10, which amended the comprehensive plan to add a Public Facilities Land Use District, adopt a Public Facilities Land Use Map, and adopt a List of Public Facilities. Under this amendment, only existing public uses were included within the district, and these were specifically identified on a series of maps and a List of Public Facilities, both of which were included as part of the plan amendment. On September 26, 1994, the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find Ordinance No. 94-10 not in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. This determination was based in part on the fact that the amendment did not sufficiently detail what land use regulations and restrictions would apply in the district. On March 28, 1995, the County submitted to the DCA for its review a proposed ordinance repealing Ordinance 94-10 and amending the County's comprehensive plan to add a Public Facilities Land Use Overlay District, adopt a Public Land Use Map, and adopt a List of Public Facilities. This proposed amendment provided that the current land use district designation, and all applicable regulations for that district, would continue to apply to lands included within the overlay district. It also provided standards for any future additions to the overlay district. On June 2, 1995, the DCA issued its ORC Report concerning the proposed Public Facilities Land Use Overlay District amendment in which it continued to object to the proposed district. In response to the ORC, and after consulting with the DCA, on July 20, 1995, the County adopted Ordinance No. 95-07. That ordinance repealed Ordinance No. 94-10 and amended the comprehensive plan to allow (a) churches in all land use categories except Conservation District and (b) adult care facilities, day care facilities, and nursing homes in any land use district that allows residential use. Ordinance No. 95-07 was not adopted pursuant to a compliance agreement. On September 7, 1995, the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find Ordinance No. 95-07 in compliance. Petitioner timely filed his appeal of the DCA's determination that Ordinance No. 95-07 was in compliance. As amended, the petition contends that the plan amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis, lacks standards pertaining to density and intensity of development for nursing homes, and is internally inconsistent with the plan. As such, he contends the amendment is arbitrary and capricious, and not fairly debatable. Although the issues in the case have been framed by petitioner in this manner, in simple terms his primary concern is that nursing homes, and specifically JNC, are incompatible with agricultural uses and do not belong in the Agricultural 2 land use category. The Plan Amendment Identification and adequacy of data and analysis When it forwarded Ordinance No. 95-07 to the DCA for review, the County did not specify in its transmittal letter what data and analyses it was relying on to support the amendment. In an earlier telephone conversation between the County planner and the DCA, however, the County indicated that it was relying on the existing data and analysis originally submitted with its comprehensive plan. The DCA established that this is not unusual and is an acceptable practice for smaller counties. Indeed, there is nothing in Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that the identification of the supporting data and analysis be conveyed to the DCA in writing. Jefferson County is a small, rural county with only one person in its planning department. For counties with limited technical staff, the DCA normally provides technical support, and it customarily reviews the plan and existing data and analysis to identify those portions of the documents which are relevant to, and support, a plan amendment. Thus, in accordance with its practice for smaller counties, the DCA did not require the County to make a complete assessment of the plan and point out various page and reference numbers, but instead it performed that task. There was no showing that petitioner, or any other member of the public, was prejudiced in any respect by the DCA doing this. Besides the existing plan data and analysis, the DCA also had in its files the map and list specifically identifying each public use existing in the County and its location, including all churches, day care facilities, and nursing homes. The map and list were available at the public hearings which culminated in the adoption of Ordinance 95-07, and identified JNC within the Agriculture 2 district. Petitioner, who was a long-time member of the County Planning Commission, attended those hearings. There is no evidence that he, or any other member of the public, was unable to participate in the amendment process in a meaningful way. In determining the text amendments to be in compliance, the DCA relied upon certain data in the plan, including the existing population survey, soil survey and soil suitability data; a table comparing population composition showing the population existing and the need for elderly housing; the silviculture map as a factor in determining site suitability; the land use map showing the general overview of all land use types in the County; an analysis of the uses in the different land use categories; and a map plat showing petitioner's property, the location of the JNC, the proximity of two mixed-use business/residential areas to the north and south, and the residential densities in the area. The DCA also considered policies in the traffic circulation and transportation elements of the plan, a table of existing traffic conditions, existing housing data, an inventory of group homes, and special housing needs within the County, including housing for the elderly. Finally, the DCA considered Housing Element Policy 5-3 and Objective The policy provides that the County shall establish nondiscriminatory standards and criteria addressing the location of group homes and foster care facilities as well as other special needs housing. The objective calls for adequate sites for group homes and facilities in residential areas or other appropriate areas of residential character. Petitioner's expert concedes that nothing prohibits the County from adopting an amendment which allows nursing homes in an agricultural district so long as adequate data and analysis are present, and appropriate nonresidential intensity standards are found in the plan. Given the foregoing data and analysis, it is found that petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment lacks adequate data and analysis. Compatibility of uses Petitioner has also contended that the plan amendment allows uses (nursing homes) which are incompatible with agricultural uses. In this regard, petitioner offered his lay opinion that nursing homes are incompatible with agriculture uses because in the event of a problem during normal agricultural operations, such as a shift in the wind direction during burning or crop spraying, bedridden nursing home patients cannot be easily transported out of harm's way. With appropriate site planning features, petitioner's expert agreed that nursing homes are not inherently incompatible with agricultural land uses. The Code contains such site design criteria which are designed to eliminate or minimize incompatibilities. For example, it contains provisions regarding setbacks, a site planning process, and screening and buffering requirements. The fact that petitioner's agricultural operation and JNC have coexisted for more than twenty years is some evidence that the uses are or can be compatible. The County's proposed amendment to allow adult care facilities, day care facilities and nursing homes in the Agriculture 2 land use category is not inconsistent with any other objective or policy, is found to be fairly debatable, and is therefore in compliance. Density and intensity standards The law (s.163.3177(6)(a), F.S.) requires that comprehensive plans contain density and intensity standards for each land use. Petitioner contends that, notwithstanding this statutory requirement, there are no standards in the amendment or the comprehensive plan for density or intensity of development of nursing homes in the Agriculture 2 land use category. It is noted that the Agriculture 2 land use district description in Policy 1-3 of the FLUE provides a residential density but does not contain an intensity standard. FLUE Objective 1 provides, however, that "(f)uture growth and development shall continue to be managed using the County Development Code," which was adopted in April 1981. That Code spells out densities and intensities for each area. The objective further directs that the regulations be revised to address issues identified in Section 163.3203, Florida Statutes, compatibility of uses, and incentives to upgrade infrastructure. In addition, FLUE Policy 6-2 provides that the development review and approval process in the Code be the vehicle for limiting densities and intensities of development consistent with the availability of infrastructure. This policy has already been determined to be "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Rule 9J-5.005(8)(j), Florida Administrative Code, authorizes a local government to include in its comprehensive plan documents adopted by reference but not incorporated verbatim into the plan. In this case, the County adopted in its Code specific land development regulations governing growth and development, including density and intensity standards. There was no evidence that the Code fails to meet the statutory requirement that densities and intensities be included in the plan. Indeed, as a general rule, comprehensive plans in Florida either specifically describe all of the particular uses allowed in each district, or they generally describe such uses and let the particular uses to be allowed be determined in land development regulations. Here, the County has opted for the second type. This being so, it is found that petitioner has failed to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan and plan amendment lack appropriate standards governing densities and intensities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order determining the County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 95-07 to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Vance W. Kidder, Esquire 149 Carr Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32312-9032 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David La Croix, Esquire 521 West Olympia Avenue Punta Gorda, Florida 33950-4851
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Seminole Raceway, as proposed in Charles and Linda Wimberlys' Site and Development Plan and approved with conditions by the Leon County Development Review Committee (DRC), is consistent with the requirements of the 2010 Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and is a permissible land use under applicable provisions of Chapter 10, Leon County Code (the Code).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the pleadings and evidence, including the stipulation by counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Marion County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. In this case, the County has adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan, which is the subject of the dispute. Petitioners, Henry and Betty Prominski, are residents of Marion County and own a 16.5 acre tract of land on the southeast bank of Lake Weir in the southeastern portion of the County. The property is more commonly known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Until April 1994, the land was classified in the urban expansion category, which allows up to four residential units per acre. The County adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. After the plan was determined by the DCA to be not in compliance, the County eventually adopted certain remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, one of which changed the land use designation on petitioners' property from urban expansion to urban reserve. Under the new classification, only one residential unit per ten acres is allowed. A cumulative notice of intent to find the plan and remedial amendments in compliance was issued by the DCA on May 30, 1994. During the foregoing process, petitioners timely submitted oral or written objections to the County concerning the plan amendment, and thus they are affected persons within the meaning of the law. On September 14, 1994, the County, through its Staff Vesting Committee, issued Vesting Order No. 94-14, which granted petitioners' application for vesting determination on Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Among other things, the order determined that "the applicant has vested rights to complete the development (known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision) without aggregation of lots providing the applicant continues development activity in good faith." In this regard, petitioners have represented that they intend to "continue development activity in good faith," and they do not intend to vacate their plat. They also recognize that their land is vested from the plan amendment. Despite the lack of any viable issues regarding the development of their property, for the sake of "principle" only, they still wish to contest the de facto reclassification of their property. The foregoing language in the Vesting Order means that petitioners have vested rights to complete the development of their land notwithstanding the change of land use designation from urban expansion to urban reserve. The parties also agree that the effect of the Vesting Order is to vest the property from the comprehensive plan and the restrictions of the urban reserve area. Therefore, within the narrow context of the petition, the thrust of which is that the plan amendment prevents the subdivision's development, the issues raised therein are no longer viable, and petitioners do not have a cognizable interest in the outcome of this proceeding. The controversy is accordingly deemed to be moot.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the petition in this case on the ground the issues raised therein are moot. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1996, 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 21st day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry J. Prominski, Esquire Post Office Box 540 Weirsdale, Florida 32195-0540 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in Case 08-1144GM is whether Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP or Plan) Amendment 7-20, called the "Land Protection Incentives" (LPI) Amendment (LPIA), which was adopted by Ordinance 777 on December 11, 2007, and amended by Ordinance 795 on April 29, 2008, is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1 The issue in Case 08-1465GM is whether Martin County's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 7-22, called the "Secondary Urban Service District" (SUSD) Amendment (SUSDA), which was adopted by Ordinance 781 on December 11, 2007, is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners' Standing FOF and MCCA objected to the LPIA and the SUSDA during the time period from transmittal to adoption of those amendments.3 FOF FOF is a non-profit organization incorporated in 1986, shortly after Florida’s Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation (Growth Management) Act was enacted to monitor the Act's implementation. FOF engages in legislative, legal, and grassroots advocacy for sustainable comprehensive land use planning in Florida. It conducts membership meetings, sends newsletters to members and others, hosts meetings open to the general public, and initiates or participates in litigation or administrative proceedings concerning amendments to local comprehensive plans. Its main office is in Tallahassee, where several employees work. It also has a branch office in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, where one employee works. It has no office or employees in Martin County. There was no evidence that FOF has applied for or obtained any license or permit to operate a business in Martin County; nor was there any evidence as to the requirements for obtaining such a license or permit. FOF has approximately 3,500 members; approximately 550 members live or own property in Martin County. FOF does not have a continuous presence in Martin County, other than its members who live and own property there, but it continuously monitors comprehensive planning and related growth management issues in Martin County and from time to time engages in activities in Martin County. Since 1990, FOF was involved in the Loxahatchee Greenways project, a major river corridor running through Martin County; was involved in the protection of Jonathan Dickinson State Park, which is in Martin County; undertook its Palm Beach and Martin County Green Initiative (which addressed housing, legal, transportation, and other planning issues in Martin County and resulted in the distribution of educational materials on Martin County planning issues); opposed specific local development proposals; supported a sales tax referendum to buy and preserve environmentally- sensitive lands; collaborated with the County planning department to update the housing element of the County Comprehensive Plan; assisted with a local affordable housing initiative; published a booklet on comprehensive planning in the County; and conducted a public survey of County residents assessing attitudes about planning. FOF staff members speak at and participate in annual growth management forums in Martin County, which are attended by a substantial number of its members. FOF has regularly commented in person and in writing to the Martin County Commission on proposed CGMP changes. FOF also has previously participated as a party in administrative hearings conducted in the County concerning the CGMP, during which its president has testified as an expert planner. The relief requested by FOF in this case is germane to its goals and appropriate to request on behalf of its members. MCCA MCCA is a Florida not-for-profit corporation created in 1997. It is a membership-based organization of 120 individuals and 14 other organizations. MCCA itself does not own real property in Martin County. However, at least 38 individual members reside and own real property in the County, and at least one organizational member (Audubon of Martin County) owns real property in the County. MCCA does not maintain an office or have paid employees. It operates through its members, who volunteer. MCCA's Articles of Incorporation state that it was formed "to conserve the natural resources of Martin County, to protect the native flora and fauna of Martin County, [and] to maintain and improve the quality of life for all of the residents of Martin County." It engages in various forms of lobbying and advocacy for or against amendments to Martin County's Comprehensive Plan, including initiation or participation in litigation and administrative proceedings. It conducts membership meetings in the County, sends newsletters to members and others, hosts meetings in the County that are open to the general public (including an annual growth management meeting with FOF and an annual awards luncheon with local conservation groups), and works with member organizations on issues relating to the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), including petition drives. The relief requested by MCCA in this case is germane to its goals and appropriate to request on behalf of its members. Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan The CGMP establishes two "urban service districts" in the County, a Primary Urban Service District (PUSD) and a Secondary Urban Service District (SUSD). See CGMP, § 4.4.G. The PUSD has been part of the Plan since it was first adopted in 1982, while the SUSD was added during the major revision of the Plan in 1990. Approximately 65,702 acres (101 square miles) are located within the PUSD. The PUSD encompasses most of the eastern coastal area of the County surrounding four incorporated municipalities, (Stuart, Sewall's Point, Jupiter Island, and Ocean Breeze Park), plus an isolated inland area known as Indiantown. Approximately 9,621 acres (14 square miles) are located within the SUSD. All land within the SUSD is immediately adjacent to land within the PUSD, but is split into several discontinuous sections so that some of the land along the western border of the PUSD abuts land outside the urban service districts. The County's purpose for having urban service districts is to "regulate urban sprawl tendencies by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available, or are programmed to be available at the levels of service adopted in [the Plan]." CGMP, § 4.4.G. The Plan further provides: Objective: Martin County shall concentrate higher densities and intensities of development within the strategically located [PUSDs], as delineated, including commercial or industrial uses as well as residential development exceeding a density of two units per acre . . . . * * * b. Policy: Martin County shall require that new residential development containing one-half acre or smaller lots, commercial uses, and industrial uses shall be located within the [PUSD]. * * * Objective 2. Martin County shall concentrate rural and estate densities not exceeding one unit per gross acre within the [SUSDs] where a reduced level of public facility needs are programmed to be available at the base level of service adopted in the Capital Improvements Element. a. Policy: Martin County shall designate land uses within the [SUSD] in order to provide for the use and extension of urban services in an efficient and economical manner, and consistent with the reduced intensity of urban services normally associated with densities of one unit per gross acre (Estate Density RE-1A) and one unit per two gross acres (Rural Density). . . . * * * f. Policy: In areas designated as [SUSD], where development is proposed that would contain one- half acre lots, or commercial and industrial uses, a change to a [PUSD] designation must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a land use amendment . . . . The Plan thus generally establishes residential density for land within the PUSD at 2 or more dwelling units per acre, and for land within the SUSD at 1 dwelling unit per acre to 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. The remaining land within the County that is not within the PUSD or SUSD is generally referred to as "outside" the urban service districts. There are approximately 269,034 acres of such land. The vast majority of such land (approximately 210,379 acres) is designated in the Plan for "agricultural" use. Most of the other land outside the urban service districts is designated for either "public conservation" or "public utilities" See CGMP, § 4.4.L., § 4.4.M.1.a., i., and j. The Plan currently allows residential use of land outside the urban service boundaries that is designated for agricultural use but limits it to either 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, known as "agricultural ranchette," or 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres. See CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.a.& c. The Plan further specifies for the latter that: Residential development in the agricultural area is restricted to one-single family residence per gross 20-acre tract. [N]o development shall be permitted which divides landholdings into lots, parcels or other units of less than 20 gross acres. Acreage may be split for bona fide agricultural uses into parcels no smaller than 20 gross acres. . . . Residential subdivisions at a density or intensity or greater than one single- family dwelling unit per 20 gross acre lot shall not be allowed. (CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.a.) Throughout the Plan, residential development on lots of 2 acres or more is consistently referred to as "rural" development (even within the SUSD), while residential development on smaller lots is consistently referred to as "urban" and must be in either the PUSD or SUSD. It was undisputed that the County's adoption of such a distinction between urban and rural residential lots was a professionally acceptable planning practice. Preservation of the County's agricultural lands is a goal of the Plan. See CGMP, § 4.4.L.1. It is also later stated in a policy related to the allocation of land: Through its planning, capital improvements, cooperative extension, regulatory and intergovernmental coordination activities, Martin County shall continue to protect agriculture as a viable economic use of land. (CGMP, § 4.4.M.1.b.) Preservation of conservation and open space areas within the County is the subject of an entire element of the Plan. See CGMP, Chap. 9.4 The County's goal is "to effectively manage, conserve, and preserve the natural resources of Martin County, giving consideration to an equitable balance of public and private property rights. These resources include air, water, soils, habitat, fisheries, and wildlife, with special emphasis on restoring the St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon." CGMP, § 9.4.A. Preservation of conservation and open space areas is also addressed in numerous other objectives and policies throughout the several elements of the Plan and is a predominant theme of the entire Plan. The provision of "urban public facilities and services" is expressly limited by a policy to the County's urban service districts "in order to preserve agricultural lands and provide maximum protection to the farmer from encroachment by urban uses." CGMP, § 4.4.L.1.a. The Plan defines the term "public urban facilities and services" as "regional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network." CGMP, § 4.1.B.4. However, the term is often used in the Plan in a rearranged or abbreviated manner, such as "urban public facilities and services" (§ 4.4.G.1.f.(7)), "public facilities and services" (§ 4.4.G and § 4.4.G.1.f.), "public services and facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.i.), "public urban facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.c.), "public urban facilities" (§ 4.4.G.1.i.), or merely "public facilities (§ 4.4.G.1.) or "urban services " (§ 4.4.G.2.a.). LPIA Provisions The LPIA adds a new objective and new policies under the Future Land Use Element goal addressing "natural resource protection," which provides: Martin County shall protect all the natural resource systems of the County from the adverse impacts of development, provide for continued growth in population and economy and recognize the inter-relationship between the maintenance of urban support infrastructure in waste management, air and water quality, and the coastal zone environmental quality. (CGMP, § 4.4.E.) To the existing 6 objectives under that goal, the LPIA adds a seventh which states: Martin County shall create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses while maintaining residential capacity as it existed on January 1, 2007. For the purposes of Section 4.4.E.7., and supporting paragraphs, the definition of open space, found in Section 9.4.A.11., CGMP, shall not include roads, highways and their median strips and berms. This objective is intended to encourage the conveyance of fee simple title of land listed for public acquisition by state, regional or local environmental or governmental agencies or land trusts. Lands listed for acquisition include, but are not be limited to [sic], land designated for public acquisition under the Save Our Rivers program, the Indian River Lagoon, North Palm Beach, and the Lake Okeechobee portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), as well as Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program. The overall purpose of the LPIA is to encourage the owners of tracts of land outside the urban service districts that are at least 500 acres to choose a different pattern of development than the Plan now allows, by allowing a substantial reduction in the minimum lot size so that the development may be "clustered" on a smaller "footprint" within the overall tract of land, but only if at least 50% of the entire tract is "set aside" permanently for conservation, open space, or agricultural use and stripped of its potential for future development. This approach, it is hoped, will make it easier and cheaper for the County and other governmental entities to acquire the large tracts of land they desire to use for the CERP and other conservation projects. The LPIA does not allow for more development than is allowed under the Plan currently. It allows the same amount of development to be arranged on a tract of land in a different pattern than is currently allowed. It accomplishes this primarily through the combination of a change in the minimum lot size from "20 acres" to "over 2 acres" with a new allowance for "clustering" the smaller lots on a portion of an overall tract of land rather than having an equal number of larger lots spread throughout the entire tract of land. The LPIA adopts six policies to accomplish the new objective: Policy (7)a. provides for the protection of the land "set aside" to be conveyed or subject to an easement in favor of a combination of the County, the South Florida Water Management District, and a third entity, chosen from among the other governmental or not-for-profit conservation- oriented organizational entities listed in the policy. Policy (7)b. requires that a combination of a comprehensive plan amendment and a PUD agreement be used for the change in the development characteristics of the land. The PUD agreement would address the portion of the tract subject to development and not "set aside," while the plan amendment would address (at a minimum) the remaining portion of the tract which is permanently "set aside" for conservation, open space, or agricultural use and would no longer have any potential for residential development. Policy (7)c. provides additional specificity concerning the subject matters that would be addressed by the comprehensive plan amendment, such as any required change in land use designation for the set-aside portion of the tract of land, and if it remains designated for agricultural use, the removal of any potential for development. Policy (7)d. primarily provides additional specificity concerning the subject matters that would be addressed by the PUD agreement, setting minimum requirements to be met such as the tract having to be a minimum of 500 acres in size; the development being "fiscally neutral to existing taxpayers"; the lots having to be more than 2 acres in size; the inability to develop in environmentally sensitive areas on the tract; and the acknowledgment of a permanent restriction against any future increase of density on the tract. The policy also essentially repeats some of the requirements enunciated in the second and third policies regarding the conveyance of title or easement and the required comprehensive plan amendment, and addresses who pays the closing costs for the set-aside portion of the tract. Policy (7)e. establishes additional requirements specifically applicable to land that has been "listed for acquisition by state, regional, or local agencies as part of an established conservation program." Policy (7)f. enumerates the "site specific benefits" that the second policy states the County must consider when deciding whether to approve an application for development under the optional pattern allowed by the LPIA, such as whether more than the minimum 50% of the tract will be "set aside" permanently, whether the location fills "gaps in natural systems, wildlife corridors, greenways and trails," or whether buffers are provided along roads "to limit access and to protect vistas." The LPIA requirement for at least 50% of an entire tract being set aside for one of the three public purposes, when coupled with other requirements of the Plan such as establishment of construction setback distances, preservation of wetlands and creation of buffers around wetlands, preservation of certain uplands, would result in more than 50% of an undeveloped tract of land remaining in an undeveloped state and at least 50% of agricultural land remaining in agricultural use. Meaning and Predictability of LPIA Standards Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards in numerous respects. No Guide to Location and Pattern of Development Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards essentially because it does not identify the lands to be preserved and developed, leaving the results up to the choice of landowners to make proposals and Martin County's case-by-case decisions on future development proposals. See PPRO, ¶¶52-53. However, the goals of the LPIA are quite clear, and there is no basis to speculate that Martin County will make decisions contrary to those goals--for example, by approving PUDs or agricultural uses on the most environmentally-sensitive part of tract, ignoring the importance of environmentally-sensitive and agricultural lands and the impact of development patterns on them, and ignoring the impact of the pattern of development under the LPIA on rural character. Petitioners also criticize the LPIA for not being clear "whether a subject property must be in single ownership." (PPRO, ¶61.) However, it is not clear why that omission would be pertinent. Undefined Increase in Maximum Density Petitioners contend that, in four ways, the LPIA increases maximum density in the Agricultural category without defining the amount of the increase. Waiver of Density Limits Clearly, the LPIA exempts the PUD option from "the agricultural land use policies in Section 4.4.M.1.a. pertaining to the 20 acre lot size . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(8). Contrary to Petitioners' contention, that does not eliminate density standards. Residential lots must be greater than two acres. See LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(3). Maintenance of Residential Capacity Petitioners contend the LPIA increases density because its objective is to "create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses while maintaining residential capacity as it existed on January 1, 2007." LPIA § 4.4.E.7. (Emphasis added.) Petitioners complain that County-wide residential capacity on that date is not identified and that the objective requires residential capacity in Agricultural lands to increase as it decreases elsewhere in the County. This interpretation is unreasonable. The County's interpretation, that residential units lost by preservation are to be maintained by clustering on the remaining Agricultural lands, is more reasonable. Transfer of Wetland Density Petitioners contend that the LPIA increases density by allowing transfer of wetland density in the Agricultural future land use category. See LPIA § 4.4E.7.d.(7). Under the Plan before the LPIA, up to half of wetland density can be transferred to uplands in a PUD. See CGMP § 9.4A7.b.(8). PUDs were not allowed in Agricultural lands before the LPIA. But Petitioners did not prove that allowing the transfer and clustering of residential units into a PUD on Agricultural lands under the LPIA would change the total number of residential units already allowed in Agricultural lands (at one unit per 20 acres). Alleged Failure to Remove Density from All Non-PUD Land Petitioners contend that the LPIA increases density by not stripping residential units from all so-called non-PUD land. Contrary to this contention, the more reasonable interpretation is that land not set aside for permanent preservation in a proposal made under the LPIA must be part of the proposed PUD. In any event, even if an LPIA proposal could include land that is neither set aside for preservation nor part of the PUD land, no residential units is such land would be transferred to the PUD, and failure to strip such land of its residential units would not affect the total number of units associated with the LPIA proposal. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA allows text amendments to increase density on land set aside for preservation under the LPIA because it specifies that such land must be changed on the FLUM and will not be eligible for "any additional [FLUM] amendment which increases residential density or intensity of use . . . ." LPIA § 4.4E.7.d.(7). The negative implication Petitioners draw from this language is contrary to the intent of the LPIA and is not warranted. Even if text amendments are not prohibited, they would apply to all land in a particular land use category, not just to land set aside under the LPIA. Subsequent Plan Amendments Not Required for PUD Petitioners contend that the LPIA "is unclear as to whether a PUD can be approved without a subsequent plan amendment specifically authorizing the two-acre lot subdivision site plan." PPRO, ¶80. This contention supposedly arises from the language of LPIA § 4.4.E.7.c.: "The Comprehensive Plan amendment that is part of a joint Plan Amendment and concurrent PUD application submitted under this objective must address the land use designation on the land set aside in perpetuity as contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and/or agricultural land uses in the following manner: . . . ." (Emphasis added in PPRO, ¶82.) The negative implication Petitioners draw from this language is contrary to the intent of the LPIA and is not warranted. It ignores LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(7): "The Comprehensive Plan amendment filed concurrently with the PUD application shall allow the site-specific clustering of density in one portion of the total subject site, including the transfer of full density of any wetlands on the site, at a density that shall not exceed one unit per twenty acres for the total site prior to conveyance. . . . The Plan amendment shall further specify that neither the land conveyed nor the land controlled by the PUD agreement shall be eligible for any additional [FLUM] amendment which increases residential density or intensity of use . . . ." While LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(7) discusses land that is conveyed, it is reasonably clear that a Plan amendment addressing the PUD also would be required for lands that are set aside using one of the other mechanisms specified in the LPIA. Public Benefit Criteria Petitioners contend that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.b. and f. gives the County "unfettered discretion to reject or approve a PUD 'for any reason.'" PPRO, ¶90. Those sections provide that approval of a PUD will be based on consideration of "significant site-specific public benefits," some of which are listed. While it is true that the LPIA gives the County discretion to grant or approve a PUD based on its consideration of those factors, Petitioners did not prove "unfettered discretion." First, minimum requirements under the LPIA first must be met. Second, the list of public benefits gives some guidance as to the kinds of additional public benefits that will justify approval of a PUD. Petitioners did not prove that a comprehensive plan provision allowing for PUD zoning need be any more specific to be implemented in a consistent manner. Protection of Land Set Aside Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to protect land set aside under the LPIA because it does not identify the land most appropriate for preservation or require that it be set aside. This contention ignores the objective to encourage conveyance of "land listed for public acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of established conservation programs" which "include, but are not be [sic] limited to land designated for public acquisition under" several named public acquisition programs. LPIA § 4.4.E.7. It also ignores the policy: "No development in the PUD shall be allowed on unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.d.(4). It also ignores the policy that "PUDs that include land listed for acquisition by state, regional or local agencies as part of an established conservation program shall be subject to . . . additional requirements": including fee simple conveyance of at least half of such land; and no development in the PUD on such land "unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities and the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program . . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7.e.(1)-(2). In addition, various means of protecting such lands are several of the listed "additional significant site-specific benefits" of a PUD proposal to be considered in the approval process. See LPIA § 4.4.E.7.f. Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to "require set-aside lands to be contiguous to other farmland, open space, or natural lands" and "contiguous, functional, and connected to adjacent and regional systems." PPRO, ¶¶102-98 [sic]. These contentions ignore the objective to "create opportunities for the permanent preservation of contiguous open space, environmentally sensitive land and agricultural land uses. . . ." LPIA § 4.4.E.7. They also ignore that land in public acquisition programs ideally is contiguous to other open space and natural lands. Petitioners did not prove their contention in PPRO ¶97 [sic] that it is necessary to specify the public acquisition programs for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend that the LPIA fails to define the "perpetual easement" mechanism allowed in LPIA Section 4.E.7.a. for setting aside land in lieu of fee simple conveyance. See PPRO, ¶103. This contention ignores the policy in LPIA Section 4.E.7.d.(5) to use perpetual easements as a means of enforcing the prohibition against increasing residential density or intensity of use by FLUM amendments, as well as the policy in LPIA Section 4.E.7.d.(6) to use perpetual easements "to restrict future uses and ensure the government agencies or other entities holding fee simple title do not sell or develop the property inconsistent with this policy or the approved uses within the PUD Agreement." Petitioners did not prove their contention in PPRO ¶103 that it is necessary to further define "perpetual easement" for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend in PPRO ¶¶105 and 107 that the LPIA fails to define the "agricultural uses" to be preserved in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(3) and allows the County to "specify allowed uses" without limitation and with "no certainty that farmland will be protected as farmland by easement." (Emphasis in PPRO ¶105.) Petitioners contend that everything allowed in the Agricultural category under the Plan will be allowed. See PPRO ¶107. Contrary to Petitioners' contention, it is reasonably clear that, while the language of LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(3) contains a typographical error, the policy clearly is to maintain existing agricultural uses, not to allow intensification of agricultural use or expansion into "non-farm" uses that might be allowed in the Agricultural category. Alleged Threat to IRL and CERP Lands Petitioners contend that, by making development under its PUD option more marketable, the LPIA will encourage PUDs that do not protect and that fragment IRL and CERP lands. Petitioners did not prove that such a result is likely. Petitioners contend that the adverse impacts on IRL and CERP lands is more than speculation in part because of the wording of the policy in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.c.(2), which is misstated in PPRO ¶114 and actually states: "If the land to be protected and maintained in perpetuity is land that is part of the North Palm Beach, and the Lake Okeechobee portions of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), as well as Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program, the plan amendment must include a future land use amendment to change the Future Land Use Designation to Institutional-Public Conservation." The language used in the policy is poor. But Petitioners' interpretation--that only land set aside for protection that is part of all of the described CERP projects will be protected--is absurd since no such land exists. That interpretation and Petitioners' interpretation that no IRL lands are protected under the LPIA ignore and are contrary to the language and intent of the objective stated in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7. and of the policies stated in Section 4.4.E.7.a., c.(1), and d.(5). The County's interpretation, that CERP and IRL lands are eligible for protection, is more reasonable. Definition of Critical Habitat Petitioners contend that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4) does not provide a meaningful or predictable standard because the term "critical to the support of listed plant or animal species" is not better defined. Actually, PUD development is prohibited "on unique, threatened or rare habitat, or other environmentally sensitive lands that are critical to the support of listed plant or animal species." While the policy could have been better defined, Petitioners did not prove that a better definition is necessary for the LPIA to be implemented in a consistent manner. Petitioners contend that, regardless of the "critical habitat" definition, the policy language in LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.e.(2) "guts" Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4) by prohibiting PUD development "on land listed for acquisition . . . unless the land has been previously impacted by agricultural activities " Actually, the policy continues to state that the exception only applies if "the proposed development is determined to be inconsequential to the implementation and success of the conservation program . . . ." Petitioners' interpretation, that the policy allows PUD development on virtually all Agricultural lands, is unreasonable and contrary to the language and intent of the LPIA. The County's interpretation is more reasonable and is reasonably clear. It allows for distinctions among the various kinds of agricultural activities, which the Plan already recognizes. See, e.g., CGMP § 4.2.A.6.b.(8) ("Many low intensity agricultural uses such as range (pasture) land can be compatible with environmentally significant resource areas.") For these reasons, Petitioners did not prove that LPIA Section 4.4.E.7.e.(2) "guts" Section 4.4.E.7.d.(4), or that the LPIA cannot be implemented in a consistent manner. LPIA and Urban Sprawl In part based on unreasonable interpretations of the LPIA's objective and policy language, Petitioners contend that Martin County's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the LPIA no longer discourages urban sprawl and that the LPIA encourages urban sprawl. In part because the interpretations were unreasonable, Petitioners' urban sprawl contentions were not proven. Even if the LPIA results in a proliferation of PUDs with clusters of residences on lots slightly larger than two acres, which is the minimum lot size, it would not equate to urban (or suburban) sprawl. Assuming PUDs based on 500-acre tracts, it would result in a cluster of 25 homes within a 500-acre rural area. The LPIA does not plan for the extension of urban services to those homes and does not provide for or allow any new commercial or industrial development. Both the LPIA and the rest of the CGMP include provisions, most notably those related to the urban service districts, to reasonably ensure that urban sprawl will not result. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the first primary indicator of urban sprawl in Florida Administrative Code Rule5 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction for low-intensity, low density or single use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the second primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[p]romotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development"). The development promoted, allowed, or designated by the LPIA is not "urban" and does not "leap over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." It allowed for development already promoted, allowed, and designated to arrange itself differently in a rural area. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the third primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (designation of urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the fourth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (promotes premature conversion of rural land to other uses, thereby failing to adequately protect and conserve natural resources). To the contrary, its primary purpose is to protect and conserve natural resources and rural land. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the fifth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (fails to adequately protect "adjacent agricultural areas" as well as "passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers either the sixth or seventh primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) (fails to maximize use of existing and future public facilities and services). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the eighth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[a]llows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the ninth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[f]ails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses"). Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the tenth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[d]iscourages or inhibits infill development or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities"). Although LPIA PUDs obviously would not be infill or redevelopment, it was not proven that they will discourage or inhibit infill and redevelopment. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the eleventh primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[f]ails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. To the extent that the LPIA triggers the twelfth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) ("[r]esults in poor accessibility among linked or related uses"), the Agricultural lands designation already does. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA triggers the thirteenth primary indicator of urban sprawl in Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g) ("[r]esults in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space"). The LPIA does not exacerbate the two already-existing indicators of urban sprawl, but Petitioners still contend that the indicators are triggered by the LPIA essentially because development will proceed more quickly under the LPIA. This contention was not proven. Even if it were, Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl or that the CGMP, as amended by the LPIA, fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. LPIA Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis because the County explained it as a necessary response to the proliferation of 20-acre ranchette developments whereas only 75 have been built and only 15 have certificates of occupancy. Actually, the ranchette developments were only one reason for the LPIA, and the data and analysis showed 13 approved developments as of mid-September 2007, and three more approvals plus two pending applications for approval a year later. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA implements some but not all of the recommendations in the various reports and studies cited by the County as part of the data and analysis. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA does not conform to some recommendations in the various reports and studies cited by the County as part of the data and analysis. However, Petitioners base their contentions largely on unreasonable interpretations of the language of the objective and policies of the LPIA. In addition, the data and analysis they point to essentially reflect merely that planners disagree on the best plan for the Agricultural lands. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is not supported by data and analysis essentially because the LPIA is not identical to the Atlantic Ridge project amendment. While all agree that the Atlantic Ridge project is a resounding success story, it is unique. The obvious and understandable inability to instantaneously duplicate Atlantic Ridge to the greatest extent possible in the Agricultural lands should not prevent the County from taking any action in its direction, such as the LPIA. Taken together, the data and analysis are adequate to support the LPIA. LPIA and TCRPC Regional Policy Plan Petitioners contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP). The TCRPC's SRPP was not introduced in evidence, but the TCRPC's Executive Director testified and sponsored the TCRPC's report on the LPIA and the SUSDA. The TCRPC's findings on consistency with its SRPP were not contradicted. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2, which are to determine areas that are environmentally significant and to map, acquire, and manage them. The LPIA does not do this. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP Goal 1.1, which requires sustainable countryside development in urban enclaves, such as towns and villages, with mixed-use and appropriate densities between 4-10 units per acre, on strategically selected locations while preserving contiguous, targeted land identified through SRPP Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. The LPIA does not do this. According to the TCRPC, the LPIA is inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP Policy 15.1.3.1, which is to increase the clarity of local land use plans so that preferred forms of development can be pre-approved. Instead, the LPIA uses the case-by-case PUD approval process to determine the ultimate development patterns for the Agricultural lands. The inconsistency with SRPP Policy 15.1.3.1 is the only LPIA inconsistency not already equally present in the existing CGMP. The TCRPC's concern as to the other inconsistencies is that the LPIA will make residential development in the Agricultural lands more marketable and increase the rate of residential growth in a manner inconsistent with SRPP Goal 1.1 and Policies 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. Internal Consistency of the LPIA Petitioners contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Sections 1.6 and 1.11.A. for being inconsistent with the TCRPC's SRPP. CGMP Section 1.6 states that "elements of the [CGMP] shall be consistent and coordinated with policies of [various entities, including the TCRPC]. Petitioners did not prove that the County does not interpret that provision to require internal consistency and coordination with the other entities' policies, or that such an interpretation would be incorrect. CGMP Section 1.11.A. refers to amendment procedures. Essentially, it states that plan amendments must be "in compliance." There was no evidence that the County intended it to require strict and absolute consistency with the TCRPC's SRPP, or any evidence to prove that it would be incorrect for the County to interpret it not to. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Section 1.11.K., which also refers to amendment procedure. Petitioners did not prove that the LPIA is inconsistent with CGMP Section 1.11.K. for not having concurrently-processed land development regulations (LDRs) since concurrently-processed LDRs are only required "[t]o the extent necessary to implement a proposed amendment," and Petitioners did not prove that concurrently-processed LDRs are necessary. Petitioners also contend that the LPIA is inconsistent with numerous other provisions of the CGMP. These contentions were not proven. Most, if not all, were based on unreasonable interpretations of the LPIA. SUSDA Provisions The SUSDA amends the text of the future land use element, the sanitary sewer services element, and the potable water services element of the Plan. As amended, the Plan would allow owners of real property within the SUSD to apply for connection to regional water and sewer service rather than be limited to using individual potable water wells and individual septic tanks, provided all costs of connection to the public services would be paid by the owner. The policy of SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.g. expressly states: The County Commission has determined that it is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Martin County that regional water and sewer services be made available to properties within the [SUSD], in order to: (1) Protect our natural resources . . . from the negative impacts of onsite sewage disposal (septic) systems and private wells to serve individual residential units; (2) Provide fire protection; [and] (3) Provide safe drinking water. The policy of SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.h. requires that the extension of any such services to properties within the SUSD must have Board approval, which cannot occur unless the Board finds that certain enumerated criteria have been met, including: Regional utility services may be provided to properties within the [SUSD] upon the request of the affected property owner, and upon payment of the required costs for connection to the regional system. Such services may only be provided by a regional utility, public or private, within a service area shown on Figure 11-2. Package plants for the provision of utility service are prohibited except under the provisions of the [CGMP]. The regional utility must demonstrate the treatment facility has capacity for the proposed connection and priority has been given to projects within the [PUSD]. Extension of utility services shall not be construed to imply support for any increase in the residential density of the property inside the [SUSD]. Property lying outside the Urban Service Districts . . . shall not receive utility service from a regional wastewater system. Extension of utility service outside the Urban Service Districts shall be prohibited. Development within the [SUSD] shall maintain lot sizes that exceed one-half acres. The SUSDA also contains new charts added to both the sanitary sewer services element and the potable water services element that display the numerical capacity of the regional water and sewer systems to handle additional customers upon extension of lines to the SUSD. See SUSDA Tables 10-3 through 10-6 and 11- 12 through 11-15. There was no credible evidence of any likelihood that the adoption of the SUSDA would allow the further extensions of water and sewer lines from the SUSD to properties outside the urban service districts. The testimony offered by Petitioners was speculative at best and depended upon an unproven assumption that the County would violate the explicit provisions of the SUSDA prohibiting such extension of services. See SUSDA §§ 4.4.G.2.h.(6)-(7) and 4.5.H. Meaning and Predictability of SUSDA Standards Petitioners contend that the SUSDA's standards are not meaningful or predictable because of the undefined term "central water and sewer" in the policy in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a. Petitioners contend that "central water and sewer" can be interpreted to mean something other than a regional utility, and that the SUSDA can be interpreted to allow regional utility, package plant, and other similar types of utility systems serving two or more houses outside the urban services districts. Petitioners' interpretations are unreasonable and contrary to the language and intent of the SUSDA. Petitioners' evidence was speculative and depended on an unproven assumption that the County would violate the explicit provisions of the SUSDA prohibiting package treatment plants in the SUSD. See SUSDA § 4.4.G.2.h.(3) and § 4.5.H. In addition, the evidence was that package treatment plants may no longer be economically feasible. The County's interpretation is more reasonable--"central water and sewer," as used in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a., means the provision of regional utility services by Martin County in the SUSD, and no such facilities may be provided outside the urban service districts. SUSDA Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the data and analysis do not support the SUSDA essentially because they do not establish "any actual health, safety, or welfare problems." PPRO, ¶208. The absence of proof of actual health, safety, or welfare problems is not fatal in view of the rest of the data and analysis supporting the SUSDA. Since the creation of the SUSD in 1992, development in the PUSD has resulted in the extension of water and sewer lines up to the border between the PUSD and the SUSD. In effect, the intended SUSD transition area has transitioned. Meanwhile, the regional water and sewer utilities serving the County now have the necessary capacity to serve the PUSD and the SUSD. Improved fire protection in the SUSD is a benefit of regional water service, allowing installation of community fire hydrants. Without it, developers in the SUSD must rely on installed sprinklers and emergency generators and water drawn from nearby lakes or installed water tanks. While regional water service can fail temporarily in major storms, and the data and analysis did not include actual instances of fire damage cause by the lack of regional water service in the SUSD, regional water service generally provides more reliable and less costly fire protection. While the data and analysis do not establish that developers and property owners in the SUSD have not been able to permit potable water wells, regional water service generally is better, more reliable, and less costly. The data and analysis did include actual instances of home owners having to install expensive water treatment systems due to increasing chloride levels in their potable water wells. Connection to regional water service would eliminate those costs and concerns. While the data and analysis do not establish that developers and property owners in the SUSD have not been able to permit septic tanks systems for onsite sewage treatment (i.e., systems that meet environmental and health standards), such systems can fail if improperly installed, maintained, and repaired. If they fail, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can leach into and harm the groundwater and nearby surface waters. The North Fork of the Loxahatchee River, which is nutrient-impaired, probably would benefit from elimination of septic tanks. Regional sewer service generally is better for the environmental and public health. The data and analysis suggest that allowing regional water and sewer service in the SUSD, with the SUSDA's requirement for developers to pay the cost of installation, probably will save the County money in the long run. It will be a significant cost to the County if it has to install water and sewer lines post-development. Petitioners attack the credibility of the data and analysis supporting the SUSDA because regional water and sewer service is optional in the SUSD. But there were data and analysis that, even if regional water and sewer service in the SUSD is preferable, there are valid reasons to make it optional at this time. Alleged Environmental Impact of the SUSDA Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will have negative environmental impacts in part from a proliferation of package treatment plants in the SUSD, which is discouraged in CGMP Section 4.4. See PPRO, ¶¶221, 223. This contention is based on Petitioners' unreasonable interpretations of two sentences of the SUSDA. SUSDA Section 4.5.G. prohibits interim water systems outside the urban service districts and allows them, with conditions, in the PUSD where connection to a regional utility is not feasible. Petitioners interpret these two sentences to mean that interim water systems are allowed, without conditions, in the SUSD. The County's interpretation is more reasonable. Since the SUSDA makes connection to the regional utilities optional, there is no need for interim water systems in the SUSDA, and the SUSDA should not be construed to allow them there. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will have negative environmental impacts in part essentially because increased development results in increased pollution. See PPRO, ¶228. To the extent true, it would be equally or more true of similar development without regional water and sewer services. SUSDA and Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend, in part due to their unreasonable interpretations of the objective in SUSDA Section 4.4.G.2.a., that Martin County's Comprehensive Plan as amended by the SUSDA, no longer discourages urban sprawl and that the SUSDA encourages urban sprawl. In part due to the unreasonableness of Petitioners' interpretation of the SUSDA, Petitioners' urban sprawl contentions were not proven. It is unlikely that the SUSDA will encourage urban sprawl. Petitioners also contend that the SUSDA will encourage urban sprawl simply by allowing denser development in the 5,000- 6,000 acres of the SUSDA not yet developed. This contention is contrary to the SUSDA policy: "Extension of utility services shall not be construed to imply support for any increase in residential density of the property inside the [SUSD]." SUSDA § 4.4.G.2.h.(5). Even if the SUSDA increased density in the SUSDA, increase in density itself does not promote urban sprawl. To the contrary, it is possible for increased density to discourage urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that increasing density in the SUSDA itself encourages urban sprawl or that, with the SUSDA, the CGMP will discourage urban sprawl less. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will create pressures to develop areas that border the SUSD, leaping over areas suitable for urban development. See PPRO, ¶¶236-237. This contention actually devalues the very urban service district concept Petitioners seek to defend and can be said about any urban district boundary. Currently, there are many places where the PUSD borders the Agricultural lands. The pressures created by the SUSDA will be no greater than the pressures that have existed in those places all along. Petitioners contend that the SUSDA will increase costs to the County essentially because, notwithstanding SUSDA's requirement that developers pay the cost of connection, development will not pay for itself in the long run (taking into account costs of operations, maintenance, and repair.) To the extent true, it can be said of all development and does not prove that the SUSDA encourages urban sprawl. Petitioners did not prove that the SUSDA triggers any of the indicators of urban sprawl; did not prove that the SUSDA encourages the proliferation of urban sprawl; and did not prove that the CGMP, as amended by the SUSDA, fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Internal Consistency of the SUSDA Petitioners contend that the SUSDA is internally inconsistent with CGMP Section 4.4.G.1.i., which gives priority in the provision and funding of water and sewer services to the PUSD, essentially because the data and analysis ensure that water demands in the PUSD can be met through 2025. The lack of data and analysis at present to ensure that water demands in the PUSD can be met beyond 2025 does not prove that priority will not be given to the needs of the PUSD.
Recommendation Based upon 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 LPIA and the SUSDA are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Town of Jupiter and Its Neighbors The Town of Jupiter (Town, Jupiter) is an incorporated municipality located in northeastern Palm Beach County between Interstate 95 (I-95) and the Atlantic Ocean. The Village of Tequesta, the Town of Juno Beach and Jupiter Inlet Colony are adjoining municipalities. Jupiter is also bordered by unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County. The focal point of urban activity in Palm Beach County (County) is the City of West Palm Beach. The dominant community in the County north of West Palm Beach is the City of Palm Beach Gardens, which is south of Jupiter. There is a regional mall, as well as a satellite County Courthouse, in Palm Beach Gardens, both of which are situated on PGA Boulevard. Jupiter is the major center of urban activity north of Palm Beach Gardens. Its market area is sub-regional in scope. Growth in Jupiter: A Brief History The Jupiter of today is much different than the Jupiter of only a few decades ago. In 1960, the Town's population was just 1,058. By 1970, it had increased to 3,136. During the 1970's, the Town more than tripled its population to slightly less than 10,000, but it still was a bedroom community without any significant employment opportunities. This began to change during the next decade. Small businesses, in increasing numbers, started to locate in the Town. They were followed by larger employers. The 1980's saw not only a substantial increase in employment opportunities, but a substantial increase in population as well. The Town now has a population of approximately 28,000 and is becoming a fairly self- sufficient community offering a wide variety services to its residents. There is one existing new car dealership (Dodge) in Jupiter. Two additional new car dealerships (Ford and Cadillac) have been approved and permitted. 2/ Additionally, there are a number of new car dealerships clustered together on Northlake Boulevard in the City of Palm Beach Gardens 3/ less than ten miles from Jupiter to which the Town's residents have access. 4/ There remain only a few tracts of vacant, uncommitted land within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Town. The unincorporated areas surrounding the Town, however, are largely undeveloped. A considerable amount of the growth in Jupiter since the late 1980's can be attributed to the completion of the "missing link" of I-95, a north-south roadway that is the main intra-urban route in South Florida. Until late 1987, I-95 went as far north in Palm Beach County as PGA Boulevard. In late 1987, a new stretch of I-95, from PGA Boulevard to Fort Pierce, including an interchange at Indiantown Road in Jupiter, was opened to the travelling public. The opening of the I-95 interchange at Indiantown Road has enhanced the Town's market potential and contributed significantly to the Town's integration into the broader metropolitan area of greater Palm Beach County. Jupiter does not have a traditional downtown area. Growth has generally occurred along the Town's major roadways, including Indiantown Road, a state roadway which offers the only direct access from I-95 to the Town and therefore serves as the primary gateway to the Town. In recent years, nearly 60 percent of office and other commercial projects in the Town have been located on that segment of Indiantown Road from I-95 to the roadway's eastern terminus at A1A near the coast, a distance of approximately five and a half miles. The initial impact of the fast-paced development on Indiantown Road was to increase traffic congestion and generate complaints that the roadway was becoming a visual eyesore with its "strip commercial" development. At the time, although it was the Town's primary commercial corridor, Indiantown Road had only two lanes, one going east and the other going west. It is now in the process of being widened and transformed into a six-lane, median divided, controlled access roadway. The Planning Process and the Indiantown Road Corridor Study In the fall of 1986, the Town began the laborious process that culminated in the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan more than three years later. During the planning process, the members of the Town Council, Jupiter's governing body, having heard the complaints of residents regarding the negative impact of development on Indiantown Road and the inadequacy of the Town's existing land development regulations to deal with the situation, determined that a study should be undertaken to develop a comprehensive strategy to address these problems. Of particular concern to the Council members were issues relating to traffic and aesthetics. In November, 1988, the Council retained Henry Skokowski, a planning consultant, to conduct such a study. Skokowski was specifically directed by the Council to, among other things, examine the various types of commercial land uses and determine those that should be permitted and those that should be prohibited in the Indiantown Road corridor. Skokowski's initial draft of the results of his study was submitted to the Council in February, 1989. The Town's proposed Comprehensive Plan was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for its review and comments in April, 1989. The Council accepted Skokowski's final draft of the results of his study in the latter part of 1989. The final draft was virtually identical in substance to Skokowski's initial offering. In both, he recommended, among other things, that certain commercial land uses, including "auto . . . sales," that he reasonably felt did not mesh with the desired overall character of the corridor, be absolutely prohibited, without exception, throughout the length of the corridor. 5/ This recommendation, from the outset, was the subject of considerable public debate and discussion before the Town Council. Skokowski endorsed a nodular pattern of development for the corridor. Under his plan, the corridor would contain six urban subdistricts, each having as their focal point a major intersection, with the remaining portions of the corridor consisting of parkway subdistricts with suburban characteristics reflecting a less intensive commercial development pattern than found in the urban subdistricts. From west to east, the six urban subdistricts, which constituted nodes of development, were the Central Boulevard District, the Center Street Landmark District, the Maplewood Drive District, the Civic District, 6/ the Alternate A1A District and the US 1 District. Through the creation of a special overlay zone for the corridor and the adoption of regulations restricting the permitted uses of land 7/ and establishing design, landscaping, and signage requirements on a subdistrict by subdistrict basis, Skokowski envisioned that each subdistrict would develop an identity that was not only distinctive and unique, but compatible with, and reflective of, community values unlike the strip commercial development that then existed in the corridor. Throughout the course of his study, Skokowski met regularly with those who were responsible for drafting the Town's Comprehensive Plan. He also met with the Executive Director of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning in an effort to obtain input from the County regarding anticipated development on or around Indiantown Road. In response to Skokowski's request, the Department's Executive Director promised to provide the Town with notification of any proposed zoning actions in the unincorporated areas of the County. Skokowski did not meet with any representative of either the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization or the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council prior to the completion of his study. On January 16, 1990, the Town Council adopted the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Community Affairs has determined that the Plan is "in compliance." Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: A General Overview The Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan contains nine different elements: future land use; traffic circulation; housing; infrastructure; conservation; coastal management; recreation; intergovernmental coordination; and capital improvements. Each element has at least one goal 8/ and objective 9/ and has policies as well. 10/ Some elements also contain maps. One such element is the future land use element, which contains a future land use map. The map employs six land use classifications: residential; commercial; industrial; recreation; conservation; and public/institutional. Most of the land area in the Indiantown Road corridor is designated for commercial use on the future land use map. Approximately two-thirds of the total land area in the Town that is designated for commercial use on the future land use map is located in the Indiantown Road corridor. Each of the elements of the Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan was based upon "data inventory and analysis." The Town Council adopted this "data inventory and analysis" as part of the Plan. Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: Goals, Objectives and Policies The following is the lone goal set forth in the Plan's future land use element: Ensure that the future land use pattern maintains the existing low intensity, residential character, recognizes and protects the environmental quality of the Town, and allows the Town to become a full- service community 11/ serving Northern Palm Beach County. Objective 1.1 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "managed growth." It provides as follows: Direct future growth into areas served by urban services that have adequate capacity, as defined by the adopted level of service standards, which shall be incorporated into the Town's development regulations by May 1990. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "managed growth:" Policy 1.1.1- All development shall be approved only if the level of service standards as set forth in Policy 1.2.1 of the Capital Improvement Element are met concurrent with the impact of the proposed development. These standards shall be integrated into the land development regulations. Policy 1.1.4- Commercial shopping centers in excess of 80,000 square feet should be located only at intersections of major arterials. Policy 1.1.5- Strip or highway commercial development shall be discouraged. Policy 1.1.6- A commercial corridor study of Indiantown Road is to be undertake[n] in 1989. This will result in a coherent, comprehensive strategy for this major roadway 12/ containing streetscape guidelines and site development standards 13/ that will be integrated into the Town's land development regulations. 14/ Policy 1.1.7- Concentrations of commercial offices, and tourist related activities shall be near locations having high accessibility. Policy 1.1.8- Non-residential outdoor storage areas shall be screened and buffered from adjacent residential uses. Policy 1.1.13- The town through its Coastal Construction Code and its future land use map shall minimize the intensity and density of future development within coastal areas vulnerable to hurricane damage. Policy 1.1.14- The impact of land use on water quality and quantity shall be considered in land use planning and regulation. This shall be assured by inclusion of provisions in the Land [D]evelopment Regulations for consideration of the impacts of proposed development on water quality and quantity. These considerations shall include the provisions of Conservation Element Policies 1.4.1-13 for surface water quality, 1.3.1-13 for groundwater quality, Infrastructure Element Policies 1.1.2 for wellfield protection, 1.5.1 for protection of potable water supply and 1.6.1-5 for protection of groundwater quality and quantity. Objective 1.2 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "land use compatibility." It provides as follows: By May 1990 the land development regulations shall contain provisions and standards which ensure that future growth patterns take into consideration topography, soil and other natural and historic resources, the intensities, densities and type of land use activities and relationship to surrounding properties, as well as providing for streetscaping, proper transition of land uses, buffering, and coordination of coastal population densities with the Palm Beach County Hurricane Evacuation Plan. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "land use compatibility:" Policy 1.2.1- Where there are differences between residential uses in terms of intensity and type of units, adequate transitioning shall be accomplished through provisions such as setbacks, buffers and height limitations. The land development regulations adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan shall contain such provisions to assure adequate transitioning. Policy 1.2.3- Where existing land use conflicts exist, the Town shall incorporate into its land development regulations provisions that address noise, dust, lighting and aesthetics. The Town shall support increasing the depth of property(s) in areas where existing lots are shallow (less than 150 feet in depth), are situated adjacent to an arterial roadway, have a commercial or industrial land use designation, and abut residentially designated land; however, the land development regulations shall contain adequate buffering and performance criteria for concerns noted above. Policy 1.2.4- Existing land uses which are not compatible with adjacent land uses, the character, natural resources or the future land use plan shall be eliminated upon redevelopment, and until that time may not be expanded. This requirement shall be included in the revision to the local development regulations to be adopted by May 1990. Objective 1.3 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "land development regulations." It provides as follows: The Town shall prepare land development regulations that effectively implement all provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan, contain innovative techniques for the production of affordable housing, provide a means to protect environmentally sensitive areas and maintain flexibility in site design. In addition the Town shall encourage the use of innovating land development regulations such as the Town's existing provisions for PUD and other land development techniques. The following are among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "land development regulations:" Policy 1.3.3- Adopt land development regulations that shall contain specific and detailed provisions required to implement the adopted Comprehensive Plan, and which at a minimum address: subdivision of land signage wellfield and aquifer protection drainage and stormwater management periodic flooding open space needs off-street parking environmentally sensitive areas/habitats In addition, these regulations shall ensure that development orders and permits not be issued which result in a reduction of the levels of service for the affected public facility below the adopted level of service of standards as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.3.4- The concept of an environmental[ly] sensitive area overlay zone will be incorporated into the current Zoning Ordinance. This concept will be folded into the new development code at the time the current Zoning Ordinance and other local development regulations are consolidated into one regulatory document. Policy 1.3.5- The [L]and [D]evelopment Regulation shall include the following non- residential land use categories, and shall incorporate the following location and intensity criteria: Commercial Neighborhood Commercial- Stores offering frequently needed goods and services to nearby residential areas. Typical activities include pharmacy, dry-cleaning, florist, hardware and garden supplies, professional offices, and personal services. Location Criteria: In areas accessible to immediate surrounding neighborhoods; Can be located in conjunction with groups of retail or highway commercial uses to achieve greater consumer volume and multi- purpose trips; When a part of a planned unit development must be situated in the interior of the project and not along an external roadway; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity measures: Site area- minimum 20,000 sq. ft. maximum 2 acres Site coverage maximum- 35% Height limitation- 35 feet/2 stories General Commercial- Consists of a wide range of commercial goods and services serving a community-wide market. A representative sample of activities includes personal services, banking and finance offices, retail stores, nurseries, printing and publishing, auto repair, marine facilities, and medical and dental clinics. Location Criteria: At major intersections, or existing commercial core areas; Central to and/or readily accessible from all residential areas of the community; Preferably grouped with other stores in this category to achieve a combined market draw on multi-purpose trips; Not adjacent to low density, single family neighborhoods; Adjacent to Medium Density Residential areas when proper buffering is provided; Situated preferably on an arterial roadway, but never on a local street; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Lot coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 50 feet unless parking provided under building then 60 feet. Office Commercial- Activities that generally do not entail sale or display of goods and do not require high visibility from major roadways. Typical uses include legal, financial, realty, technical and some medical service establishments. May also contain retail uses that directly serve the needs of the office businesses. Location Criteria: Location needs are often determined by type of service (attorney near courthouse, physician near hospital, etc.); Attractive or prestigious setting often desired; suitable for location near multi- family housing to serve as a transitional use between more intensive commercial and industrial uses; In some instances may locate adjacent to low density residential neighborhood only when height is limited to one story, less than 35% of project site utilized for structure(s) and adequate buffering provided; May locate in industrial park however should be located in designated tract of land in park; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Lot coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 50 feet unless parking provided under building then 60 feet. Heavy Products Commercial- Activities that sell large or bulk products or maintains large inventories of products. These usually serve a sizeable market area and are often similar to or part of industrial activities. Building materials, heavy machinery and wholesale establishments are typical heavy commercial uses. Location Criteria: Parcels should be accessible from outlying service areas and near primary routes for shipping and receiving goods (highways, rail); Should be spatially separated from residential areas; Should not be located in proximity to other commercial activities, e.g., retail stores, offices; Suitable siting is near or in industrial areas due to similar location and transportation needs; In areas where water supply and sewerage facilities services are available. Intensity Measures: Site coverage maximum- 35% Building height maximum- 35 feet Industrial * * * Conservation * * * Public/Institutional * * * Objective 1.4 of the future land use element addresses the subject of "economic development." It provides as follows: To expand and diversify the economic base through the provision of adequate sites and timely provision of public utilities and services to stimulate such growth. Policy 1.4.1 is among the policies in the future land use element that further address the subject of "economic development." It provides as follows: Higher densities and intensities of development shall be located in areas having high accessibility and a full complement of public facilities (e.g., water, sewer), that have adequate capacity to maintain the adopted levels of service. Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 of the Plan's intergovernmental coordination element each reference the Indiantown Road corridor study. They provide as follows: Policy 1.1.7- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in this study to provide input about the State's plans for the roadway, and FDOT shall formally review the resulting development strategy for compatibility with FDOT plans. Policy 1.1.8- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the study to provide input about anticipated development along and around the roadway and its impact on traffic circulation and development within Jupiter. The County and MPO shall have formal review of the resulting development strategy to ensure compatibility with County and MPO plans. Policy 1.1.9- Jupiter shall seek the active involvement of the Treasure Coast regional Planning Council in the study to provide technical assistance and informal mediation among the Town, County, MPO and FDOT, if necessary. Immediately preceding these three policies is the statement that "[a] commercial corridor study of Indiantown Road is to be undertaken by 1989 that will result in a coherent, comprehensive development strategy for this major roadway." 15/ Contents of the Comprehensive Plan: Data Inventory and Analysis The goals, objectives and policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan can be better understood if they are read in conjunction with the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan. For instance, an examination of the following excerpts from the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan provides considerable assistance in understanding what the Town Council meant when it announced in the goal of the future land use element that it desired that the Town "become a full-service community serving Northern Palm Beach County:" Growth Management Philosophy Until the advent of the '80s, Jupiter was one those hidden treasures [i]n the Treasure Coast region. . . . In 1980, Jupiter was basically a "bedroom" community; however, with recent annexations, the Town now contains over 400 acres planned for industrial park usage. Therefore, Jupiter is now evolving into a "total service" community. To maintain a community that maximizes quality of life, the following growth principles and strategies will be the basis for future growth decisions: Land use decisions . . . will be made within the context of the Greater Jupiter Area 16/ since certain uses within the existing Town limits serve a "market area" that extends considerably beyond the present jurisdictional limits. It is anticipated that the Town's employment base will expand significantly in the coming years as the planned industrial parks, and office/ business centers come on line. The residential character of the Town will remain one of low intensity, a more human scale of residential living. Future residential areas will be developed only in areas with adequate human service. 17/ * * * Being the major urban hub of north county, retail and office businesses located in Jupiter depend on a population base that is considerabl[y] larger than just the existing population residing within the present Town limits. Residential areas to the north, especially along Loxahatchee River Road and to the west, primarily from the Jupiter Farms area shop and do business in Jupiter. 18/ * * * Community shopping centers require a wider market area [than neighborhood shopping centers]. 19/ The Jupiter Mall would be an example of such a retail center. Based on the Town's projected 1995 population (46,900), only one such shopping center is justified. However, because Jupiter is a commercial hub serving much of the County, north of Donald Ross Road, another such center might be justified. Prior to any approval, a market study should be required in order to avoid the problem of overcommercialization. The analysis should include all commercial development in north county, not just limited to Jupiter's corporate Town limits. Leading tenants include variety store and small department store. 20/ * * * Historically the Town has had only a minor amount of land utilized for industrial purposes. Until recent years, it has considered itself a residential, bedroom community; however, that philosophy has changed. It now sees itself as a "total" community. This means the creation of a major employment base. 21/ * * * IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES 1. Town image, e.g., bedroom community, full service town. 22/ The following references to the Indiantown Road corridor are made in the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan: Development in the Indiantown Road corridor can generally be described as uncontrolled strip commercial, often experiencing traffic congestion and presenting a poor visual image to visitors. As Jupiter has grown no definitive urban center has emerged. Growth has occurred generally along the Town's major roadways. Consider as a long-range strategy the creation of a traditional downtown. 23/ * * * Nearly 60% of the commercial/office projects have been located within the Indiantown Road corridor. . . . Over the past decade Indiantown Road (SR 706) has experienced increased periods of traffic congestion. This has occurred as commercial development along this main artery has mushroomed. Lack of lot depth as well as overall size have created a "hodgepodge" commercial development pattern along SR 706 which has lead to a traffic headache, as well as a visual eyesore. The problems of Indiantown Road are compounded since it will serve as Jupiter's major entryway once Interstate 95 is completed and the entrance on SR 706 is opened. 24/ Consideration should be given to a special overlay zone for Indiantown Road. In developing the overlay zone determining what constitutes the Indiantown Road corridor (depth of property along the roadway), establishing the desired character of the corridor, 25/ and preparing a special set of standards e.g., signage, off-street parking, buffering, to control development would be necessary. Although Indiantown Road is the most obvious example of strip commercial development other local roads are afflicted with the same problem, however maybe not to the same degree. Yet, there are several areas in and around Jupiter that are developing more in a node fashion than in a linear commercial strip. Not only is the Town beset by this commercial problem, but has been faced with possible intrusion of commercial into residential neighborhoods. Precautions need to be taken to make sure that neighborhood integrity remains intact. 26/ * * * [S]imilar to the Town's proposed land use designation within the Indiantown Road corridor, the County too, has proposed that commercial development be allowed along this roadway. A concern the Town has is the manner in which it is developed. This is especially important, because the Indiantown Road corridor is the gateway into Jupiter. To date, the development has reflected a rather non-descript, strip commercial pattern. The Town has been sufficiently concerned that it has contracted to have an urban design corridor study completed for this key roadway. 27/ Design recommendations will become a part of the Town's land development regulations. Coordination between the two governing bodies will be needed at the time the local development regulations are prepared. 28/ * * * The majority of land use conflicts occur in those areas where commercial and industrial uses abut residential neighborhoods. This has been a problem along Indiantown Road. The proposed siting of a cement batch plant in the Pennock Industrial Park created considerable controversy over the potential adverse impacts, e.g., noise, dust, light, visual image, and aesthetics. Similar concerns have been voiced over the potential negative impacts generated by strip shopping centers and car dealerships, as well. Much of the development in this major traffic corridor occurred at a time when Jupiter was a much smaller, rural community. Some of the development predates landscape and signage requirements. Because the land along Indiantown Road was subdivided over twenty years ago, many of the lots along the road are very shallow. This causes problems in providing for adequate transition and buffering from adjacent residential uses. The Town has been encouraging combining of lots to create additional depth that can allow for better site design and buffering. Also, the Town has adopted the Indiantown Road Urban Corridor Study, and will be integrating many of its recommendations into updated development regulation[s]. The study has recommended the creation of an "Indiantown Road Overlay Zone." 29 / This district will contain additional provisions related to design guidelines and streetscape standards so that development within the Town's major corridor achieves some logical, overall design. 30/ * * * IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES . . . 2. Gateway into Town; . . . Depth of commercial along Indiantown Road; Strip commercial development vs. a node policy; . . . 9. Maintaining areas in residential use by eliminating pressures of commercial development; * * * Besides the commercial demands of the local population, [with] the opening of Interstate 95 Exit on Indiantown Road in conjunction with the existing Florida Turnpike exit on Indiantown Road, it can be expected that there will be significant increased demands for interchange commercial uses to serve the traveling public. 31/ Already a number of inquiries have been made to staff regarding the Town's position relative to development around these interchange areas. This will become the gateway to Jupiter. The commercial development pattern that ultimately emerges within the corridor can visually replicate what already exists, or can become a "memorable["] entryway leading into Jupiter. The concept of an overlay zone for the Indiantown Road corridor should be considered. 32/ * * * Most neighborhood and community shopping centers are located on major roadways, primarily at the intersections of designated arterials such as Indiantown Road and Central Boulevard, Indiantown Road and U.S. 1 and Indiantown Road and Alternate A1A. Future siting of shopping centers, especially those with 100,000 leasable floor area and up should be situated at locations having good access and sufficient roadway capacity to maintain the Town's adopted level of service. Further, they should be located so that the only access is from one road. 33/ * * * The existing major roadways identified in the functional classification are shown on Exhibit 1 . . . and are summarized below. . . Principal local arterials 34/ . . . f. Indiantown Road from U.S. 1 to west town limit Collector streets 35/ Indiantown Road from County Road A1A to U.S. 1 36/ * * * The level of service analysis shown on Exhibit 1 indicates severe capacity deficiencies for east/west travel on Indiantown Road. From Center Street to U.S. 1 and west of the Turnpike, this facility operates at Level of Service "E" which is characterized by very long vehicle delay and long traffic queues such that forced vehicular flow conditions exist much of the day. . . . The five-year programs of the Florida Department of Transportation and Palm Beach County will provide relief for some of the congestion presently experienced in Jupiter. As shown on Exhibit 2 . . . , construction is planned to be undertaken within five years to improve Indiantown Road. Indiantown Road is scheduled to be widened to a six-lane cross section from east of Center Street to east of Alternate A-1-A in fiscal year 1989/1990. Indiantown Road from Florida's Turnpike west to Jupiter Farms Road is planned to be widened to four lanes in the fiscal year 1991/1992. . . . The only existing deficiencies not currently "planned" to be improved is the six-laning of Alternate A-1-A south of the Loxahatchee River Bridge to Center Street and Indiantown Road from Alternate A-1-A to U.S. 1 to six lanes. . . . Designing and obtaining right- of-way for the Indiantown Road Intracoastal crossing (Alternate A-1-A to U.S. 1) is also programmed for FY 89/90, 90/91, respectively. The responsibility for improvement of these facilities is primarily that of the Florida Department of Transportation. 37/ * * * Improvements to Indiantown Road will greatly improve the east/west access within the Town. 38/ * * * The future major streets are shown by functional classification on Exhibit 3 . . . and are summarized as follows. . . . Principal local arterials . . . g. Indiantown Road from Alternate A-1-A to I-95. . . Collector streets Indiantown Road from County Road A-1-A to U.S. 1 39/ * * * At buildout the proposed coastal population densities in the surge vulnerable areas in the Town of Jupiter will be 31,5000 residents. This represents a 230 percent increase. The evacuation routes to accommodate evacuation vehicles will have capacities as follows: -Indiantown Road at six lanes 40/ * * * The proper strategy to follow would be to conserve and maintain or in fact upgrade some of the older residential areas in the Indiantown Road/Center Street area. The Town has been implementing such a policy. The Town has had an ongoing series of drainage and road improvement projects. This effort is continuing with the present focus on the area immediately south of Indiantown Road bounded on the east by Old Dixie. . . . The Town has taken steps since the adoption of its present land use plan to eliminate those uses inconsistent with the community's character and proposed future land uses. Some methods that have been employed are the deepening of commercial frontage along Indiantown Road, adding increased depths to buffers between conflicting land uses and not allowing the re-establishment of non- conforming land uses. 41/ * * * Intergovernmental coordination is necessary in order to implement the following policies: POLICY: A commercial corridor study is to be undertaken by 1989 that will result in a coherent, comprehensive development strategy for this major roadway. Issues for coordination/cooperation: Indiantown Road (SR 706) is owned and operated by the State. It is a major arterial for the unincorporated County area west of Jupiter, and development approved along it and in its vicinity can impact traffic conditions within Jupiter to a significant degree. Agencies involved: Florida Department of Transportation Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Recommended methods for coordination/ cooperation: FDOT representatives should be involved closely in the study to provide guidance about the State's plans for the roadway, and FDOT should formally review the resultant development strategy for compatibility with FDOT plans. The Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building, and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County MPO should be involved closely in the study to provide guidance about anticipated development along and around the roadway and its impacts o[n] traffic circulation and development within Jupiter. The County should have formal review of the resultant development strategy to ensure compatibility with County plans. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council should be involved in the study to provide technical assistance and informal mediation among the Town, County, and FDOT, if necessary. 42/ The "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan indicates that the future land use plan includes "commercial uses" among its land use categories. It then goes on to give the following definition of such "commercial uses:" Commercial uses- means activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the sale, rental, consumption, and distribution of products or performances of professional and non-professional services. The Town Council may approve the use of such land areas for residential purposes provided a rezoning to a residential zoning district is approved and the rezoning is implemented by a planned unit development. The following discussion appears under the subheading of "Land Use Performance Standards" in the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan: The land use classification system described allows for flexibility. Specific protection should be developed and included at the time the local development code is revised to bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. It is recommended that the following criteria serve as the basis for permitting any land use change. These along with other provisions and policies of all Comprehensive Plan elements will have to be met in order to receive a development order. The recommended performance standards are as follows: Compatibility with surrounding land uses Intensity of use Adequacy of facilities -water services -sewer services -roadway access -fire and police service Environmental impact Following the recitation of the foregoing "recommended performance standards," the statement is made that "[i]n evaluating any proposed land use change as well as any other development approval requirement the Town shall take into consideration . . . whether or not the proposed change complies with the [same] location criteria" that are set forth in Policy 1.3.5 of the future land use element. The "data inventory and analysis" portion of the plan gives the following description of the three major categories of land use problems that the Town should strive to avoid or at least minimize through the planning process: Misuse of Land Widely scattered land development results in a pattern which is more costly to provide with essential services; Construction of buildings in flood prone areas results in damage to property, danger to life and added financial burdens on the [Town] for providing flood abatement measures; Land and water resources are destroyed by scattered substandard development; and Less than adequate room for expansion of businesses and industry result in congestion and inharmonious growth. Conflicting Uses of Land Encroachment of business and industrial uses into existing or emerging residential areas results in instability of these residential neighborhoods; and Unplanned mixing of various land uses results in incompatible relationships among various activities which cause deterioration of the overall environment. Overuse of Land Inadequate provision of off-street parking causes encroachment of residential neighborhoods by traffic seeking parking; Strip development along major highways results in reduced traffic capacity and increased traffic congestion; Excessive land coverage by buildings and parking areas results in inadequate open space; and Poorly conceived site and building design standards can result in overuse of land. Ordinances Creating the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District In March, 1990, the Town Council adopted a series of ordinances that incorporated, in all respects material to the instant case, the above-described "comprehensive strategy" that Skokowski had devised for the Indiantown Road corridor. These ordinances amended the Town's zoning code by creating the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District (I.O.Z.). The I.O.Z. is codified in Section 517 of the code, which describes the I.O.Z.'s purpose and intent as follows: The purpose and intent of this specialized overlay zoning district is to encourage and provide for enhanced property development within the Indiantown Road corridor. Objectives to be attained through the establishment of this district include protection of adjacent residential land uses; enhancement of the commercial status of the corridor; reduction of visual distraction through uniform sign criteria; enhancement of physical appearance through increased landscaping of public and private property; clustering of compl[e]mentary uses throughout various locations along the corridor; provisions of architectural design guidelines within specific locations along the corridor; encourage the construction of pedestrian oriented facilities in both public and private structures; installation of special landscape and architectural features at major intersections; and establish development incentives to accomplish these objectives. Before the Town Council took final action on the matter, the Town's Director of Community Development provided the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) with a copy of what was to become Section 517 and asked DOT to favor the Town with its comments. DOT, however, declined to do so. The ordinances adopted by the Town to effectuate the creation of the I.O.Z. were Ordinances 14-90, 15-90, 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25- 90. 61. Ordinances 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25-90 divided the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District into parkway subdistricts and five urban subdistricts: the Central Boulevard District; the Center Street/Maplewood Drive District; 43/ the Civic Center District; the Alternate A1A District; and the U.S. Highway One District. Ordinance 14-90 imposed design, landscaping, and signage requirements applicable to these subdistricts. Ordinance 15-90 further restricted the land use activities permitted in these subdistricts. The underlying zoning district of most of the land area in the Indiantown Road corridor is "C-2" (Commercial, General), in which 41 commercial land use activities are permitted, 11 by right and 30, including automobile sales, by special exception. Ordinance 15-90 absolutely prohibits, without exception, anywhere from 11 to 18 of these 41 commercial land activities, depending upon the subdistrict. Automobile sales are absolutely prohibited throughout the corridor. Attachments 1-11 appended to this Final Order show each of the land use activities that were permitted, by right or special exception, in each subdistrict prior to the adoption of Ordinance 15-90 and the changes, if any, made by Ordinance 15-90 to their status as permitted activities. Relationship of the I.O.Z. to the Comprehensive Plan Section 517.3 of the Town's zoning code states that "[t]he establishment of the IOZ [as codified in Section 517] is hereby declared consistent with the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan." It has not been shown that it is beyond reasonable debate that, in making this declaration, the Town Council, which only a couple of months earlier had adopted the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan, was in error. A reasonable argument may be made that the I.O.Z (Section 517 of the Town's zoning code) and its component parts, including the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90, are compatible with the Plan and take action in the direction of realizing the Town's aspirations, as announced in the Plan, with respect to the Indiantown Road corridor. The I.O.Z. is a "coherent, comprehensive strategy" for the Indiantown Road corridor that employs "the concept of an overlay zone" and a "node policy" of development (as opposed to linear, "[s]trip commercial") and is reasonably designed to allow this roadway to "become a 'memorable' entryway leading into Jupiter." The use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90 are an integral part of this "coherent, comprehensive strategy." They play a role in "establishing the desired character of the corridor." Ordinance 15-90 is not at variance with any of the land use designations made on the Plan's future land use map, including those designating land in the Indiantown Road corridor for commercial use. While the ordinance absolutely prohibits certain land use activities, those that it allows are in keeping with the map's land use designations. For instance, the activities it permits on land designated on the map for commercial use, which is most of the land in the corridor, are indeed "commercial uses," as that term is defined on page I-30 of the "data inventory and analysis" portion of the Plan. Because the ordinance permits these "commercial uses" throughout much of the corridor, it furthers the Plan's vision of the Indiantown Road corridor as an area where commercial development predominates. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and the goal of the future land use element of the Plan. It has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable debate that the ordinance will prevent the Town from fulfilling its desire, as expressed in the goal of the future land use element, of completing its transformation from a bedroom community to one that offers, in addition to housing, job opportunities and goods and services accommodating the needs of the residents of the Greater Jupiter area that cannot be adequately met by surrounding communities. To become a "total" or "full-service" community Jupiter need not offer every conceivable good and service in the marketplace. Accordingly, it may absolutely prohibit within its jurisdictional boundaries certain commercial land use activities that involve specialized goods and services that are available elsewhere in the region and still reach its goal of becoming a "total" or "full- service" community. Moreover, Ordinance 15-90 applies only to the land area within the Indiantown Road corridor, which, as noted above, contains approximately two- thirds of the Town's commercially designated land. The remaining land area in the Town designated for commercial use is unaffected by the ordinance and unencumbered by its land use restrictions. Therefore, even if, in order to become a "total" or "full-service" community, the Town was required to offer within its jurisdictional boundaries those goods and services that are unavailable in the Indiantown Road corridor as a result of Ordinance 15-90, the Town would still be able to meet this requirement because the ordinance does not preclude the Town from offering these goods and services in commercially designated areas in the Town that are outside of the Indiantown Road corridor. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.1.5 of the future land use element of the Plan. While the land use activities absolutely prohibited by Ordinance 15-90 tend to require larger lot sizes, have generally lower traffic generation rates and are less likely to be found in "[s]trip commercial" developments than certain land use activities permitted by the ordinance, it has not been shown that it is beyond reasonable debate that these prohibitions will likely result in the "[s]trip or highway commercial development" that Policy 1.1.5 seeks to discourage. Ordinance 15-90 renders ineffective neither the requirements of the Plan 44/ nor those of the remaining portions of the I.O.Z. designed to combat and prevent "[s]trip or highway commercial development." The ordinance works, not at cross-purposes with these requirements, but in tandem with them, imposing additional, rather than conflicting, restrictions on development in the Indiantown Road corridor. Under the regulatory framework established by the Town through the adoption of the Plan and the I.O.Z., a proposed development that meets the requirements of Ordinance 15-90, but is inconsistent with the anti-strip commercial provisions of the Plan and the remaining portions of the I.O.Z., will not be approved. Accordingly, Ordinance 15-90 will not have the effect of enhancing the potential for the occurrence of "[s]trip or highway commercial development" in the Indiantown Road corridor. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.1.6 of the future land use element of the Plan. As noted above, Policy 1.1.6 references the Indiantown Road corridor study and indicates that this study "will result in a coherent, comprehensive strategy for this major roadway containing streetscape guidelines and site development standards that will be integrated into the Town's land development regulations." While the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90 are neither "streetscape guidelines" nor "site development standards," Policy 1.1.6 does not mandate that the "coherent, comprehensive strategy" resulting from the Indiantown Road corridor study include only "streetscape guidelines" and "site development standards." Given that use restrictions are typically included in a "comprehensive strategy" for a roadway corridor and that there was considerable public debate preceding the adoption of the Plan concerning Skokowski's recommendation (which was ultimately incorporated in Ordinance 15-90) that certain use restrictions be included in a "comprehensive strategy" for the Indiantown Road corridor, it is reasonable to assume that, had the Town Council intended that such use restrictions not be a part of the "comprehensive strategy" envisioned in Policy 1.1.6, it would have so specified in that policy or elsewhere in the Plan. Its failure to have done so reflects that the Town Council had no such intention at the time it adopted the Plan. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policy 1.3.5 of the future land use element of the Plan. As mentioned above, Policy 1.3.5 directs, among other things, that the Town's land development regulations include, within a commercial land use category, the subcategories of "Neighborhood Commercial," "General Commercial," "Office Commercial," and "Heavy Products Commercial" and it gives a representative sample of activities that would fall into each of these subcategories. In addition, the policy prescribes location and intensity criteria for each of these subcategories. Policy 1.3.5 does not require the Town, in its land development regulations, to permit in areas that meet the location criteria of a particular subcategory all of the commercial land use activities that may fall within that subcategory. Accordingly, as it has done in Ordinance 15-90, the Town may prohibit some of these activities without running afoul of the mandate of Policy 1.3.5. Policy 1.3.5 does impose upon the Town the obligation to permit a "Neighborhood Commercial," "General Commercial," "Office Commercial," or "Heavy Products Commercial" land use activity only in those areas that, according to the policy's location criteria, are suitable for that particular activity. There has been no showing that the various commercial land use activities permitted by Ordinance 15-90 are allowed to take place in areas that do not meet the location criteria prescribed in Policy 1.3.5. If anything, the evidence establishes the contrary. There is no inconsistency or conflict between Ordinance 15-90 and Policies 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 of the intergovernmental coordination element of the Plan. As indicated above, Policies 1.1.7 and 1.1.8 provide that, in the development of the Indiantown Road corridor study, the Town "shall seek the active involvement" [of] the Florida Department of Transportation" (DOT), as well as the "Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning and/or the Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)," to provide appropriate input. In conducting his study of the Indiantown Road corridor, Skokowski sought the "active involvement" of the Palm Beach County Department of Planning, Building and Zoning. He did not seek DOT's input, 45/ but the Town's Director of Community Development, prior to the Town Council's adoption of the I.O.Z., did. Accordingly, in adopting Ordinance 15-90 and the other ordinances that were based upon Skokowski's Indiantown Road corridor study, the Town Council did not act in derogation of the requirements of either Policy 1.1.7 or Policy 1.1.8 of the intergovernmental coordination element of the Plan. Petitioner's Challenge to the I.O.Z.'s Use Restrictions Petitioner owns approximately 680 acres of land in Jupiter, including land situated in the Indiantown Road corridor that is subject to the use restrictions imposed by Ordinance 15-90. It acquired 640 of these 680 acres in 1981 and the remaining acreage in 1987. Petitioner has been developing this property since its acquisition. A golf course and residential community have already been completed. Work has begun on a 40-acre commercial project located in the Maplewood Drive/Indiantown Road area. Petitioner desires to build an auto campus as part of this project, but is unable to do so because Ordinance 15-90 absolutely prohibits automobile sales from occurring on the land. On or around December 10, 1990, Petitioner sent a petition to the Mayor of Jupiter, the body of which read as follows: This petition is submitted on behalf of Restigouche, Inc. [Petitioner] pursuant to Fla. Stat. #163.3213(3) and Rule 9J-24.007 of the Florida Administrative Code. The purpose of this Petition is to challenge the consistency of such portions of [the] Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District Ordinance, as adopted by the Town of Jupiter under Ordinance 15-90. These portions define permitted uses, uses permitted by special exception and prohibited uses within the IOZ. Section 517 of the Zoning Code was adopted by several ordinances[.] Ordinances 14-90 and 15-90 were adopted March 6, 1990. Ordinances 20-90, 21-90, 22-90, 23-90, 24-90 and 25-90 were adopted March 20, 1990. Ordinance 15-90 reduces the allowable uses of the property owners within the IOZ. The underlying zoning category for Restigouche's property in the Maplewood/Center Street District is C-2. Table 1 of the IOZ contains a list of 41 uses available to property within Zoning District C-2 by right or by special exception. The table shows that the uses for property within the IOZ have been reduced to the extent that those uses designated as "X" have moved from permitted by right or special exception to prohibited uses. Ordinance 15-90, which incorporates this down zoning, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter as adopted by the Town Council January 16, 1990. The Comprehensive Plan does not allow for the creation of a district along the Indiantown Road Corridor that would limit uses from those as stated in the appropriate underlying zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that a study of the development along Indiantown Road was being undertaken at the time of Comprehensive Plan adoption and acknowledges that signage, streetscape and site development criteria to enhance the visual aspects of Indiantown Road would be adopted. The Comprehensive Plan does not state that a new zoning district would be created limiting uses from those already available for the underlying zoning. Policy 1.3.5 states that land development regulation[s] shall include four designated types of commercial zoning as specified in this policy. These are Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, Office Commercial and Heavy Products Commercial. Specific description of policies and goals for each of these is stated. There is no policy for the recognition of a land use or zoning category specifically applicable to Indiantown Road. The Petitioner is a substantially affected person by virtue of its ownership since 1981 of property within the Maplewood/Center Street District which is part of the IOZ and is the successor developer of a previously approved Development of Regional Impact. Petitioner has expended millions of dollars in improvements to the property within the Maplewood/Center Street District in the IOZ and has contributed substantial acreage for the construction of a public school, park and fire station. The Petitioner is Restigouche, Inc., its address is 102 Nocossa Circle, Jupiter Florida 33458, telephone number (407)744-4778. The Petitioner's representative at that office is Eileen F. Letsch, Vice-President. Petitioner is represented in this matter by its counsel, Paul B. Erickson of Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, P.A., 321 Royal Poinciana Plaza, Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (407)659-1770. The relief sought by Restigouche, Inc. is recognition by the Town of Jupiter that such portions of Section 517 which diminish permissible zoning uses from those allowed in the underlying C-2 Zoning District are void and unenforceable allowing the Application for Special Exception to be considered by the Town of Jupiter. The Town did not grant the relief sought by Petitioner. Accordingly, on or about March 5, 1991, Petitioner submitted a petition to the Department of Community Affairs (Department). The body of the petition read as follows: Restigouche, Inc. ("Restigouche") files this challenge to the consistency of a land development regulation of the Town of Jupiter, Florida. Restigouche is not aware of any Agency file number for this proceeding. Restigouche, Inc. is a Florida corporation. This petition is filed by Eileen F. Letsch, Executive Vice-President, 102 Nocossa Circle, Jupiter, Florida 33458, (407)744-4778. Restigouche is represented in this Petition by Paul B. Erickson, Esq. of Alley, Maass, Rogers & Lindsay, 321 Royal Poinciana Plaza, Palm Beach, Florida 33480 (407)659-1770. Restigouche is the owner of property in the Town of Jupiter, Florida which is within the Indiantown Road Overlay Zoning District ("IOZ") created by the Town under Ordinances 14-90 and 15-90 on March 6, 1990 and applied to Restigouche's property by Ordinance 21-90 on March 20, 1990. These ordinances as enacted create Section 517 of Ordinance 10-88 which is the current zoning ordinance of the Town of Jupiter. Restigouche challenged the consistency of the IOZ with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter by letter to the chief elected official of the Town dated December 12, 1990. A copy of the petition is attached. The Town of Jupiter adopted its Comprehensive Plan January 20, 1990. The IOZ as it was enacted in part by Ordinances 15-90 and 21-90 is a down zoning regulation which reduces the number of permissible uses for Restigouche's property by right or special exception from 41 to 27. The IOZ as enacted in Ordinance 14-90 established landscaping and site development standards for property within the IOZ. The portions of the IOZ as adopted in Ordinances 15-90 and 21-90 are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Jupiter. The Comprehensive Plan refers to the IOZ as an area of landscaping and site development standards. It does not refer to the IOZ as an area where permissible uses will be down-zoned. The Comprehensive Plan establishes mandatory criteria for the development of commercial uses within the Town in Policy 1.3.5. This does not recognize or allow a separate, restrictive commercial zoning district along Indiantown Road. The IOZ as enacted in Ordinance 15-90 should be declared invalid because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Department determined that the petition substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 9J-24.007(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code, and so notified the parties. By letter dated March 22, 1991, the Department requested the Mayor of the Town to furnish it with the following materials: those portions of the Town's land development regulations which discuss or implement the IOZ; the standards for all zoning districts which underlie the IOZ; any supportive studies regarding the IOZ; and those portions of the comprehensive plan which discuss the IOZ or densities and allowable uses in the area in question. The requested materials were furnished on or about March 28, 1991. An informal hearing on Petitioner's challenge to the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions was held in Jupiter on April 12, 1991. Representatives of both Petitioner and the Town participated in the hearing. They presented information and argument for the Department's consideration. Following the informal hearing, the Department gave the parties the opportunity to supplement what they had presented at hearing. Both parties took advantage of the opportunity. In its supplemental submission, Petitioner presented additional written argument, in which it identified with specificity those provisions of the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan with which it claimed the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions were inconsistent. These specifically identified Plan provisions were Goal 1, Objectives 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4, and Policies 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 1.1.8, 1.1.13, 1.1.14, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, and 1.3.5 of the future land use element and Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 of the intergovernmental coordination element. Petitioner also submitted 1) an engineer's report supporting its position that its proposed auto campus "would have significantly less impact upon public facilities" than would a 230,500 square foot retail center constructed on its property, 2) photographs of a model of the proposed auto campus, and 3) site plans of the proposed auto campus. By letter dated April 30, 1991, the Town objected to Petitioner's submission of the engineer's report and asked that it not be considered by the Department because it was generated after the informal hearing and therefore was "not available for discussion . . . at the hearing." On May 10, 1991, following its review and consideration of not only the information, argument and materials with which it had been presented, but of the entire Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan as well, which it had on file, the Department issued its written decision finding that "the provisions of the Town of Jupiter Land Development Regulations contained in the IOZ which have been challenged by Petitioners 46/ in this proceeding are consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan." The Department explained its determination as follows in Conclusions of Law 2 and 3 of its written decision: The Town of Jupiter's IOZ is not in conflict with the Comprehensive [P]lan because the IOZ is specifically authorized by the Plan, and there are no provisions in the Plan which prohibit the Town from adjusting allowable uses within underlying zoning districts. The uses permitted in the IOZ are certainly within the permissible range of uses for the designation in the plan. The plan does not guarantee a minimal zoning category for properties within the general commercial designation. It only provides that the zoning will effectively include general commercial uses. Further, the IOZ cannot accurately be referred to as a separate zoning category as argued by the Petitioners. The IOZ modifies underlying general commercial zoning districts (which the Petitioners agree are authorized by the Plan). In fact, land development regulations such as the IOZ are considered to be innovative and are encouraged in s. 163.3202(3), F.S. There are no provisions in Chapter 163, F.S., that require comprehensive plans to identify and authorize all implementing land development regulations. Although Policy 1.3.5 lists certain uses which are eliminated or limited within the IOZ, these uses are allowed in commercial zoning districts outside the IOZ. The Petitioners may have cited portions of certain policy statements that, when taken in isolation, seem to suggest potential conflicts with the IOZ. However, the IOZ serves as the implementing solution to a problem area identified in the Plan as being of significant concern. Therefore, the IOZ, on balance, takes action in [the] direction of implementing and furthering substantive portions of the Plan. Further, the lack of recognition in the comprehensive plan of implementing land development regulations does not, by itself, constitute an inconsistency. On May 31, 1991, Petitioner filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting a hearing on its consistency challenge. Petitioner did so in good faith as part of its effort to convince the Town Council that the I.O.Z. should be modified in a manner that would allow Petitioner to construct its proposed auto campus in the Maplewood Drive/Indiantown Road. Petitioner hoped that the Hearing Officer would agree with its position that the I.O.Z.'s use restrictions are inconsistent with the Town of Jupiter Comprehensive Plan and that, after the Hearing Officer found these use restrictions to be inconsistent with the Plan, the Town Council would take action to eliminate them to avoid the sanctions it would face if it did not take such action.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether a small scale development amendment to the future land use map of the City of Jacksonville's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2019-750-E on February 25, 2020 (the Ordinance), is "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties and Standing Petitioner Livingston is a Florida resident, who lives at 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Livingston appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Livingston is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Petitioner Gopal is a Florida resident, who lives at 1535 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Gopal appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance, and submitted comments and objections on the record. Gopal is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Right Size is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that conducts business in the City, and its corporate address is 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. The specific purpose of Right Size, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation filed February 11, 2020, is to support, protect and preserve the historic character and beauty of San Marco, a historic residential neighborhood south of downtown Jacksonville and the St. Johns River. Officers of Right Size appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Right Size is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Respondent City is a municipal corporation of the state of Florida and is responsible for enacting and amending its comprehensive plan in accordance with Florida law. The City provided timely notice to the parties and the process followed the provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and part II of chapter 163. The Ordinance relates to 2.87 acres of property located at 2137 Hendricks Avenue and 2139 Thacker Avenue (Property). The Property is located within the City's jurisdiction. Intervenor Harbert is an Alabama limited liability company, registered to do business in Florida. Harbert is an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment and currently has the Property under a purchase contract pending the effective adoption of the Ordinance. Harbert is an affected person and intervenor under section 163.3187(5)(a). Intervenor South Jax is a Florida not-for-profit corporation and is the owner of record of the Property that is the subject of the Ordinance. South Jax is also an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment. South Jax is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Property and Surrounding Parcels The Property occupies the majority of one block in the San Marco neighborhood of the City. It is bounded on the north by Alford Place, on the east by Mango Place, on the south by Mitchell Avenue, and on the west by Hendricks Avenue (State Road 13). Hendricks Avenue is classified as an arterial road. The Property is currently home to The South Jacksonville Presbyterian Church. The southern portion of the Property, comprising 1.89 acres, is currently designated Residential Professional Institutional (RPI) on the City's Future Land Use Map series (FLUM) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The northern portion of the Property, comprising 0.98 acres, is currently designated Community/General Commercial (CGC) on the FLUM. The southern portion of the Property is currently zoned Commercial Residential Office (CRO) on the City's zoning map. The northern portion of the Property is zoned Commercial Community/General-1 (CCG-1) on the City's zoning map. The FLUM shows that the Property is currently in the City's Urban Development Area (UDA), and abuts the boundary line of the City's Urban Priority Development Area (UPDA) to the north. The parcel to the north of the Property was the subject of a small scale FLUM amendment in 2014 (Ordinance 2014-130-E). It is known as East San Marco, currently has a Comp Plan FLUM designation of CGC, and is in the UPDA that permits development of up to 60 residential units per acre (ru/acre). Ordinance 2014-130-E for East San Marco included a FLUE text change, i.e., a site specific policy/text change under section 163.3187(1)(b). FLUE Policy 3.1.26 exempts East San Marco from specified UPDA characteristics. The East San Marco property was recently rezoned from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to PUD (Ordinance 2019-799-E) for a mixed-use project known as the East San Marco development. The PUD provides that the maximum height for commercial buildings is 50 feet not including non- habitable space, and 48 feet for multifamily units. Located south of the Property across Mitchell Avenue are parcels developed for single family residential use and currently designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the FLUM. These properties are zoned Residential Low Density-60 (RLD-60) on the City's zoning map. Located east of the Property across Mango Place are parcels developed with a mix of single family residential and office uses and designated as a mix of CGC and RPI on the FLUM. These properties have a mix of zoning including CCG-1, Residential Medium Density-A (RMD-A), and Commercial Office (CO). Located west of the Property at Hendricks Avenue/San Marco Boulevard are parcels developed with multifamily, restaurant and retail commercial uses and designated as a mix of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and CGC on the FLUM. These properties are zoned RMD-D and CCG-1. Intervenors intend to develop the Property with a mixed-use project that will include 133 multifamily residential units and a parking garage. The existing church sanctuary will remain in use at the northeast corner of Hendricks Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. The Ordinance On August 27, 2019, Intervenors applied for a small scale development amendment proposing to change the Property from RPI and CGC to CGC, and to extend the UPDA to include the Property. On the same date, Intervenors also filed a companion rezoning application seeking to change the zoning on the Property from CRO and CCG-1 to PUD. The rezoning application was processed concurrent with the small scale development amendment application. The City's professional planning staff collected and reviewed data and information related to the small scale development amendment application, the Property, and the surrounding areas. The staff also conducted a site visit. The staff further sought review by, and received input from, a number of different City and state agencies and organizations regarding the proposed Ordinance. On October 28, 2019, the City held a citizens' information meeting to discuss the proposed Ordinance. The meeting was attended by approximately nine residents. After reviewing and analyzing the data and information gathered, City professional planning staff determined that the Ordinance was consistent with the Comp Plan and furthers the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comp Plan. The determination was memorialized in a staff report recommending approval of the Ordinance. The staff report was prepared for consideration by the City's Planning Commission prior to its regular meeting on January 23, 2020. At its January 23, 2020, meeting, the Planning Commission held an approximately two and one-half hour hearing on both the Ordinance and the PUD. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance by a unanimous vote. The staff report and the Planning Commission's recommendation were forwarded to the City Council's Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) Committee. The LUZ Committee held public hearings addressing the Ordinance on December 3, 2019; January 22, 2020; February 4, 2020; and February 19, 2020. Certain concerns were raised by citizens at public hearings both before and during the February 19, 2020, LUZ Committee meeting. In response, the LUZ Committee requested that Mr. Killingsworth draft a site specific policy/text amendment to adopt limitations on the number of residential units, the non-residential floor area permitted on the Property, and the maximum height of structures on the Property, with measurable criteria for determining the height of structures within the proposed use on the Property. During the February 19, 2020, public hearing, the LUZ Committee recommended addition of FLUE Policy 4.4.16, a site specific policy/text amendment, which states: Multi-family residential uses shall be limited to 133 units. Non-residential floor area shall be limited to 96,000 square feet (garage, all floors) and 25,000 +/- square feet (existing church, all floors). To ensure compatibility with adjacent uses and to protect neighborhood scale and character through transition zones, bulk, massing, and height restrictions, new building height shall be limited to the calculated weighted average, not to exceed 35 feet, across the length of the development from Alford Place to Mitchell Avenue as follows: A sum of the height to the predominant roof line (ridge or parapet wall) of that portion of a building multiplied by the length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of permissible building within the minimum setback. After approximately six hours of testimony and discussion, the LUZ Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Ordinance with the site specific policy/text amendment. The City Council held public hearings to address the Ordinance on November 26, 2019; December 10, 2019; January 28, 2020; February 11, 2020; and February 25, 2020. After approximately five and a half hours of testimony and discussion, the City Council adopted the Ordinance on February 25, 2020, by a vote of 17 to one. There was significant citizen input regarding the Ordinance throughout the hearing process. This included emails and letters to City staff, to Planning Commissioners and City Council members, and submittal of verbal and written comments at the hearings. Petitioners' and Right Size's Objections Following their filing of the Petition and other stipulations mentioned above, Petitioners and Right Size jointly presented their case during the final hearing. They argued that the Ordinance was not "in compliance" because: (i) it created internal inconsistencies based upon Comp Plan Policies 1.1.20A, 1.1.20B, 1.1.21 and 1.1.22; (ii) it was not based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the City; (iii) it did not react to data in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance; and (iv) subsection (c) of FLUE Policy 4.4.16 related to height failed to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and land use regulations. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the primary underlying premise of Petitioners' and Right Size's challenge was that the Ordinance would allow a density in excess of 40 ru/acre and permit a height in excess of 35 feet. Internal Consistency In the Amended Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, as modified by the Notice of Narrowing Issues for Hearing, Petitioners and Right Size identified specific policies in the Comp Plan, which they assert rendered the Ordinance inconsistent with the Comp Plan. FLUE Policy 1.1.20A states that "[e]xtensions of the Development Areas will be noted in each land use amendment where an extension is needed or requested concurrent with a Future Land Use Map Amendment. In addition, plan amendments shall meet the requirements as set forth in Policy 1.1.21 and 1.1.22." The definitional section of the FLUE explains that the City is divided into five tiers of Development Areas which include the UPDA and the UDA. These areas are depicted on the City's FLUM series and control "the density, development characteristics, and other variables within plan categories." The first sentence of Policy 1.1.20A affords applicants the ability to request an extension of a development area concurrent with a land use amendment application. Consistent with the policy, the small scale development amendment application included a request for an extension of the UPDA. The request was submitted concurrent with the request to designate the Property as CGC on the FLUM. The adopted Ordinance makes note of the extension of the UPDA as required by Policy 1.1.20A. The second sentence of Policy 1.1.20A requires that when an amendment application includes a request to extend a development area, the City must ensure consistency with Policies 1.1.21 and 1.1.22. The City's analysis is reflected in the staff report, which finds that the amendment application meets Policies 1.1.20, 1.1.20A, and 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any testimony regarding consistency with Policy 1.1.20A. Their expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that he was familiar with Policy 1.1.20A, but did not explain how or why the Ordinance was internally inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. Instead, Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis regarding Policy 1.1.21. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. FLUE Policy 1.1.20B states: Expansion of the Development Areas shall result in development that would be compatible with its surroundings. When considering land areas to add to the Development Areas, after demonstrating that a need exists in accordance with Policy 1.1.21, inclusion of the following areas is discouraged; Preservation Project Lands Conservation Lands Agricultural Lands, except when development proposals include Master Planned Communities or developments within the Multi-Use Future Land Use Category, as defined in this element. The following areas are deemed generally appropriate for inclusion in Development Areas subject to conformance with Policy 1.1.21: Land contiguous with the Development Area and which would be a logical extension of an existing urban scale and/or has a functional relationship to development within the Development Area. Locations within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Locations within one-half mile of the existing or planned JTA RTS. Locations having projected surplus service capacity where necessary facilities and services can be readily extended. Public water and sewer service exists within one-half mile of the site. Large Scale Multi-Use developments and Master Planned Communities which are designed to provide for the internal capture of daily trips for work, shopping and recreational activities. Low density residential development at locations up to three miles from the inward boundary of the preservation project lands. Inward is measured from that part of the preservation project lands closest to the existing Suburban Area such that the preservation lands serves to separate suburban from rural. The development shall be a logical extension of residential growth, which furthers the intent of the Preservation Project to provide passive recreation and low intensity land use buffers around protected areas. Such sites should be located within one- half mile of existing water and sewer, or within JEA plans for expansion. After the City makes a determination that there is a need for the expansion of a Development Area pursuant to Policy 1.1.21, the City next looks to see if the property is discouraged under Policy 1.1.20B. The subject Property does not fall into one of the discouraged lands. The City's expert, Ms. Reed, explained that if the questions of need and discouraged lands are satisfactorily answered, the Policy then describes lands that are generally deemed appropriate for inclusion in a particular Development Area. The first question is whether the Property is contiguous to the UPDA and whether the extension is logical. The staff report notes that the Property is immediately adjacent to the UPDA to the north and that an extension of the boundary is logical because it permits an infill project. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga testified that the proposed extension of the UPDA to include the Property is also logical because there is a functional relationship to the proposed mixed-use development to the north. The next question is whether the Property is within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that the Property is within a node which was confirmed by Mr. Atkins. The next criterion under Policy 1.1.20B is whether there are mass transit services available near the Property. The staff report notes that mass transit Routes 8 and 25 are available at the Property and this fact was confirmed by Ms. Reed. The fourth and fifth criteria under Policy 1.1.20B address whether there is sufficient water, sewer and other services available to serve the Property. The City requested information from various agencies and utilized the responses to analyze the impact of the Ordinance. The City sought confirmation from the Jacksonville Electric Authority, Transportation Planning, the Duval County School Board, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Concurrency and Mobility Management System Office to determine whether the systems serving the Property, i.e. water, sewer, schools, and roads, had available capacity to serve the site if the UPDA was expanded to include the Property. All the agencies consulted responded that there was sufficient capacity available. In addition, Ms. Reed testified that the Ordinance met Policy 1.1.20B because there is capacity for water and sewer, there is transit available, the area is very walkable, and there is access to a lot of neighborhood services nearby. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga persuasively testified that the Ordinance met the criteria for land deemed appropriate for inclusion in the UPDA as set forth in Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any evidence regarding the consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B and their expert did not offer any opinions or otherwise discuss consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.20B. FLUE Policy 1.1.21 requires the City to analyze need for all land use map amendments. The Policy states: Future amendments to the Future Land Use Map series (FLUMs) shall include consideration of their potential to further the goal of meeting or exceeding the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area and to allow for the operation of real estate markets to provide adequate choices for permanent and seasonal residents and business consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.5. The projected growth needs and population projections must be based on relevant and appropriate data which is collected pursuant to a professionally acceptable methodology. In considering the growth needs and the allocation of land, the City shall also evaluate land use need based on the characteristics and land development pattern of localized areas. Land use need identifiers include but may not be limited to, proximity to compatible uses, development scale, site limitations, and the likelihood of furthering growth management and mobility goals. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that they did not object to a density on the Property of 40 ru/acre or 114 total units, but object to the additional 19 units permitted by the Ordinance. Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that need to expand the UPDA to encompass the Property was not demonstrated, and that need for the "additional number of units" was not demonstrated. The City's experts, Ms. Reed and Mr. Killingsworth explained that Table L-20 of the FLUE identifies land use categories and their projected need at the end of the 2030 planning horizon. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 demonstrates that at the end of the planning horizon the RPI land use will be at 119 percent of need, while the CGC land use will be at 84 percent of need. This indicates a need for additional CGC designated lands by 2030, as well as an over-abundance of RPI-designated lands. Since the Ordinance includes a request to change existing RPI-designated lands to CGC, it addresses both the need to increase CGC-designated lands and to decrease RPI-designated lands. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 was prepared by the City to comply with section 163.3177(6), which requires all local governments to project need and to assure that there is market availability to respond to such need. The Table, along with the underlying data and analysis used to support it, was reviewed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (n/k/a the Department of Economic Opportunity) and found to comply with state law. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that the City considered testimony by the San Marco Merchants Association, local residents, and the applicant presented during the hearings. The testimony demonstrates that the Ordinance would address current economic and housing needs in the area. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the testimony and Table L-20 demonstrate a need for the Ordinance to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area. With regard to the land use need identifiers of proximity, compatibility, and scale, Mr. Killingsworth testified that "compatibility" as defined in the FLUE "doesn't mean you have to have the same uses adjacent to each other, it doesn’t mean that you have to have the same density adjacent to each other." Instead it means that "those uses have to operate in conjunction with each other and there has to be [ ] some sense to the scale, the mass, and bulk of the structure." See Tr. at pg. 203, lines 11-17. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the City's analysis was that the Ordinance met the land use need identifiers, the limitations included in the site specific policy/text amendment were an additional way to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses with regard to use, scale, and height. The CGC portion of the Property is currently permitted to be developed up to 40 ru/acre. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the Property to a total of 133 residential units (or approximately 46 ru/acre), which the City Council determined is compatible, particularly given the fact that the East San Marco property directly north of the Property can be developed with up to 60 ru/acre. The Comp Plan FLUE does not establish height limitations for any of the land use categories, including CGC and RPI. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the s ite specific policy/text amendment provides for standards related to height that are otherwise not in the FLUE. The East San Marco project to the north has a height limit of 50 feet, and the low density residential neighborhood to the south has a height limit of 35 feet. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the limitation in the site specific policy/text amendment, restricting the height on the Property to an average of 35 feet, allows for an appropriate transition between the uses to the north and the uses to the south, thus ensuring compatibility. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.21. FLUE Policy 1.1.22 states: "Future development orders, development permits and plan amendments shall maintain compact and compatible land use patterns, maintain an increasingly efficient urban service delivery system and discourage urban sprawl as described in the Development Areas and the Plan Category Descriptions of the Operative Provisions." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins testified that he did not review Policy 1.1.22. However, in an abundance of caution, the City and Intervenors presented evidence to establish that the Ordinance was consistent with Policy 1.1.22. Mr. Killingsworth pointed to the definition of compact development from the FLUE, which includes the efficient use of land primarily by increasing intensity, density, and reducing surface parking. He testified that the Ordinance accomplished these criteria. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the height averaging in the site specific policy/text amendment assisted with ensuring compatibility, and that the proposed development's mix of commercial, residential, and institutional uses on a small site met the definition of compact development. Ms. Reed testified that the Property is in an area with full urban services, has access to transit, and fronts on an arterial roadway. Furthermore, it promotes a compact and compatible land use pattern through redevelopment and infill. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.22. Data and Analysis The parties agreed in the Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation that the facts remaining for adjudication with regard to "data and analysis" were exclusively related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16, the site specific policy/text amendment that addressed only building height. However, Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins did not discuss data and analysis specifically related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16. Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis related to the Ordinance generally. The City addressed the data and analysis supporting the Ordinance, and the City's response to that data and analysis. The City considered data from professionally accepted sources and applied an analysis based on established procedures set forth in the Comp Plan. The process of data collection began with the submittal of the application, which included a survey, a legal description and an owner's affidavit. Mr. Killingsworth testified that chapter 640 of the City's Ordinance Code sets out the process by which FLUM amendment applications are processed and reviewed by the planning staff. Section 650.404(b) requires that the City hold a Citizens Information Meeting that allows receipt of additional data from the affected community. Ms. Reed explained that all amendments are evaluated based upon standards and methodologies established in the FLUE for the assessment of data and analysis, which includes public facilities, school impacts, population, and development impacts. The City planning staff collected background data for the initial analysis of the Ordinance. The background section of the staff report goes through an analysis of the characteristics of the site, including the location, acreage, and surrounding uses; describes the site in general; identifies the Council district; identifies the Planning District; and notes if there are any applicable vision plans. The City planning staff also did research on applications and amendments that have occurred in proximity to the Property. The background information is part of the data and analysis that the City used to determine whether the Ordinance Amendment was consistent with the City's policies. In addition, FLUE Policy 1.2.16 requires the City to assume maximum development potential when analyzing the impacts of amendments to the FLUM unless there is a site-specific policy limiting density or intensity. In this instance, the staff report was completed prior to the addition of the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance, which specifically limits the density and intensity permitted on the Property. The City's staff followed the guidelines of Policy 1.2.16 and utilized the maximum development potential for the Property in reviewing the application, i.e., 2.87 acres of CGC designated property in the UPDA. Ms. Reed testified that the site specific policy/text amendment "added parameters and limitations that were not there before, so it really lessened the impact based on what we analyzed versus what was ultimately approved." See Tr. at pg. 291, lines 8-17. Under Policy 1.2.16, the City developed a table entitled "Development Standards for Impact Assessment," which is used to collect and analyze specific impact data. The data gathered by the City for the table included the analyses provided by various advising agencies and entities. The data and analyses provided by the other agencies and entities are summarized in the table in the staff report. The table also includes a section where the City staff identifies and reviews other appropriate plans and studies. These plans and studies have not been adopted into the City's Comp Plan, but they are utilized as data and analysis when the planning staff reviews a FLUM amendment. The staff report identifies three plans applicable to the site, the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan, the North San Marco Action Plan, and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Ms. Reed explained that the Ordinance was consistent with the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan which provides for new development along Hendricks Avenue compatible with existing neighborhoods. The staff report notes that design details can be addressed in the companion PUD rezoning application. Likewise, the staff report concludes that the Ordinance is generally consistent with the features of the North San Marco Action Plan and that design details would be handled through the PUD review and implementation. Finally, Ms. Reed explained that the City found that the Ordinance would achieve the Strategic Regional Policy Plan's goals of improving quality-of-life with appropriate infill and redevelopment and by providing diverse housing options. Additional evidence and testimony offered by the applicant and the citizens during the Planning Commission, LUZ Committee, and City Council hearings was collected and analyzed by the City prior to final action on the amendment application. The additional data and information gathered during the many different hearings on the Ordinance resulted in the recommendation of the LUZ Committee to add the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the site specific policy/text amendment was a direct result of the City's analysis of input from the public related to intensity, density, and compatibility. Ms. Reed testified that "all of these things were considered together as a whole in order to come up with a recommendation, both in the staff report and final approval by Council as amended." Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not supported by data and analysis, and that the City's response to that data and analysis was not appropriate. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) requires that a Comp Plan "establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, opined that subsection (c) of the site specific policy/text amendment is "vague in its application and certainty in its outcome," in that "[t]here is no defined limit of what the height might be in violation of the requirements of section 163.3177(1)." Mr. Atkins acknowledged that the Comp Plan FLUE does not otherwise address height and that "[i]t all seems to be handled at the PUD or LDR level." This fact was confirmed by the City's expert, Mr. Killingsworth. Mr. Killingsworth explained that the objective of the site specific policy/text amendment, as a whole, is to establish a maximum development potential or otherwise restrict development on the Property consistent with Objective 4.4 of the FLUE. The density limitations, combined with the height limitation, restrict the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that subsection (c) represents a policy statement by the City Council that height should be no more than an average of 35 feet, and it provides guidance as to how the height is to be calculated, which will ultimately be implemented in the LDRs and the PUD. Subsection (c) provides more specificity regarding height than would otherwise be achieved through a Comp Plan land use category without a site specific policy/text amendment. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the height limitation in subsection (c) may not dictate that the higher heights should be on the northern portion of the Property and transition to the lower heights on the southern portion of the Property, the PUD and the development of the Property will need to comply with other parts of the Comp Plan that require a transition between uses. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance does not guide future development decisions in a consistent manner, and does not establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land. Ultimate Findings Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding Ordinance No. 2019-750-E "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 (eServed) Frank D. Upchurch, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-9066 (eServed) Emily Gardinier Pierce, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Courtney P. Gaver, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 100 Whetstone Place, Suite 200 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 (eServed) T.R. Hainline Jr., Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Jason R. Teal, Esquire Office of General Counsel City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Paul M. Harden, Esquire The Law Firm of Paul M. Harden, Esquire 501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 901 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Mohammad O. Jazil, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Craig D. Feiser, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Trisha Bowles, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5721 (eServed) Ken Lawson, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Mark Buckles, Interim General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Environmental Coalition of Broward County, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Coalition"), is a Florida corporation. The Coalition has offices located in Broward County. The Coalition has approximately 500 members, most of whom reside in Broward County. A substantial number of the Coalition's members own property in Broward County and/or operate businesses within Broward County. The Coalition is a not-for-profit corporation, chartered for educational and scientific purposes. The primary purpose of the Coalition is to present objections and recommendations to local governments concerning planning issues on behalf of its membership. The Coalition is authorized to participate in actions of this type and to represent its membership in administrative proceedings. The Coalition presented oral and written objections to Broward County during the review and adoption process concerning the plan amendment at issue in this proceeding. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of implementing the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Among other things, the Department is required to review local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto for compliance with the Act. Respondent, Broward County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the local government with the authority pursuant to the Act and the Broward County Charter to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan. The County has adopted the 1989 Broward County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The Broward County Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as the "County Commission"), is the local planning agency for the County. The County Commission is advised on land use planning issues by the Broward County Planning Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Council"). The Planning Council was created by the County Charter. Intervenors, Miramar Lakes, Inc., d/b/a Miramar Rock, Robert A. Whitcombe, Trustee, and the South Broward Trust own or have under contract virtually all of the property affected by the Plan amendment which is the subject of this proceeding. These Intervenors have entered into a joint venture agreement with Intervenor Atlantic Gulf Communities Corporation to develop the subject property. Intervenors applied for the amendment that is the subject of this proceeding and presented oral or written comments, recommendations and objections during the period of time between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the subject Plan amendment. The County's Plan. The County adopted a comprehensive plan as required by the Act in 1989. The planning horizon of the plan is 2010. The Plan includes two volumes of text, two volumes of support documents and associated maps. See Petitioner's exhibit 8. Volume One is text and is effective countywide. Volume Three contains support documents for the Plan. The Plan also includes the 1989 Broward County Future Land Use Plan Map (Series) (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"). The FLUM depicts the proposed distribution, extent and location of categories of land uses allowed under the Plan. Among others, those land uses include "residential" at various densities and "agricultural". Pursuant to the Plan, the eastern approximately one-third of the County may be developed. The developable area consists of approximately 400 square miles of land area. The western approximately two-thirds of the County are designated as water conservation areas and are separated by a levee from the developable one- third. Future land use elements of municipal comprehensive plans in the County must be in substantial conformity to the Plan. The Subject Property. The property which is the subject of the Plan amendment at issue in this case consists of 1,280 acres of a total of 1,965 acres (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). The Property is located in the City of Miramar, in southwest Broward County, Florida, Sections 25, 26, 27 and 36, Township 51 South, Range 39 East. The Property is located in the southwestern portion of the developable one-third of the County. See Map 1 of Broward County exhibit 1. The Property is bounded on the east by S.W. 184th Avenue and on the north by Honey Hill Road. It is east of U.S. Highway 27. Part of the Property is vacant. Part of the Property is being used as cattle pasture and for a rock mining, batching, mixing and crushing operation. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the Property include vacant land, rock mining and some development to the north, single-family residential development to the east, rock mining and vacant land to the south, in Dade County, Florida. Residential development immediately to the east in a development known as "Silverlakes" is being developed at a density of three dwelling units per acre. Further to the west of the Property is the eastern boundary of the water conservation areas of the Everglades. These areas are separated from the rest of Broward County by a levee. The land use designation of the Property and other property in the surrounding area is "agricultural". Under the Plan, the land use designation allows agricultural uses and residential development of one dwelling per 2.5 acres. Under its current land use designation, a total of 786 dwelling units may be developed on the Property. The First Amendment Requested by the Intervenors. In early 1994 Intervenors filed an application with the County seeking an amendment of the FLUM to modify the future land use designation of all 1,965 acres of the Property to "Low (2) Residential". "Low (2) Residential" allows the development of two dwelling units per acre. The Planning Council conducted a review of the proposed amendment. The Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection raised objections to the proposed amendment because the Property is located in an area of water recharge and wetlands. The area is identified as within a general wetlands area on the "Southwestern Generalized Wetlands Map" of the Plan. 30 Based upon the objections of the County Department of Natural Resource Protection, the staff of the Planning Council recommended denial of the proposed amendment. The South Florida Water Management District (hereinafter referred to as the "SFWMD"), an agency with broad regional responsibility for water management in southeast Florida, raised objections with the Planning Council concerning the location of the property in an area which was being considered for use as part of a project to restore the Everglades. The SFWMD was concerned that the Property is located within an area which has come to be known as the "East Coast Buffer". In early 1994, at the time of the initial review of the proposed amendment, the East Coast Buffer was a study area abutting the eastern water conservation areas of southeast Florida. The SFWMD was studying the East Coast Buffer for use in water conservation efforts in southeast Florida. At the time of the first review of the proposed amendment, the portion of the East Coast Buffer in which the Property is located was being considered for preservation as a reservoir site. The Planning Council transmitted the proposed amendment to the County Commission without recommendation. The County Commission decided not to transmit the proposed amendment to the Department for its review, ending review of the initial application. The Initial Review of the Subject Amendment. A second application on the Property was resubmitted by the Intervenors in March of 1994. The application was designated Application PC 94- 15. Application PC 94-15 sought an amendment of the FLUM to modify the future land use designation of all 1,965 acres of the Property to "Irregular 1.5 Residential". "Irregular 1.5 Residential" allows 1.5 dwelling units per acre. The amendment sought by Intervenors would have allowed an increase from 786 dwelling units to 2,947 dwelling units on the Property. An increase of 2,161 units. Application PC 94-15 was again reviewed. The same comments about, and objections to, the proposed amendment were raised concerning groundwater and aquifer recharge. The staff of the Planning Council again recommended denial of the proposed amendment. 41 The Planning Council recommended transmittal of the application, subject to the Intervenors satisfying the concerns raised by the SFWMD. On August 17, 1994, the County Commission transmitted Application PC 94-15 to the Department, conditioned upon the Intervenors satisfying the concerns of the SFWMD. The SFWMD objected to Application PC 94-15 because of its conclusion that the proposed future land use designation was not compatible with the East Coast Buffer then under evaluation by the SFWMD. SFWMD had developed data and conducted computer modeling concerning the utilization of a buffer for a variety of purposes, including reducing seepage of water from the Everglades, increasing groundwater recharge into aquifers and creating a natural buffer to protect the Everglades from the impacts of development. The SFWMD had commissioned a worldwide engineering firm, CH2M Hill to prepare a report on the East Coast Buffer. The SFWMD recommended that Application PC 94-15 not be approved until it had completed its study of the East Coast Buffer because the land use designation being sought might be incompatible with the conclusions reached from the SFWMD's and CH2M Hill's evaluation. The Department reviewed Application PC 94-15 and, based upon comments from the SFWMD similar to those raised before the County Commission, issued an Objections, Recommendations and Comments report concerning Application PC 94-15. The Department raised objections consistent with the adverse comments from the SFWMD. Modification of the Proposed Amendment. Parts of southwestern Broward County and northwestern Dade County were designated "Management Unit 5" by the SFWMD. Management Unit 5 was being considered, as recommended by CH2M Hill, as a reservoir area. Development of the Property was, therefore, not considered to be a use comparable with the concept of the East Coast Buffer being considered by the SFWMD at the time of the County's and Department's decision to reject Application PC 94-15. Intervenors worked with the SFWMD in an effort to find a way of modifying Application PC 94-15 to satisfy the SFWMD's concerns. SFWMD utilized computer modeling to simulate groundwater and surface water flows in Management Unit 5 to determine the impact of allowing development of the Property. The SFWMD concluded that Management Unit 5 was more suitable as a recharge area rather than as a reservoir. This conclusion was based, in part, of the transmissibility of the soil and other site conditions which were not conducive to storing water above ground for long periods of time. Use of Management Unit 5 as a recharge area and not a reservoir requires less surface area. Therefore, it was concluded that development in the area might be compatible with the SFWMD's East Coast Buffer concept. The SFWMD modeled four development alternatives for Management Unit 5 and analyzed the impact of each alternative on the efforts to retard seepage, provide groundwater recharge and enhance wetland benefits: (a) retaining the Property as a recharge area and allowing no development; (b) retaining the entire western two-thirds as a recharge area and allowing development of the eastern one-third; (c) retaining the western one-third as a recharge area and allowing development of the eastern two-thirds; and (d) allowing development of the entire management unit. Alternatives (b) and (c) assumed that a berm would be constructed between the recharge area and the developed area. After meeting with Intervenors and discussing the results of the modeling, Intervenors indicated willingness to remove the western portion of the Property from the proposed development. The SFWMD then conducted a more detailed, computer analysis of the following alternatives: (a) continuing existing conditions; (b) constructing a berm around Management Unit 5 and utilizing the entire area as a recharge area; (c) constructing a berm between the eastern and western sections of the Management Unit 5 and utilizing the western section for recharge with no development in the eastern section; and (d) alternative "(c)" with development of the eastern section. As a result of computer modeling of the alternatives, it was concluded that alternatives (b), (c) and (d) could significantly reduce seepage from the Everglades and increase groundwater recharge in to the aquifers when compared to development under the agricultural land use designation of alternative (a). As a result of the more detailed analysis, the SFWMD concluded that essentially all of its goals could be achieved for Management Unit 5 if the western section of Management Unit 5 is preserved even if development is allowed in the eastern section. The SFWMD concluded that the eastern two-thirds of the Property, consisting of approximately 1,280 acres, could be developed as "Irregular 1.5 Residential" if the western one-third, consisting of approximately 685 acres, was utilized as a recharge area. Intervenors agreed to preserve the western third of the Property (685 acres) and grant the SFWMD a flowage easement, consistent with the East Coast Buffer and at a savings of $43 million. On December 14, 1994, the staff of the SFWMD presented the results of the computer modeling to the SFWMD. On December 15, 1994, the SFWMD withdrew its objection to Application PC 94-15, conditioned upon the deletion of the 685 acres from the application and the granting of a flowage easement. The County and the Department were informed of the decision of the SFWMD. Approval of Application 94-15. On December 20, 1994, the County Commission adopted by Ordinance 94-55 an amendment to the Plan, Amendment PC 94-15 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment"), subject to the conditions suggested by the SFWMD, which resolved the SFWMD's objections. The Amendment included modifications to the FLUM and text amendments. The Amendment, in relevant part, modifies the future land use designation of approximately 1,280 acres of the Property from "Agricultural" to "Irregular 1.5 Residential". This will allow the construction of a total of 1,920 dwelling units on the Property, or an increase of 1,408 dwelling units over the number of dwelling that may be constructed under the current future land use designation for the Property. In light of Intervenor's modifications of the application, the removal of the SFWMD's objections and the approval of the application by the County, the Department found the Amendment to be in compliance with the Act. On February 14, 1995, the Department issued a notice of intent to find the Amendment in compliance. The County and the Department accepted and relied upon the data and methodology employed by the SFWMD and the conditions for removal of the SFWMD's objections. Petitioner's Challenge. On or about March 8, 1995, Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department challenging the Amendment. Petitioner filed an Amended Petition on April 25, 1995. At the commencement of the final hearing, Petitioner withdrew all issues it had raised in the Amended Petition except the issues of: (a) whether the data and analysis available supports a conclusion that there is a need for additional residential development; and (b) whether the Amendment is supported by data and analysis in light of an ongoing study of the East Coast Buffer. Residential Housing Need. The Plan includes the following Goal and Objective concerning the provision of adequate areas for residential use: Goal 01.00.00 Provide residential areas with a variety of housing types and densities offering convenient and affordable housing opportunities to all segments of Broward County's population while maintaining a desired quality of life and adequate public services and facilities. Objective 01.01.00 Accommodate the projected population of Broward County by providing adequate areas on the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) intended primarily for residential development, but which also permit those non-residential uses that are compatible with and necessary to support residential neighborhoods. The Plan, including the methodology utilized to determine residential need, was found to be in compliance by the Department. The residential need methodology of the Plan utilized the Broward County Population Forecasting Model to project the population of southwest Broward County in 1994 to be 225,489 people. This projected population formed the basis for the allocation of residential housing units for Subregion 5 under the Plan. The Property is located in an area of southwest Broward County designated as Subregion 5 in the Plan. In reviewing the Amendment, the County conducted an analysis of the need for additional residential development in southwest Broward County. This analysis utilized, and was consistent with, the residential need methodology of the Plan. A summary of the data and analysis utilized by the County was provided to the Department. The County's analysis indicated that the population of Subregion 5 has exceeded the population projections for the Subregion of the Plan. By 1994, there were 284,361 people living in Subregion 5 or 17,872 more than projected in the Plan. The increased population rate of growth in Subregion 5 was projected to represent an increase in projected demand for approximately 6,847 residential units in excess of the projected demand expected under the Plan. The analysis also took into account amendments to the Plan which have resulted in a reduction of 1,087 residential units for Subregion 5. When combined with the increased population, the data and analysis supports a conclusion that there is a need for 7,934 additional residential units in Subregion 5. The Amendment increases residential housing in Subregion 5 by 1,134 dwelling units (1,920 units allowed under the Amendment, less 786 dwelling units allowed under the current agriculture classification), well below the projected need for additional residential units for Subregion 5. The data and analysis relied upon by the County and submitted to the Department supports the conclusion of the County that there is need for the proposed additional residential development approved by the Amendment. The data and analysis relied upon by the County and the Department was professionally acceptable and adequate to support the Amendment. The evidence presented by Petitioner failed to prove that the data and analysis relied upon by the County and the Department was not professionally acceptable and adequate. Rather than attempting to prove that the County's methodology was not professionally acceptable or was flawed, Petitioner utilized a methodology based upon an annualized population growth rate for Subregion 5. Petitioner offered evidence that there is sufficient residential housing approved under the Plan to meet the projected population for 15.6 years, beyond the remaining life of the Plan. The methodology utilized by Petitioner was, by the admission of the Petitioner's own witness, not a professionally acceptable methodology. The evidence failed to prove that the data and analysis relied upon by the County does not support its conclusion that there is sufficient need for the additional residential housing authorized for the County by the Amendment. The East Coast Buffer Zone. Efforts to restore the Everglades have been initiated and are ongoing. As a part of these efforts a group of technical and scientific staff members of various federal agencies involved in the restoration efforts were formed as the "Science Sub Group." The Science Sub Group was formed as an advisory group to provide guidance towards ecosystem restoration efforts. The Science Sub Group had no implementing authority. It issued at least one report in late 1993 which included an East Coast Buffer concept. The East Coast Buffer identified by the Science Sub Group included the area in which the Property is located. The Science Sub Group relied upon data obtained from the SFWMD and various computer models developed by the SFWMD, and SFWMD personnel contributed to the preparation of the report. The East Coast Buffer concept generally includes a series of interconnected water flow-ways along the eastern edge of the water conservation areas necessary to restore the Everglades. The federal government has also instituted a study known as the "Central & South Florida Project: Comprehensive Review Study" (hereinafter referred to as the "Restudy"). The United States Corps of Engineers is the lead agency of the Restudy. The first phase of the Restudy's efforts has resulted in a "Reconnaissance Report", also known as the "Recon Study". The second phase of the Restudy's efforts will be the feasibility phase. The feasibility phase will begin in the summer of 1995 and will be completed several years later. The purpose of the Restudy is to bring together the interested federal agencies to review the current management of the Everglades and identify strategies for altering management practices and systems to improve the Everglades. The Recon Study was completed in late 1994. It describes various conceptual strategies for restoring the Everglades. The determination of the feasibility of the strategies has not, however, been started, much less completed. Therefore, although the East Coast Buffer concept is considered in the Recon Study, the actual identification of the area which will constitute the Buffer has not been identified. Nor has the area which should constitute the East Coast Buffer been recommended in the Recon Study. The Recon Study identifies problems and opportunities, formulates alternative plans, evaluates conceptual alternative plans and recommends further study. The Recon Study is advisory. It does not identify, recommend or implement a plan of action. The Coalition presented evidence concerning the ongoing analysis of Everglades restoration efforts. That evidence proved that the Property is located within a very large area, which completely surrounds the Everglades, which is being considered as part of the Everglades restoration effort because of the impact of this large area on restoration efforts. The evidence presented by the Coalition, however, failed to prove that the Property has been, or will be, determined to be essential or even necessary for future Everglades restoration efforts. At the time of the approval of the Amendment and, even at the time of the final hearing of this case, no such determination had been made. Nor had any determination been made as to what will be necessary for the restoration of the Everglades or whether decisions will be made to carry out the necessary restoration efforts. As recognized by the Coalition in its proposed order: 52. The study necessary to make [a determination of the water levels needed] for the areas which are implicated by this amendment will be done in the next two years or three years. * * * 55. There is no way of telling, based on the data and analysis available at this point, how much water will be necessary in order to fully restore the Everglades. . . . Coalition proposed findings of fact 52 and 55. The Coalition also recognized the following: The Reconnaissance study has not reached the point where conclusions can be drawn about parcel specific uses. The next step is the feasibility planning phase, which is a much more detailed phase which will run for several years. . . . Coalition proposed finding of fact 107. Instead of attempting to prove that the data and analysis at the time of adoption of the Amendment indicated that development of the Property authorized by the Amendment would be detrimental to restoration efforts, the Coalition attempted to prove that development of the Property should be delayed until data and analysis is available indicating conclusively what the impact of development of the Property will be on restoration efforts. The Act does not require such delay. In addition to failing to prove what the impact of development of the Property will be on restoration efforts, the evidence presented by the Coalition also failed to prove that the conclusions reached by the Science Sub Group and the Restudy will even be implemented. The evidence presented by the Coalition failed to prove that the conclusions of the SFWMD with regard to the impact of the Amendment are not supported by data and analysis or were not arrived at by professionally acceptable methods. While the evidence proved that there will be some reduction in the amount of groundwater recharge function and seepage control function as a result of the Amendment, the evidence failed to prove what ultimate impact the reductions in recharge and seepage control will be or that the SFWMD's conclusions are not reasonable. While the Coalition proved that the SFWMD's conclusions were not based upon a consideration of what should be done to restore the Everglades, the evidence failed to prove that the information available was sufficiently conclusive that the SFWMD should have objected to the Amendment. The data and analysis relied upon by the County in approving the Amendment was collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. None of those agencies charged with responsibility to review the Amendment raised objections to its approval. The evidence failed to prove that the state of the data and analysis available to the County from the Science Sub Group and the Restudy or any other source concerning the area referred to as the East Coast Buffer and the Property is such that it proved that the data that was relied by the County upon was inadequate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department dismissing finding the Amendment "in compliance" and dismissing the petition in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, 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 19th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Coalition's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1-2. Accepted in 2. 3-4 Accepted in 3. Accepted in 4. Accepted in 5 Accepted in 4. Accepted in 5. Accepted in 4-6. Accepted in 5-6. Accepted in 6. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12 14-15 Not relevant. 16-18 Not relevant. See 81-84. 19-25 Not relevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 81-84. Accepted in 29. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 26 and hereby accepted. 30-31 See 24. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 36 and 62. Accepted in 62. 35-41 Hereby accepted. 42-48 These proposed findings are generally correct. They are not, however, relevant to the ultimate determination in this case. 49-50 Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The last sentence is not relevant. See 96. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is accepted in 96. The last sentence is not relevant. Hereby accepted. 57-63 Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 64-65 Not relevant. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 89 and 91 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 90 and 92. See 86 and 92. Hereby accepted. Although generally true, the evidence failed to prove that this finding specifically applies to the Property. Except for the first sentence, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 31-33. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 76-87 Although generally correct, these findings were too broad and the evidence failed to prove that they specifically apply to the Property. 88-90 Although generally correct, these proposed findings are not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally correct, these proposed findings are not relevant. Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 94-97 Although generally correct, these proposed findings are not relevant. 98 Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 99-100 Not relevant. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally correct, these proposed findings are not relevant. 104-105 Not relevant. Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 97. Accepted in 90. Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 111-114 Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The County's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Accepted in 1. 2 Accepted in 7. 3 Accepted in 8. 4 Accepted in 11. 5 Hereby accepted. 6 Accepted in 12. 7 Accepted in 13. 8 Accepted in 14. 9 Accepted in 15. 10 Accepted in 9-10. 11 Accepted in 18. 12 Accepted in 16. 13 Accepted in 17. 14 Accepted in 61. 15 Accepted in 60. 16 Accepted in 19-20, 26 and 62. 17 Accepted in 23. 18 Accepted in 21-22 19-20 Accepted in 24. 21 Hereby accepted. 22 Accepted in 37. 23-24 Hereby accepted. 25 Accepted in 68. 26 Accepted in 65-67. 27-28 Accepted in 67. 29-30 Hereby accepted. 31-32 Accepted in 28. 33 Accepted in 29. 34 Accepted in 30. 35 Accepted in 34. 36 Accepted in 31 and hereby accepted. 37 Accepted in 32-33. 38 Accepted in 31. 39 Accepted in 33. 40 Accepted in 35. 41 Accepted in 316. 42 Accepted in 37. 43 Accepted in 39. 44 Accepted in 40. 45 Accepted in 41. 46 Accepted in 42. 47 Accepted in 72. 48-49 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 73-77 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 76-77. Accepted in 38. Accepted in 79-80 Accepted 58 and 62. 55-57 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 82. Hereby accepted. 60-61 Accepted in 81-84. 62 Hereby accepted. 63-65 Accepted in 46 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 43 and 45. Accepted in 88. Accepted in 89-90. 69-70 Accepted in 85-86. 71 Accepted in 90 and 92-93. 72-77 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 32 and 44. Hereby accepted. None proposed. Accepted in 33. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 50. Accepted in 51. Accepted in 49 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 87-88 Accepted in 52. 89-90 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 53 and 58 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 54. Accepted in 56. Accepted in 58. 95-96 Accepted in 59. Accepted in 60. Accepted in 61. The Department's and Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 7. Accepted in 8. Accepted in 11. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 9-10. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 16. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 61. Accepted in 11 and 19-20. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 24-25. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 27. Accepted in 36-38. 22-37 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 43. Accepted in 88. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 31. 42-43 Accepted in 44. Accepted in 43 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 42. Accepted in 42 and 46. Accepted in 46 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 46. Accepted in 50. Accepted in 46. 52-53 Accepted in 48. Accepted 49. Accepted in 49, 52 and 54. Accepted in 50. Accepted in 51. Accepted in 54 and 57. 59-60 Accepted 54. 61-63 Accepted in 54 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 55. Accepted in 56-57. 66-67 Accepted in 58. 68-70 Accepted in 59. Accepted in 64. Accepted in 58 and 62. Accepted in 60 and 62. Accepted in 63. Accepted in 67. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 67 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 37 and hereby accepted. Not relevant. Accepted in 86. Hereby accepted. 82-83 Accepted in 86. Accepted in 87. Accepted in 89 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 90. Accepted in 90 and 92-93. Accepted in 93. 89-90 Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 72-78. Accepted in 69-71. Accepted in 70. Accepted in 73-74 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 75. Accepted in 76. Accepted in 77. Accepted in 78. Accepted in 79-80. 101-102 Accepted in 82. Accepted in 83. Accepted in 83-84. Accepted in 81 and 84. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dan Stengle, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Brion Blackwelder, Esquire Jack Milbery, Esquire 8751 West Broward Boulevard, #206 Plantation, Florida 33324 Sherry A. Spiers Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Tracy Lautenschlager, Esquire Broward County Attorney's Office 115 South Andrews Avenue Suite 423 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Glenn Smith, Esquire Michael A. Cohn, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 200 East Broward Boulevard Post Office Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Honorable Gerald F. Thompson Chairman, Broward County Board of County Commissioners Governmental Center 115 South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether City of Miami Ordinance 12911, which amends the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), is a small-scale development amendment, as defined by Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) whether Ordinance 12911 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (Statutes refer to the 2007 codification.)
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following facts are determined: The Property Subject to the FLUM Amendment TRG-MH Venture, LTD. (TRG-MH), is a Florida limited partnership formed for the purpose of purchasing and developing a parcel of property in the southeast corner of a larger, 40- acre parcel owned by Mercy Hospital, Inc. (Mercy). TRG-MH and Mercy have executed a purchase and sale agreement for this corner parcel, which is located at approximately 3663 South Bayshore Drive in the Coconut Grove area of Miami, Florida (the Site). TRG-MH hired an architectural firm, Arquitectonica, to design on the Site a proposed residential development named 300 Grove Bay Residences (the Project). The Site, which currently serves as a paved parking lot for Mercy Hospital employees, measures 6.72 acres. The Site is abutted on the north, northwest, and northeast by the rest of the 40-acre parcel owned by Mercy and used for its hospital, professional offices, and patient and visitor parking. The tallest of these buildings is 146 feet. To the north of Mercy's property and medical complex is another 30-plus acre parcel owned by the Catholic Diocese of Miami and used for La Salle High School and a religious facility, Ermita de la Caridad. Abutting the northern boundary of the La Salle High School property is Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. To the west of the Site are a small convent, an administration building, and a modest-sized assisted living facility. To the west of these buildings is South Bayshore Drive, which is a four-lane road. Single-family residential neighborhoods are west of South Bayshore Drive. The Site is abutted on the southwest, south, southeast and east by Biscayne Bay. Grove Isle, a three-building, 18- story condominium/hotel/marina complex, is located on a small, man-made island (Fair Isle) in the Bay to the south of the Site. It is located approximately 1,300 feet from the Site and is separated from the Site by Bay water. Grove Isle has a future land use designation of Medium Density Multifamily Residential (M/D Residential) and is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-3). However, Grove Isle is a legal nonconformity because it exceeds the densities allowed in M/D Residential and R-3. To the southwest of the Site, but separated from the Site by Bay water, are single-family and medium-density dwellings, including several multifamily structures. Petitioners Bloch and Steen reside in this neighborhood. No property zoned single-family residential (R-1) abuts the Site. Currently a paved parking lot, the Site has no archeological, environmental, or historical significance. Miami-Dade County had designated all of the City as an "Urban Infill Area." This designation is made in the County's Comprehensive Plan and is implemented in Policy LU-1.1.11 of the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The Parties The Vizcayans, Inc. (The Vizcayans), is a not-for- profit Florida corporation of volunteer members and a paid staff consisting of: an executive director, a membership director, and a controller. The purpose of the organization is to support the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens (Vizcaya), a publicly-owned and operated museum, through contributions and fundraising events. The Vizcayans' office at 3251 South Miami Avenue is located on the grounds of Vizcaya. The Vizcayans submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM Amendment and appeared in person and through lawyers at the City Commission hearings. The Respondent and Intervenors stipulated that The Vizcayans have standing as affected persons under Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to challenge the small-scale development amendment in this proceeding based on allegations that The Vizcayans operate a business in the City. Miami-Dade County owns Vizcaya. By contract, The Vizcayans provides funds annually to Miami-Dade County for use in maintaining Vizcaya's properties and conducting educational programs. Any funds in excess of those owed to the County under the contract are used to pay staff and host fundraisers or are invested for future use. Vizcaya is governed by the County through the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, which is an agency of Miami-Dade County. Jason Bloch and Constance Steen reside in the City and own properties to the southwest of the Site. Glencoe is a not- for-profit corporation of homeowners in the Glencoe neighborhood to the southwest of the Site. Mr. Bloch formed the corporation during the pendency of the application proceedings for the primary purpose of opposing the proposed development of the Site. Bloch, Steen, and Glencoe submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. Grove Isle is a not-for-profit Florida corporation of condominium owners. Grove Isle submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. The City and Intervenors stipulated to Grove Isle's standing in these proceedings. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City adopted its Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, including its FLUM, in 1989. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM have been amended from time to time as allowed by law. TRG-MH is a joint venture limited partnership. Its direct and indirect participants include Ocean Land Equities, Ltd., and The Related Group. TRG-MH contracted to purchase the Site from Mercy and applied to the City for the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. TRG-MH also submitted applications for a change of zoning and MUSP on the Site. The zoning and MUSP applications, and the resulting City ordinance and resolution arising from their approval, are not at issue in this proceeding. Mercy is a not-for-profit Florida corporation that owns and operates Mercy Hospital. Mercy has contracted to sell the Site to TRG-MH. The FLUM Amendment In June 2007, TRG-MH applied to the City for a small- scale development amendment to change the Site's land use designation on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities (M/I) to High Density Multifamily Residential (H/D). TRG-MH submitted its application concurrently with its applications for a zoning change from G/I to R-4 and for a MUSP. According to the FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH was seeking a map amendment for a 6.723-acre parcel of real property. With its FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH submitted a survey prepared and certified by surveyors Fortin, Leavy & Skiles. The survey depicted: the Site, as a parcel with a "net lot area" of 6.723 acres; a Proposed Road, measuring 1.39 acres, that wrapped around the Site on its west and north sides (the Perimeter Road); and a Private Road, also known as Tract "C" or Halissee Street, measuring .95 acres, which accesses the Site and Perimeter Road from South Bayshore Drive. Accompanying the survey was a legal description for the Site, which included a description for the proposed new Perimeter Road abutting the Site. The legal description covered an area comprising 8.11 acres. Also accompanying the application was a traffic analysis showing the impact to existing road networks of traffic resulting from the proposed MUSP application, which sought to build 300 residential units on property currently having no existing residential units. TRG-MH's applications were reviewed by the City's Planning Department and its Planning Advisory Board (PAB). The City's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use designation change. The PAB's 3-3 tie vote operated as to deny the request for a change of the land use designation recommendation. On April 26, 2007, the City Commission voted to approve the FLUM amendment application and, with modifications, the accompanying zoning and MUSP applications. (The City Commission approved the zoning change and MUSP subject to the condition that the size and scale of the Project be reduced by 25 percent across the board. Thus, for example, the height of the tallest of the three condominium buildings was reduced from approximately 411 feet to 310 feet.) The FLUM change was adopted by Ordinance 12911, which the Mayor signed on May 7, 2007. Ordinance 12911 amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation "for the property located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated." Exhibit A to the ordinance was the legal description included on the Fortin, Leavy, Skiles survey. The section of the MCNP entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various future land use categories in the Plan. It describes the Major Institutional future land use category as follows: Major Institutional Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities: Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, and major transportation facilities and public utilities. Residential facilities ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) at 21 (June 2006). The same section describes the H/D Residential, in pertinent part, as follows: Areas designated as "High Density Multifamily Residential" allow residential structures to a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. MCNP at 20 (June 2006). (By way of comparison, M/D Residential is described similarly except that the maximum density is 65 dwelling units per acre.) According to the MCNP, the FLUM land use designations "are arranged following the 'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion, whereby subsequent categories are inclusive of those listed previously, except as otherwise noted." Ordinance 12911 was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required for text changes and large- scale FLUM changes to a comprehensive plan. On June 4 and 6, 2007, Petitioners filed their petitions challenging the FLUM Amendment. Generally, the Petitioners alleged that the FLUM Amendment did not qualify for treatment as a "small-scale" development amendment; was internally inconsistent with other provisions of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; was not supported by adequate data and analysis; and was not "in compliance" with Florida's Growth Management Act and its implementing regulations. Scale of the FLUM Amendment A small-scale development amendment may be adopted if the "proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." § 163.3187(1)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. According to the survey and architectural plans on file with the City, the "net lot area" of the Site measures 6.72 acres. The City Zoning Code defines "net lot area" as "[t]he total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights-of- way or other required dedications." § 2502, City Zoning Code. In determining how large (in square feet of floor area) the planned Project could be, the architects were permitted, under the City's zoning regulations, to multiply the "floor area ratio" (FAR) for the High Density Multifamily Residential zoning classification by an area larger than the "net lot area." See § 401, City Zoning Code. The Zoning Code allows the maximum square footage to be calculated using the Site's "gross lot area." Id. The City Zoning Code defines "gross lot area," in pertinent part, as "[t]he net area of the lot, as defined herein, plus half of adjoining street rights-of-way and seventy (70) feet of any other public open space such as parks, lakes, rivers, bays, public transit right-of-way and the like." § 2502, City Zoning Code. If the "gross lot area" to be used to calculate the maximum square footage involves properties under different ownership, either the owners must apply jointly for a MUSP, or they must enter a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title. Properties joined by a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title need not have the same land use designation or zoning classification. If a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title is required, it need not be submitted to the City until building permits are sought. At present, no covenant-in-lieu of unity of title has been prepared or executed for the Site. The "gross lot area" used to calculate the Project's maximum square footage of floor area measured 11.44 acres. Thus, the Petitioners argued that the FLUM Amendment "involved a use" of more than 10 acres. But the application requested a land use designation change on only 6.72 acres of land. Because High-Density Multifamily Residential use will not be made of the proposed Perimeter Road, the access road known as Halissee Street, or the proposed Bay Walk, a land use designation change was not required for that acreage. Indeed, according to the amended FLUM, there is no land use designation applied to Halissee or to the northern part of the Perimeter Road. Moreover, use of Halissee Street, the Perimeter Road, and the Bay Walk is not exclusive to the 6.72 acres but will remain shared with Mercy Hospital, its patients and employees, as well as with the public. The Petitioners attempted to prove that a marina was planned to serve the development, which would involve a total use of more than ten acres for residential purposes. Even if a marina was initially contemplated, the application on file with the City does not include one, and there are no approved plans for a marina to be incorporated into the proposed residential development. No marina is required to be developed in connection with the 300 Grove Bay project. Moreover, there was unrebutted evidence that it is highly unlikely that a marina would ever be permitted under the statutes now regulating Biscayne Bay. There is no evidentiary support for including any part of Biscayne Bay in the acreage subject to the small-scale FLUM Amendment because of a possible marina so as to support the Petitioners' claim that Ordinance 12911 should not have been processed as a small-scale amendment. Suitability and Compatibility of FLUM Amendment The Site is a parking lot. It is not environmentally sensitive and has no significant natural or archeological resources that would make it unsuitable for High Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Major Institutional accommodates the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the Mercy Hospital complex, which are compatible with and actually part of Coconut Grove. However, as pointed out by the City and the Intervenors, Major Institutional also allows future land uses that could be less compatible with the surrounding land uses, including the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the residential neighborhoods of Coconut Grove. While a lower density residential future land use would be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding uses, the issue in this case is the density allowed by H/D Residential--up to 150 residential units per acre, which Petitioners contend is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and inconsistent with previous efforts to protect Vizcaya and Coconut Grove from the intrusion of high- density residential development. The Petitioners also contend that the FLUM Amendment is not suitable on the bayfront. Suitability on the Bayfront The Petitioners contend that H/D Residential is not suitable on the bayfront for reasons related mostly to aesthetics and views. While it certainly would be possible and reasonable for a community to decide not to allow dense and intense development on significant water bodies, it was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the City has done so, or that H/D Residential is unsuitable on the Site for that reason. 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report The City's 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("2005 EAR") focused on two citywide issues relevant here: (1) the preservation and enhancement of historic and similar resources; and (2) neighborhood integrity and the need to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development. Vizcaya Museum Gardens Industrialist James Deering built Vizcaya in 1916 as a winter home. The land Deering purchased in the early 1900s was developed into a 180-acre estate that included his Mediterranean-style home, Italianate gardens, farms, orchards, and lagoons. The mansion and gardens were designed by three well-known architects and designers and constructed using local materials. When Deering died nine years later in 1925, Vizcaya was left to his heirs, who eventually sold the south gardens and western agricultural fields to the Catholic Diocese. The southern acreage (which included the Site) was later developed into a church (Ermita de la Caridad), a school (La Salle), and medical and hospital facilities (Mercy). The Diocese sold the western acreage, which was eventually developed into single- family-home subdivisions. In the 1950s, the Deering heirs sold the remaining property, consisting of the mansion, gardens, and farm buildings, to Dade County. In 1952, Dade County opened Vizcaya to the public. Since then, the County has operated Vizcaya as a museum, which has welcomed thousands of visitors annually and is a popular site for tourists, social functions, and photo shoots. The Vizcaya mansion and gardens have historical, architectural, and botanical significance. The mansion is an "architectural masterpiece" and an "outstanding example of Italian Renaissance Revival architecture." Vizcaya has been on the National Register of Historical Places since 1977; it was designated as a City Heritage Conservation District in 1984; and, in 1994, it was designated a National Historical Landmark-- one of only three in Miami-Dade County. The southernmost part of Vizcaya's gardens is approximately 1,600 feet from the FLUM Amendment Site, and the mansion is approximately 2,300 feet from the Site. For the specific purpose of objecting to the 300 Grove Bay project, The Vizcayans commissioned the Vizcaya Viewshed Impact Assessment, which is referred to as the "balloon" study, and the Vizcaya View Corridor Study. According to the balloon study, the 300 Grove Bay condominiums would be visible from the balcony on the south side of the mansion. Although the balloon study was based on the original Project building heights and not re-done using the reduced heights in the zoning and MUSP approvals, the Petitioners' witnesses said that the Project would still be visible through the existing landscape, even at the reduced height. The Petitioners' witnesses opined that the development of 300 Grove Bay would "overpower and overshadow" the gardens on the south side of the mansion. No federal, state, or local statutes, rules or ordinances, including those relevant to this proceeding, protect the view corridors of Vizcaya's gardens. Coconut Grove The area known as Coconut Grove was settled in the late 1800s and was considered "off the beaten path" from the City which was incorporated in 1896. Coconut Grove was incorporated as a separate municipality in 1919, but in 1925 it was annexed to the City, as were five other municipalities. Petitioners' witnesses observed that Coconut Grove is the only one of these towns that has continued to retain a unique and recognizable character. Vizcaya and Mercy Hospital, including the parking lot site, are located in the northern area of Coconut Grove. Coconut Grove is primarily, but not entirely, a residential community. Coconut Grove has an active "downtown" business, commercial, and hotel district. The Petitioners maintained that the northern area of Coconut Grove is primarily single-family residential. However, it also includes a non- conforming high-density development (Grove Isle), medium-density residential, Mercy Hospital and its professional buildings, an assisted living facility, a school, a church, and governmental office buildings, as well as two museums (Vizcaya and the Museum of Science). A Coconut Grove Planning Study was commissioned and printed in 1974, but the City never adopted it; therefore, it has no official status. The Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District In 2005, the City adopted by ordinance the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3). See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. According to the Code, a Neighborhood Conservation District is an "umbrella land use designation overlay," which allows for the tailoring of a master plan or of design guidelines for any area that meets certain criteria. See § 800, City Zoning Code. The intent of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District is to "[p]reserve the historic, heavily landscaped character of Coconut Grove's residential areas and enhance and protect Coconut Grove's natural features such as tree canopy and green space." § 803.1, City Zoning Code. NCD-3 does not specify the High-Density, Multifamily Residential (R-4) zoning classification. But that does not mean that NCD-3 does not allow R-4. NCD-3 is enabling legislation that imposes greater restrictions within a geographic "overlay" for the zoning classifications addressed in Section 803.3. So far, NCD-3 has not addressed G/I and R-4 but only Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial Districts. See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. For that reason, the ordinance does not apply to the Site. The "Grovenor Ordinance" The so-called Grovenor Ordinance was the City's response in July 2004 to the construction of a high-density residential project on property in Coconut Grove zoned "G/I Government and Institutional." The Grovenor Ordinance amended subsection of Section 401 of the City's Zoning Code to provide in pertinent part: G/I Government and Institutional Intent and Scale: The government/institutional category allows the development of facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious, or educational activities, major transportation facilities, public utilities, and public and private cemeteries. Uses ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, subject to the same limiting conditions. Intensity: For residential uses: As for the least intense abutting zoning district. . . . * * * Permitted Principal Uses: Governmental and institutional uses as described in the City of Miami Comprehensive Development Plan designation of "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities", however for accessory non-governmental or institutional uses-only such uses as may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense abutting zoning district . . . . § 401, City Zoning Code. The Grovenor Ordinance applies to property that is zoned G/I. The City's and Intervenors' witnesses testified that it applies only if G/I-zoned property ceases to be used for governmental or institutional purposes and is used instead for residential purposes. However, from the language of the ordinance itself, it is beyond fair debate that it also applies to G/I-zoned property that is used both for government or institutional uses and for ancillary residential uses. Clearly, without a FLUM change to a higher-density residential zoning category, in Coconut Grove the residential use on the Site would be restricted to the zoning classification of the "least intense abutting zoning district." Since it pertains to zoning, the Grovenor Ordinance does not directly apply to the issue of whether a FLUM amendment is "in compliance." However, it has some bearing on the proper interpretation and application of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP's future land use designations, which is important to the issues for determination in this case. The Pyramid Concept The City and the Intervenors rely heavily on their interpretation of the MCNP's pyramid concept of cumulative future land use designations to support the FLUM Amendment in this case. According to them, the FLUM Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses because high-density multi-family residential use already is a permitted use as a matter of right for land designated "Major Institutional." Similarly, they maintain that, under the "pyramid" concept, high-density multi- family residential use is permitted as a matter of right in all of the commercially designated land in Coconut Grove. But it is beyond fair debate that their interpretation of the "pyramid concept" is incorrect. As indicated, the "'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion" applies "except as otherwise noted." In the Major Institutional future land use category, it is noted that residential facilities with densities equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" (i.e., up to 150 units per acre) are permitted only if "ancillary" to the listed major institutional uses. Similarly, in the General Commercial future land use category, it is noted that high-density residential uses "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." If the "pyramid concept" authorized high- density multi-family residential use as a matter of right on land designated either Major Institutional or General Commercial, there would be no reason to limit those uses by notation. Under the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, free-standing high-density multi-family residential use of up to 150 units per acre is not already permitted as of right in either the Major Institutional or the General Commercial land use categories. Compatibility Notwithstanding the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that High Density Multi Family Residential future land use on the Site is incompatible with the surrounding uses or is inappropriate. The lower density residential and other less intense future land uses in the MCNP are buffered from the Site by Biscayne Bay and by Medium Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Vizcaya is buffered from the Site by Mercy Hospital and related medical facilities and by La Salle High School. The compatibility of a specific density of residential development on the Site with less dense residential use in Coconut Grove and with Vizcaya, including issues regarding building height and intrusion into Vizcaya's view corridors, can be addressed through zoning and MUSP proceedings. Data and Analysis Data and analysis is another matter. Because of their incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the City and the Intervenors took the position that the FLUM Amendment constitutes "down-planning" and that the City was not required to perform the same level of analysis as it would have if the amendment sought a designation that permitted uses of greater impact, density, and/or intensity. The experts disagreed on whether "down-planning" is a concept in land use planning that can eliminate or minimize the requirement for data and analysis. In any event, the FLUM Amendment in this case could not be characterized as "down- planning." See Findings 57-59, supra. The MCNP's pyramid concept does not dispense with the need for data and analysis, and the data and analysis in this case was minimal and inadequate. The primary data and analysis in this case was the "Analysis for Land Use Change Request" (Analysis) that resulted from the City staff's review. After identifying the proposed land use designation and the uses permitted on it the Analysis recommended "Approval" of the FLUM Amendment and made four findings in support of "the position that the existing land use pattern in this neighborhood should be changed. These findings are as follows: It is found that the subject property is part of the Mercy Hospital and do [sic] not front South Miami Avenue. It is found that the "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation & Utilities" category allows 150 residential units per acre and the requested "High Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow a maximum density of 150 residential units per acre. It is found that the requested change to "High-Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow greater flexibility in developing the property at the above described location and therefore should be changed as part of the MUSP. It is found that MCNP Goal LU-1 maintains a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods, and (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts. Id. (Emphasis in original.) As to the City’s third finding, a particular developer's flexibility is irrelevant to the determination of whether the land use change is consistent with the MCNP. To the extent that flexibility in general could be relevant to the inquiry, the finding was incorrect. While allowing a free- standing high-density residential project that would not otherwise be possible, the FLUM Amendment eliminates all of the non-residential uses permitted within the "Major Institutional" category. The second finding was based on the City's incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP, which led the City to wrongly equate a primary use with an ancillary use and to simply assume no population increase would result from the FLUM Amendment, and that the FLUM Amendment would result in "down-planning." Attached to the City's Analysis was a separate "Concurrency Management Analysis," which addressed in summary form the data and analysis generated by the applicant and by the City's staff to address the "impact of [the] proposed amendment to land use map within a transportation corridor." The "Concurrency Management Analysis" also was predicated on the assumption that the FLUM change to HD Residential would not increase population. Essentially, it assumed without any data or analysis that infrastructure was available for 1,008 people living on the Site, even though the Site is being used as a parking lot at this time. This data and analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. As to transportation, there was additional evidence of a traffic analysis performed by the City in support of the Project’s MUSP. This MUSP traffic analysis utilized a proper starting point of zero population on the Site at this time. It then projected the impact of the addition of 300 units. This was more than the 225 units ultimately approved in the MUSP but did not analyze the much larger potential increases in traffic that would be allowed under the FLUM Amendment, which is not limited to 300 units. There also was no data or analysis to show that limiting the analysis to 300 units was reasonable. It also only looked two years into the future. The MUSP traffic analysis also did not address the 2005 EAR finding that Bayshore Drive will be at level of service F by year 2025, without even any development on the Site. In short, the MUSP traffic analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. The City and Intervenor took the position that the designation of the entire City as an urban infill area meant that every parcel is appropriate for high-density multi-family residential development. This is not correct. It is still necessary to look at comprehensive plan to determine which areas are appropriate for that kind of future land use and to have data and analysis to support it. See Payne et al. v. City of Miami et al., 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885, *10-13 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2007) (on motion for rehearing). For these reasons, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment were inadequate. Inconsistency with City's Comprehensive Plan The Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with any MCNP goals, objectives, or policies. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners did not prove that the FLUM Amendment at issue is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order that the FLUM Amendment adopted by City of Miami Ordinance 12911 is not "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 10th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jason Gonzalez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney City of Miami Miami Riverside Center, Suite 945 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Patrick J. Goggins, Esquire Patrick J. Goggins, P.A. Sun Trust Building, Suite 850 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2811 John Charles Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A. 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6616 H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Stephen J. Darmody, Esquire Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP Miami Center - Suite 2400 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-4339 Lewis W. Fishman, Esquire Lewis W. Fishman, P.A. Two Datran Center, Suite 1121 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7848 John K. Shubin, Esquire Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 Southwest First Street, Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130-1610
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 (Plan Amendment) adopted by Bay County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, T & P Enterprises of Bay County, Inc. (T & P), is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in this state, and operates such business at 20016 Front Beach Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, is a resident of Bay County, Florida, and is the President of T & P, which operates a seasonal resort at 20016 Beach Front Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, submitted written comments in opposition to the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment at issue before the adoption of SSA 03-07. Intervenor, Barbara S. Harmon, owns a house located at 190 16th Street in Panama City, Florida. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in 1994. The Harmon property is located in the Laguna Beach subdivision. Mrs. Harmon was one of the property owners who petitioned the County for adoption of SSA 03-07. The Property The property affected by SSA 03-07 consists of twelve separate parcels of land totaling approximately 2.35 acres located in unincorporated Bay County. The property lies within a two-block area generally situated south of First Avenue, East of Wisteria Lane, and along both sides of 16th Street, which is west of the municipal boundaries of Panama City Beach in what is commonly known as the West Beaches. Two of the parcels subject to the Plan Amendment are located on the Gulf of Mexico south of Front Beach Road. The twelve parcels are not contiguous. The predominant type of structure on these parcels are one-story housing structures used primarily for residential purposes. Some of the structures are used as short-term or long-term rentals. Others, including the Harmons' house, are used as second homes during the summer season, or on weekends. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in Bay County in 1994. They reside there six to nine months a year. They also have a residence in Gadsden, Alabama. The Harmons bought their house in Bay County because they wanted a house close to the beach in a clean, quiet neighborhood. The area affected by the Plan Amendment is predominantly residential in character. The area is generally built-out as residential land use. The area has not substantially changed since the Harmons purchased their house in 1994. Background Bay County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The 1991 existing conditions map accompanying the Comprehensive Plan shows that most of the property in the West Beaches Area was "predominantly medium density residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." Mrs. Harmon testified that her house on 16th Street was designated Residential under the County's Comprehensive Plan at the time she purchased it in 1994. In 1994-1995, as part of its Comprehensive Plan evaluation and appraisal process, Bay County's planning staff undertook a "windshield survey" of the West Beaches Area. The windshield survey indicated that Laguna Beach 1st through 7th additions were platted or developed between 1938 and 1954, and consisted primarily of a mix of older single-family houses, mobile homes, multi-family buildings, and church buildings. The windshield survey reflected seasonal resort uses on the south side of Front Beach Road on the Gulf of Mexico. The windshield survey shows that the predominate land use in the West Beaches Area in 1994-1995 continued to be residential, as it was at the time of the 1991 existing conditions map. In December 1999, Bay County adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in which it created the SR FLUM category. Under the Plan, the purpose of the SR FLUM category is "to provide areas for a functional mix of compatible seasonal/resort land uses where the clientele are predominantly seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists." The uses allowed include beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, apartments or other similar multi-family structures, motels, lodges, restaurants, convenience stores, retreats, and lounges, bars, and other similar uses and public utilities." The criteria for designating areas as SR are "areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used for non-residential, tourist-oriented purposes." The Plan further provides that "Year-round, permanent residences should not be located in this area." The County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which was the data and analysis relied upon by Bay County for the 1999 plan amendments, defined these seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists as people who visit Bay County for an average 5.385 days. Terry Jernigan, the former Bay County Planning Director, testified that in developing the SR category, the County focused primarily on "typical summertime tourists" who stay for weekend, weekly, and monthly rental periods and attempted to identify areas that were tourist areas or were likely to become transient in nature in the future. Second homeowners and seasonal visitors were not considered when the SR category was developed. The SR Future Land Use Map category has also been applied in the beach areas of unincorporated Bay County located east of the municipal boundaries city of Panama City Beach. Development in that area includes large high-rise condominiums and hotels, bars, T-shirt shops, and night clubs. The SR category was also applied to a number of properties in the West Beaches Area that are indicated as residential uses in the County's official windshield survey, including the parcels that are the subject of the amendment at issue. Mr. Jernigan testified that an indicator of an area that was transient in nature was the large number of signs indicating that the properties were for rent. Mrs. Harmon testified that since she purchased her property in 1994, she had observed no signs advertising rentals in the area in which the properties subject to the amendment are located. Mrs. Harmon was motivated to seek the FLUM amendment from SR to Residential to prevent high-rise development, bars, T-shirt shops, and noise increases that she has observed in the SR category east of Panama City Beach. The applicants for the subject amendment are concerned that the SR category may adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Development of the Plan Amendment In the spring and early summer of 2002, Bay County began receiving "grass roots petitions" from property owners in the West Beaches Area requesting that either their future land use designation or zoning be changed from SR back to Residential. The petitions stated that the FLUM designations were changed without notice to the property owners. These petitions initially involved 400-500 parcels of land. In response to the grass roots petitions, the County identified several "target areas" where there were a large number of parcels generally contiguous to each other. At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, on August 28, 2002, County staff sent letters to individuals within the target areas asking them if they wanted the land use designated on their properties changed from SR to Residential and attaching a land use map application form. Allara Mills Gutcher, a County Senior Planner III, testified that the County wanted assurances that the petitioning property owners understood the nature of the change they were requesting. The County's letter directed to the property owners in the target areas not only asked if the owners wanted a land use designation change, but also indicated that a petitioning property owner would be required to pay the County a $1,100 fee to apply for the land use change. Although the letter indicated that the Board was considering waiving the fee, no evidence was presented that the Board made a decision on the waiver or that the approximately 180 property owners to whom the County had written had received further notice from the County regarding the $1,100 fee. Some County property owners, including Mrs. Harmon, complained to the County that the application fee discouraged a number of property owners from submitting FLUM amendment applications. The forms accompanying the County's August 28, 2002, letter also advised the property owners that small scale plan amendments could only be considered in connection with a specific plan of development or hardship, restrictions not contained in either the County's Plan or Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ms. Gutcher testified that only 20 responses to the County's letter were received. The Plan Amendment Summary Sheet on the subject amendment, however, indicates that a result of the mail out was the submittal of an application to change approximately 30 properties along Front Beach Road in another area, Sunnyside Beach, from SR to Residential. This amendment is known as the Centeno amendment, and was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in December 2002. One of the target areas of the mail out was the Laguna Beach Subdivision area where Intervenor Harmon's property is located. After receiving the County's August 28, 2002, letters and learning of the Centeno/Sunnyside small scale plan amendment, Mrs. Harmon spearheaded an effort to seek the subject small plan amendment in her neighborhood. She worked with County staff on the locations of properties to be included in the proposed amendment. Erroneously included in the first proposed plan amendment was The Laguna Beach Christian Retreat property on Front Beach Road, owned by Petitioners. Mrs. Harmon brought this error to the attention of County staff, and Petitioners' property was removed from the proposed amendment, leaving 16 lots included in the amendment package. County staff initially supported the 16-lot proposed small scale plan amendment in Mrs. Harmon's neighborhood in part because it included properties adjacent to First Avenue on the north and contiguous to properties currently designated Residential on the FLUM. Prior to and at the Planning Commission meeting at which the subject amendment was considered, three individuals owning four of the 16 lots withdrew from the plan amendment application. These withdrawals included the two lots on First Avenue contiguous to the existing Residential FLUM area, a lot on 16th Street, and a lot on Front Beach Road. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested FLUM change from SR to Residential on the 12 remaining parcels. County staff did not dispute the appropriateness of the Residential FLUM designation for the subjected properties, but did not support the plan amendment for the remaining 12 lots because of the configuration of the map. Ms. Gutcher testified that her objection was not to the actual land use designation of the subject land parcels, but to the configuration of the Plan Amendment which interspersed parcels designated SR with the residential parcels. The 12 lots subject to the Plan Amendment are not contiguous to existing Residential lands and there are SR lots adjacent to lots that were changed to Residential. Ms. Gutcher, however, stated that adjacency of future land uses is not a requirement of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Gutcher further testified that although she considered the Plan Amendment "poor planning" and did not support the Plan Amendment, she did not consider the Plan Amendment violative of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On June 3, 2003, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and voted to adopt small scale amendment No. SSA 03-07 amending the FLUM designation on the 12 lots from SR to Residential. Internal Consistency Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), require that all comprehensive plan amendments, including amendments to the FLUM be consistent with the other provisions of the applicable comprehensive plan taken as a whole. Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with several discrete provisions contained in the County's Comprehensive Plan; however, when taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Because the Plan Amendment at issue here amends the FLUM designation from SR to Residential, of particular significance to the analysis of internal consistency in this case is the County Comprehensive Plan's Residential FLUM Category. Policy 3.3.1. of the Future Land Use Element in the County's Plan provides that "criteria for designating land use categories on the FLUM and attendant standards for development shall be as shown on Table 3A." Table 3A contains the following criteria and standards for the Residential FLUM category: Purpose: To provide areas for a functional, compatible mix of residential land uses, and to protect property values in viable residential neighborhoods. Designation Criteria: Existing residential areas, residential subdivisions recorded with the Clerk of the Court prior to adoption of this Plan, areas adjacent to existing residential areas, "in-fill" of vacant areas otherwise surrounded by urban development, and low density rural community development. Allowable Uses: Those land uses typically associated with residential occupancy including single-family, duplex, triplex, quadraplex, and manufactured housing. These uses are generally coded as 100 to 900 on the DOR Property Use Code Table for property tax purposes. Public utilities, recreation, conservation. Limited public institutional uses and educational facilities (Policy 2.8.1) may also be allowed. The County Comprehensive Plan does not define the terms "residential occupancy" or "residential use." Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, setting out the minimum criteria for review of comprehensive plans, defines "residential uses" as "activities within land areas used predominantly for housing." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.003(108). In its compatibility analysis, the County described the subject area as "primarily developed as a single-family use today" "similar to current uses in the area." The area is an existing residential area. The predominant type of structure in the area is one-story residential structures used for housing. Except for one vacant lot, each property that is the subject of the amendment contains a one-story single-family residence. All houses on the amendment properties are used as homes, second homes or long-term rentals. None of the houses included in the Plan Amendment are rented on a short-term basis. The evidence demonstrates that the properties included in the Plan Amendment are now used for housing. All but one of the Plan Amendment properties are coded 100 on the tax code, which is the same as the DOR Property Use Code Table referenced in the Residential FLUM category in Table 3A of the Plan. One lot included in the Plan Amendment is vacant and is coded 0000 on the tax code. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the stated purpose, designation criteria for existing residential areas, and allowable uses for the Residential FLUM designation stated in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Many properties in the West Beaches area are rented; however, according to Mrs. Harmon, most properties that are subject to the Plan Amendment are not rented or are rented on a long-term basis. Neither the provisions of Table 3A describing the Residential FLUM category, nor the definition of "residential use" in Chapter 9J-5, distinguish between owner-occupied and rental housing use. One significance of a land use designation from a planning perspective is its impact on infrastructure. That impact is the same whether a house is rented or owner-occupied. Whether the structures are owner-occupied or rented is not a land use amendment compliance issue. Wendy Grey, Petitioners' expert witness, testified that the configuration of the Plan Amendment is not consistent with those portions of the Goal Statement in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan that express the County's goals "to promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development" and "to promote compatibility between land uses and reduce the potential for nuisances." Ms. Grey opined that leaving some properties designated SR surrounded by Residential properties does not promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development. That portion of the Goal Statement referring to an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development was taken directly from the intent sections of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The language governs the overall planning process of allocation of future land uses based upon infrastructure, natural resource protection and efficiency in terms of using existing infrastructure. It is based upon the purpose of the Growth Management Act to manage the extent, distribution and timing of future growth, discourage urban sprawl, and maximize existing infrastructure. These are terms of art under the Growth Management Act, and have nothing to do with drawing the polygons on the map. Tony Arrant, the County's expert witness, testified that the predominance of the small scale amendments he has seen focus on specific areas that have other land use classifications next to the parcel amended, just as with the Plan Amendment. Further, the Goal Statement also includes a statement that the plan should "protect viable neighborhoods." The amendment is consistent with this portion of the goal statement by designating an existing residential area for residential use. When read as a whole, the Plan Amendment is consistent with this Goal Statement. Designating residential properties for residential use is also consistent with the Goal Statement in the Housing Element of the Plan and with Housing Element Objective 8.5, which requires that the County preserve and protect the character, compatibility, and aesthetics of residential areas and neighborhoods. To make a land use amendment uniform throughout a block, connected to existing residential land uses, and following street rights-of-way helps with code enforcement issues and is easier for the public to understand. However, these are not compliance issues. The configuration of the Plan Amendment and the symmetry or lack of symmetry of the future land use map is not a compliance issue. Policy 3.2.1 of the Future Land Use Element governs amendments to the FLUM. It does not require any particular map configuration, or that FLUM boundary lines follow street rights- of-way. There is no express requirement in the Plan that FLUM boundaries must always follow roads. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 3.7.2. of the Future Land Use Element of the County's Plan. Policy 3.7.2. prescribes the general criteria for zoning districts shown on an Official Zoning District Map. This policy implements Objective 3.7, which provides that "By 2001, (the County will) adopt a zoning code to further the intent, and implement the objectives and policies of this Plan." The County has not yet adopted a zoning code. Petitioners specifically rely on the following criteria in Policy 3.7.2.: 4. District boundaries will be drawn so as to follow property lines, road rights-of way, geographic features, section lines, or other readily identifiable features. Where possible, district boundaries will be drawn so as to create buffers between potentially incompatible land uses. District boundary lines shall be drawn so as to minimize the potential for nuisances caused by incompatible land uses. Ms. Grey opined that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with Policy 3.7.2. because the FLUM boundary lines do not follow roads and other geographic features, making it difficult to implement Policy 3.7.2. when a zoning code is adopted. Ms. Grey, however, also acknowledged that it would be possible to draw a zoning map that is consistent with the Plan Amendment. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 3.9.1. which defines "compatibility" of land uses. Ms. Grey opined that interspersing SR with Residential land uses does not promote compatibility. The Plan Amendment recognizes the current use of the subject property. Under the broad categories of permissible uses for the SR designation there are many compatible uses. Moreover, Mrs. Harmon testified that she believes Petitioners are entitled to engage in their business activity, and that everyone in the West Beaches Area got along fine until the SR designation was adopted. The Plan Amendment can be viewed to support the compatibility of land uses because it is consistent with the land uses that are already there. Therefore, the Plan Amendment may serve to decrease the possibility of future incompatibility. It will provide a level of security for the areas that are residential in that any redevelopment of other developed properties will have to be reviewed in light of Comprehensive Plan policies requiring protection of viable residential areas. Additionally, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several of the many policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan to implement Objective 1.2. Policy 1.2.1.2 states that it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources consistent with the public interest. The subject property has historically been residential, the current use of the property is residential, and the interest of the public is served in continuing the residential nature of the property as indicated by the responses to the County's letter of August 28, 2002. Policy 1.2.1.3 states that a purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to overcome "present handicaps." Ms. Grey opined that if the SR category is a handicap, the Plan Amendment does not overcome it because there are still SR parcels around the subject property. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not define "present handicap" and there is no evidence that the SR category is a "present handicap." Policy 1.2.1.4 requires that the Plan deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land because the Plan Amendment does not address potential incompatible uses between SR and Residential. There are many permissible land uses, including beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, and apartments in the SR category that are compatible with the Plan Amendment. Moreover, Ms. Grey stated that a zoning map could be drawn consistent with the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment recognizes the land uses that currently exist on the subject property. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the land uses already there. Taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Ms. Grey opined that there was not adequate data and analysis to demonstrate that residential land use was the most appropriate or suitable for the subject property and within the public interest. Ms. Grey stated that the primary purpose for the Plan Amendment was to respond to individual requests to change the land use classification. She also believed that the lack of homestead exemptions for the majority of the area was data that supported the SR and not the Residential land use classification. Ms. Gutcher, however, testified that she reviewed appropriate data and the Plan Amendment was supported by the types of data and analysis typically provided for FLUM amendments listed in Policy 3.2.1. of the plan. These data included the national wetlands inventory, the ITE Journal for the Traffic Counts, and other data contained in the checklist in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. There was sufficient data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment, including the following: (a) the fact that the 1990 Plan designated the area as Residential; (b) the 1994 windshield survey identifying the area as residential; (c) the fact that the actual uses of the properties are for housing; (d) the existing residential character of the area; (e) the property owners' desire that their properties be designated Residential; and (f) the 1991 existing land use map identifying the area that is the subject of this case as "predominantly medium density, residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." The population projections in the County's EAR are required to include both resident and seasonal populations to arrive at a functional population. This number is then used to plan for the amount of residential, commercial land use authorized. Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, do not differentiate seasonal housing from permanent housing in forecasting future land use needs. There is adequate data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment.
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 concluding that the FLUM Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Bay County in Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 3205 Brentwood Way Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Law Office of Robert C. Apgar 320 Johnston Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Colleen M. Castille, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
