The Issue The issue is whether to approve the Petitioners’ application for a beneficial use determination (BUD) regarding their property on Ramrod Key, Florida, and if approved, to determine the type of relief that is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are taken from the parties’ joint pre-hearing stipulation, and the direct evidence adduced at the hearing. The Property The Petitioners’ property is located at 475 Brown Drive, Ramrod Key, in Monroe County. According to the Monroe County Property Appraiser, the size of the site is 0.95 acres. The property is vacant and contains disturbed and undisturbed wetland habitat. The property’s immediate vicinity is described as residential development of single-family units to the west and south, environmentally sensitive lands to the south and east, and open water to the north. The property is legally described as “being a portion of Tract ‘A’, Ramrod Shores Third Addition, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 108 of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida” having real estate number 00209971-004600. The property’s current Land Use Map Zoning Districts are Improved Subdivision (IS) and Native Area (NA). The property’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designations are Residential Medium (RM) and Residential Conservation (RC). The Tier Designation is Tier III Infill Area. Relevant Prior County Actions On December 19, 1972, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) passed Resolution No. 146-1972 approving the Plat of Ramrod Shores Third Addition and filed for record in Plat Book 6 at Page 108 of the Public Records of Monroe County. The landowner was James M. Brown, as Trustee. The subject property is within Tract A of this plat. In 1986, Monroe County adopted a revised set of zoning regulations via Ordinance No. 33-1986. Ordinance No. 33-1986 also approved a revised series of zoning maps (also known as the Pattison Maps) for all areas of the unincorporated county by reference. With the adoption of the 1986 Land Development Regulations and zoning maps, most of the Petitioners’ property was designated as IS zoning with a small portion as NA. In 1992, a revised series of zoning maps were approved (also known as the Craig Maps) for all areas of the unincorporated county. With the adoption of the revised (Craig) zoning maps, the Petitioners’ property remained designated as IS with a small portion as NA. In 1993, the County adopted a set of FLUM maps pursuant to a joint stipulated settlement agreement and section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. BOCC Ordinance No. 016-1993 memorialized the approval. The FLUM maps took effect in 1997 after approval from the state land planning agency. With the adoption of the FLUM maps, the Petitioners’ property was designated as RM and a small portion as RC. On March 23, 2015, the Petitioners were provided a Letter of Current Site Conditions for the subject property. The letter summarized the environmental habitats on the property and the applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The letter stated the KEYWEP score for disturbed portions of the wetland was 4.45. The score of 4.45 means the property was buildable, disturbed wetlands. The undisturbed wetlands consist of tidal mangroves and were by definition “red flag” wetlands. Disturbed wetlands may be developed under section 118-10, Monroe County Code. Development is not permitted in undisturbed wetlands where 100 percent open space is required. On November 24, 2015, the Petitioners applied for a building permit to construct a single-family detached residential dwelling unit. On December 4, 2015, the County’s Planning and Environmental Resources Department (the Department) sent the Petitioners a notice that the Department denied their building permit application number 15106233. The notice informed the Petitioners that the Department’s decision may be appealed within 30 calendar days. No appeal was filed to challenge the propriety of the Department’s decision. The Department’s December 4, 2015, notice stated that the Ramrod Shores Third Addition Plat shows that the Petitioners’ property is located within Tract A. Although Tract A was subdivided into seven parcels, this was never shown as lots on an approved and duly recorded plat. The Department determined that the property did not meet the definition of “lot” in section 101-1, Monroe County Code, and did not meet the residential density requirements of the IS Land Use District in order to allow the proposed development of a dwelling unit. See § 130-157, Monroe Cnty. Code. On December 7, 2016, the Department received the agent’s BUD Application, File No. 2016-202. On December 22, 2016, the Department sent the agent a Notice of Deficiencies pursuant to section 102-105, Monroe County Code, after the application was reviewed by staff to determine if the application was complete and included the materials and information listed in section 102-105(b). On January 6, 2017, the Department received additional materials and information from the agent. On January 27, 2017, the Department notified the agent that the application was determined to be sufficient. On March 28, 2017, the Department forwarded the BUD application to DOAH for adjudication. After the Petitioners sought to amend their application with a new basis for relief, DOAH relinquished its jurisdiction. On June 12, 2017, the Petitioners submitted an Amended BUD Application to the Department. After sending a second Notice of Deficiencies and receiving additional materials and information from the agent, the Department determined that the application was sufficient. The Amended BUD Application was suspended for 60 days, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 214-2017, as a temporary emergency measure after Hurricane Irma made landfall in the Florida Keys on September 10, 2017. On November 9, 2017, the Department forwarded the BUD Application to DOAH for adjudication. Petitioners’ Actions The Petitioners purchased the subject property on April 23, 1990. Between 1990 and 1991, the Petitioners submitted an application to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for an on-site aerobic septic system. At first, the HRS denied the application based on lot size issues. The HRS Variance Review Board recommended disapproval of the septic system application on June 7, 1991, on the grounds of insufficient lot size and an illegal canal. After the Petitioners failed to obtain HRS approval in 1991, they took no further steps to develop the property until they submitted an application for a Letter of Current Site Conditions on January 30, 2015, and an application for a single- family residence on November 24, 2015. Mr. Olynger testified that the Petitioners purchased the property because of the ocean view and expected to build a house on the property. He testified that after the HRS denials in the early 1990s, he started the process of trying to develop the property again in 2014 because central sewer was now available. IS Land Use District Due to the density requirements for the IS Land Use District of one dwelling unit per lot, the Petitioners are unable to construct a single-family home, which is an as-of- right use in the IS Land Use District. The IS Land Use District permits other as-of-right and conditional uses. While Mr. Olynger disputed the economic productivity of some of these uses, it was not disputed that the property could potentially be used for (a) recreational purposes; (b) a community park; (c) beekeeping; (d) wastewater system; (e) Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) points or transferable development rights (TDRs); or (f) sold to a neighbor for open space, yard expansion or an accessory use, such as a pool. Mr. Bond testified that that the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Code allow landowners competing for the limited number of building allocations in the point-based ROGO to buy and donate vacant parcels such as the subject property to increase their ROGO scores. The subject property qualifies as a ROGO Lot and there is an active secondary market of people buying and trading ROGO Lots in Monroe County. Mr. Bond also testified that the Petitioners could apply for Future Land Use Map and Land Use (Zoning) District Map amendments to a category that would allow for the construction of a single-family dwelling based upon an adopted acreage density standard. The Petitioners have not made any such applications. There was no direct evidence on the fair market value of the property, as encumbered by the regulation.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petitioners’ application for relief under section 102-104, Monroe County Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2018, 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 27th day of March, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Background The Parties Respondent, City of Hialeah (City), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive plans and amendments thereto. Petitioners, Edmond J. Gong and Dana L. Clay (petitioners), reside in Coconut Grove, Florida and own at least two parcels of property within the City. The parties have stipulated that petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to challenge the remedial amendment in issue here. The Nature of the Dispute In 1991 and 1992, the City adopted three sets of land use amendments to its comprehensive plan known as amendments 91-1, 91-2 and 92-1. Each set of amendments generated objections by the DCA, and the matters were later sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings and were assigned Case Nos. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM and 92-7517GM, respectively. Petitioners did not participate in any of these proceedings. To resolve the objections raised by the DCA, the City and DCA negotiated a stipulated settlement agreement in December 1993, which was executed by the City on January 28, 1994. Pursuant to that agreement, on April 21, 1994, the City adopted a remedial amendment (Ordinance 94-27) known as amendment 94R-1. After reviewing the amendment, on June 2, 1994, the DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent to find such amendment in compliance. On June 7, 1994, the South Florida Regional Planning Council also found the amendment to be in compliance. Finally, on July 11, 1994, the DCA's motion to dismiss Case Nos. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM and 92-7517GM was granted. Petitioners, who participated in the local hearings concerning the adoption of amendment 94R-1, timely filed their petition for administrative hearing on June 23, 1994, challenging the propriety of that amendment for various reasons. The petition was assigned Case No. 94-3506GM. Although petitioners failed to plead any procedural issues in the initial petition, respondents have agreed that petitioners may raise certain procedural objections regarding amendment 94R-1 since the procedural issues were raised in their objections and comments filed with the City during the adoption process of the amendment. Procedurally, petitioners argue that the local government did not comply with all statutory requirements in noticing its proposed approval of the settlement stipulation and its later intent to adopt an ordinance. As to the DCA, petitioners argue that the state agency did not comply with the law in publishing its cumulative notice of intent on June 2, 1994, and that the notice contained erroneous rule citations and lacked a geographical map. Substantively, petitioners complain that before final approval of amendment 94R- 1 was given, the local government and DCA did not consider the enactment of Chapter 94-338, Laws of Florida, which created a multijurisdictional tourism, sports and entertainment special district known as the Blockbuster Park Special District, and they did not consider the traffic impacts of a recently opened connector to Interstate 75 and an interchange within the City that connects traffic from the connector to the Florida Turnpike. Finally, they contend that the amendment improperly redesignated more than ten acres of land from residential to commercial land use. Amendments 91-1, 91-2 and 92-1 involve ten amendments to the plan, all originally found not to be in compliance by the DCA. To cure three of those deficiencies, the City rescinded three ordinances leaving seven plan amendments to be remediated. Petitioners challenge the validity of these seven amendments but none change the use on their property. In reality, though, petitioners rely principally on their procedural objections in seeking to have a determination made that the amendment is not in compliance. Were the Notice Requirements Met? After the DCA and City reached an agreement in principle to resolve the DCA's objections to the plan amendments, a settlement agreement was prepared for execution by the City's mayor and DCA Secretary. Before the mayor could sign the agreement, however, the City Council's approval and authorization were required. Such approval and authorization to sign the agreement came in the form of a resolution adopted at a public hearing held on January 25, 1994. The agreement was later signed by the mayor and DCA Secretary on January 28 and March 3, 1994, respectively. The City had originally intended to consider the item at its January 11, 1994 meeting. Timely publication of notice was given for that meeting on December 27, 1993, in the regular edition of The Miami Herald, a newspaper of general paid circulation published daily in Dade County. At the January 11 meeting, however, the City discussed the matter but then deferred final action on the item until its next meeting on January 25, 1994. Accordingly, it republished a notice of its January 25 meeting in the Zone 4 Northwest Neighbors section of the Herald. The Zone 4 Northwest Neighbors section is an insert in the Herald each Thursday and Sunday and contains news pertaining to the northwest portion of Dade County, including the City. Because all copies of the Herald delivered and sold in northwest Dade County contain this particular Neighbors insert, the City complied with the requirement that the advertisement be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation within the jurisdiction of the City. Since petitioners reside and work outside of northwest Dade County, they say they did not receive the Neighbors insert in their paper and thus they were not aware of the January 25 hearing. There is no requirement, however, that the advertisement be published in other parts of Dade County. It is noted that even though they should have received notice of the January 11 hearing through the advertisement published in the regular edition of the Herald on December 27, 1993, they did not attend the hearing. The four-inch notice published on page 15 of the January 16, 1994 edition of the Neighbors section reads as follows: At its regular meeting of January 25, 1994, the Hialeah City Council will consider the following Resolution in addition to other business. Members of the public are invited to attend; the meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. at Hialeah City Hall, 501 Palm Avenue, Hialeah, Florida. RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIALEAH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER A STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CASE NOS. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM AND 92-7517GM, ENTITLED "DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS VS. CITY OF HIALEAH" NOW CONSOLIDATED BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPART- MENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. Applicable state law (s. 163.3184(16), F.S.) called for the notice to be published at least ten days prior to the hearing. In addition, general provision 3 of the settlement agreement provided in part as follows: This agreement has been approved by the governing body at a public hearing advertised in an adver- tisement published at least 10 but not more than 15 days prior to the hearing in the format prescribed for advertisements in Section 163.3184(15)(c) and Section 163.3187. Assuming the day of the hearing is not counted in computing the ten days, the City would have had to publish the notice by Saturday, January 15, 1994, in order to meet the ten-day requirement. Because the Neighbors section was not published on Saturdays, but rather only on Thursdays and Sundays, the City opted to publish the notice on Sunday, January 16, 1994, or just nine days before the hearing. This was necessary since the item was deferred at the January 11 hearing, and the City presumably was unable to meet the deadline for having an ad published only two days later in the Thursday, January 13, 1994 edition of Neighbors. Even so, petitioners were unable to show any prejudice by virtue of the City failing to meet the ten-day notice requirement. The settlement agreement called for the City to adopt certain remedial amendments by ordinance. These amendments are contained in Ordinance No. 94-27. Although state law (s. 163.3184(16)(d), F. S.) requires that the City hold only one advertised public hearing on a compliance amendment at the adoption stage, in accordance with the City Charter, two hearings were scheduled for that purpose on March 22 and April 12, 1994. A single one-quarter page advertisement in the regular edition of the Herald was published on March 17, 1994, or five days before the first hearing. The law (s. 163.3184(15)(b)2., F. S.) also requires that the hearing be "approximately 5 days after the day that the second (i. e., adoption stage) advertisement is published." The advertisement referred to both hearing dates and noted that their purpose was "to receive comments from interested parties on the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the City of Hialeah and the Florida Department of Community Affairs related to the 1990 and 1991 Cycles I and II plan amendments to Hialeah's Comprehensive Plan." The advertisement also contained a list of the ten plan amendments and a map showing the portion of the City affected by each of those amendments. Although petitioners contended that the map was illegible in some respects, they nonetheless read the notice in the newspaper and attended both hearings to voice their objections to the ordinance. Notwithstanding petitioners' objections, on April 12, 1994, the City adopted the ordinance. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the City complied with the notice requirements for both hearings. Assuming arguendo that the statutory notice requirements were not strictly met, petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were prejudiced by such an error. After reviewing the ordinance, on June 2, 1994, the DCA published in the Neighbors section of the Herald a cumulative notice of intent to find the plan amendments and remedial plan amendment in compliance. The advertisement was one-quarter page in size, identified the plan amendments in issue, advised readers that the amendments were in compliance, gave a location where such amendments and comments could be reviewed, and offered a point of entry to affected persons. Therefore, its content was sufficient to inform the public of the action being taken. The DCA concedes that in the notice, however, it cited rule 9J-11.012(8) as the provision dealing with the contents of a petition to challenge the amendments found to be in compliance when in fact the correct citation should have been rule 9J-11.012(7). There is no section (8) in the rule. The notice also cited former rule 22I-6.010 as the rule dealing with intervention when in fact that rule has been renumbered as rule 60Q-2.010. Even so, petitioners were unable to show how they were prejudiced by these minor errors, especially since they knew the nature of the action being proposed by the DCA, and they timely filed their petition for hearing to challenge the amendment. The DCA policy is to publish its notice of intent to find an amendment in compliance in the same local newspaper as the local government uses for its publication. The DCA also pointed out that by advertising in the Neighbors section as opposed to the regular edition of the Herald, it saved several thousand dollars. Therefore, the DCA used the Neighbors section of the Herald. At the same time, the DCA has never included in its advertisement a map showing the location of the land use changes being proposed. This is because the local government advertisements have already included a map, and the DCA notice is simply for the purpose of advising the public which ordinances are in or out of compliance. In the absence of any showing of prejudice, and in view of petitioners' failure to demonstrate to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment as a whole is incompatible with, does not further or take action in the direction of realizing, the goals of the law, the cited procedural errors are insufficient to support a finding that amendment 94R-1 is not in compliance. The plan amendment Since 1986, petitioners have owned two parcels of undeveloped property in the southern one-half and northwestern one-quarter of Tract 24 of Section 28, which is located in the western part of the City. The property consists of approximately six acres located at the northeastern intersection of West 76th Street and the Hialeah-Hialeah Gardens Boulevard. The property has been designated on the future land use map as low density (single-family) residential, which allows up to twelve units per acre. Petitioners have not specifically pled or shown how amendment 94R-1 adversely affects their property. Instead, they simply argue that the plan amendment is not in compliance because the City did not consider the impacts of "drastically changed circumstances" before adopting the remedial ordinance, and the City improperly reclassified a small tract of land. These claims will be considered below. Effective June 3, 1994, Chapter 94-338, Laws of Florida, became law. That law created a multijurisdictional tourism, sports and entertainment special district more commonly known as Blockbuster Park. That legislation, however, is not relevant to this proceeding for several reasons. First, there is no mechanism to consider multijurisdictional impacts in the local planning process. Second, the special act did not become law until after the amendment process here had been completed. Since the City was only required to consider the best available data present at the time the amendment was being reviewed and adopted, consideration of the special law was neither necessary or appropriate. Third, the act itself does not authorize a development. If and when a development order is approved, the City can update its plan to take into account any impacts from the project. As to the contention that the City and DCA failed to take into account the six-lane connector road completed on December 31, 1993, or two years after the plan amendments were adopted, the impact of the connector road is identified and discussed on pages 21 and 23C of the future land use element contained in the remedial amendments. At hearing, it was further explained that the connector road is a limited access regional road under the control of Dade County, and not the City. This means that there is no access to the connector from properties which front on the road, and local access will be limited to three major road intersections. No land use changes along the road have been proposed, and the City has adequately addressed the circulation map requirements in the plan and how the internal circulation routes would be compatible with the major connectors. This being so, it is found that the City and DCA gave adequate planning consideration to the connector. Finally, petitioners contended that certain land was improperly redesignated from single-family residential to multi-family and commercial use. They complain that this is inappropriate since the land is close to a school and does not lie near a major intersection. The evidence shows, however, that such redesignation was appropriate since the land is located at an intersection and lies just across the street from an existing five-acre commercial tract. Moreover, the multi-family part of the tract will serve as a buffer between the commercial use at the intersection and the existing single-family use to the south. Then, too, the proximity of a nearby school to the west will serve to reduce trip time for persons shopping in the area while dropping off or picking up children from the school. Finally, some types of commercial use in residential neighborhoods can serve valid planning purposes, and the City has already established a pattern of having some schools located near commercially designated property. The redesignation is found to be reasonable and based on appropriate planning considerations. Although no proof was submitted by petitioners regarding any other parts of the plan amendment, respondents demonstrated that all remaining parts are supported by adequate data and analysis and are in compliance. Accordingly, petitioners have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that remedial amendment 94R-1 is not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining the City of Hialeah comprehensive plan amendment to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3506GM Petitioners: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4-20. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5-8. 21-24. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 27-29. Covered in preliminary statement. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. 32-35. Rejected as irrelevant. 36-38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 39-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 42. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent DCA: 1-12. Covered in preliminary statement. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 13. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 16-19. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6-8. 20-22. Partially accepted in finding of 9. 23-25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 29-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 31-55. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-17. Respondent City: Because the City's proposed recommended order was not timely filed, the undersigned has considered the contents of the proposed order but has not made specific rulings on each proposed finding of fact. See Sunrise Community, Inc. v. DHRS, 14 F.A.L.R. 5162 (DHRS, 1992), affirmed 619 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edmond J. Gong Ms. Dana L. Clay 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 370 Miami, FL 33126 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 William M. Grodnick, Esquire 501 Palm Avenue, 4th Floor Hialeah, FL 33010 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
The Issue Whether DOT should revoke permits Nos. 721-02 and 722-02 because the nonconforming signs originally permitted have been replaced with a larger structure? Whether DOT is estopped to revoke the permits on these grounds where authorized personnel verbally assured the permittee, and others not in the outdoor advertising business who acted in reliance, that the replacement was not unlawful, and later stated in writing that the permits or one of them was valid?
Findings Of Fact Since 1968 (T.83) "prior to the 1972 agreement with the Feds to control outdoor advertising," (T.23) sign boards in Franklin County facing east and west, on the north side of U.S. Highway 98, a federal-aid primary highway, about 26.85 miles east of the city limits of Apalachicola, have apprised motorists of the proximity of Bill Miller Realty's offices. On October 1, 1987, members of the Saunders family acquired Lanark Plaza, a shopping center near the signpost but invisible from the highway. After learning they would not be allowed to erert a sign within 1,000 feet of Mr. Miller's signs, they proposed a two-faced "directory sign for the shopping center, and" (T.78) Mr. Miller's office, to replace the existing structure. Subject to DOT approval, Mr. Miller agreed to continue paying permit fees if they would erect and maintain the new "directory sign." Before anything was done to effectuate the agreement, Mr. Miller spoke to the late Carlton Millender, "a very blunt man . . . [who] did what was right," (T.99) and who had worked as DOT's outdoor advertising inspector since 1981 for the area around the Carrabelle maintenance yard, including the site at issue. He was authorized to represent DOT on questions concerning the placement of signs and the validity of sign permits, and had turned down more than one sign proposal Saunders family members had made. Mr. Millender told Mr. Miller and, later, Christine Saunders that they could replace the sign that then existed with another, taller sign, but that they could not put up a sign any wider than the eight foot width of the sign faces then standing. "[I]f you are going to increase some height to it, he said, I don't see any objection to it, but I would suggest you write DOT in Chipley and get their blessing or whatever." (T.79-80). Mr. Miller did write DOT's offices in Chipley, to the attention of Milford C. Truette, and told him what [they] wanted to do, and that [he] had talked to the supervisor here, and it was almost getting time for renewing the permit anyhow. . . . [H]e requested that if there [was] any increase in the fee for raising the heigh[t] of the sign, please let [him] know. . . . (T. 80) He received no reply, which he told Mr. Millender. Meanwhile Ms. Saunders "had a man in Panama City draw the design" (T.96) and, toward the end of October or the beginning of November, showed Mr. Millender the completed design, Respondents' exhibit No.3., depicting a sign eight feet wide and about nine feet tall, five feet taller than the sign it was to replace. Mr. Saunders "presented a copy of the plans to Mr. Millender . . . [and they] talked at length about the enlargement of the sign, that it would not be made any wider, but it would be made taller. . . ." (T.101) "When he said that all [they] needed to do was send a letter stating that it was going to be enlarged, requesting a fee change, [she] took that to mean everything was in order," (T.106) and contracted to have the sign built. Eleven hundred dollars or more in materials went into the sign, which ended up being eight feet wide and approximately eleven feet tall. The Saunders worked on it themselves and they hired a laborer at ten dollars an hour. In mid-February of 1988, they took the old sign down and put the new sign up in its place, "within the jurisdiction of the DOT because it's . . . within a certain distance of highway 98." (T. 36) . The sign stands on land owned by Arthur T. Allen, Jr. "on the corner of the . . . second tee" (T. 87) of the Lanark Village Golf Club's golf course. The privately owned club charges fees for use of the course, which lies within an area designated R-1 on detail map B of the Franklin County zoning map, DOT's Exhibit No.3., adopted by reference on June 22, 1981. Nobody signed or sealed the detail map, which was not available for review until the night the County Commission adopted it. Although James T. Floyd, formerly the county planner, testified the detail map was in a sense unreliable and inaccurate, "it is the only document available" (T.72) to show existing zoning. According to the map, not only the shopping center, which "has been commercial since the 1940's, really" (T.72) but the pumping station, as well, lie within the R-1 residential zone. The parties stipulated that the future land use map filed and adopted with Franklin County's comprehensive plan in 1981 designated the area "low density residential." (T.76) On March 2, 1988, DOT's Mr. Truette visited the sign. At some point, Mr. Truette had spoken to a Mr. Kubicki, who was concerned about the legality of the new structure. After the site visit, on March 10, 1988, with knowledge of the new sign's size, and that the new structure was taller than the old, having been informed of the zoning in the area, and fully aware of the controversy surrrounding the sign, Mr. Truette wrote Mr. Floyd, then still in Franklin County's employ: "This is to inform you that state sign permit number 721-01 is a valid permit." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. At hearing, Mr. Truette said he had meant only that the permit had not yet been revoked. It was he who signed the notice of violation on June 3, 1988.
Recommendation In accordance with the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That DOT dismiss the notice of violation, and take no action against permits Nos. 721-02 and 722-02. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1989 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 February, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, and 3 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except that Truette's meeting with Floyd was not the first contact he had with anybody about the sign. Whether or not the record established the month of Mr. Millender's death, the parties agree that he died in January. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 27 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 1, it was not clear just which members of the Saunders family owned what. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 12, while no money is to be paid Mr. Miller, he is to receive consideration in the form of upkeep. With respect to respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 21, they spent approximately $1100 plus whatever they paid the laborer. Respondents' proposed finding of fact No. 26 has been rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Bruce Culpepper, Esquire Haben and Culpepper, P.A. Post Office Box 10096 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact By applications dated July 30, 1979, the Respondent National Advertising Company applied for eight permits to construct four double-faced outdoor advertising signs on U.S 41 and Pine Island Road, in Lee County, Florida. The applications in question stated that the signs were to be located in an unincorporated area of Lee County zoned commercial or industrial. This was consistent with the official zoning maps of Lee County, which reflected that the property upon which the signs were to be located was zoned commercial. The applications were approved by the Department on July 31, 1979, and one structure was erected. This structure bears permit numbers 11293-10 and 11294-10. Subsequently, it was determined that the zoning on the subject property was agricultural rather than commercial as stated on the permit applications. This problem was caused by a transposition error on the Lee County zoning maps which mistakenly classified the subject property as commercial. On November 1, 1979, notices of violation of Chapter 14-10.05, Florida Administrative Code were issued against the permits which alleged that the structures were in violation of law due to inappropriate zoning. The inspector who approved the Respondent's applications relied upon the representation made by the Respondent that the zoning on the property was commercial and did not independently verify this information. In reliance on the Lee County zoning maps, a representative of the Respondent entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the property on which the signs were to be located, secured Department of Transportation permits and, subsequently, county building permits. Following the erection of the first sign, the Department was informed by another sign company that the zoning on the property was improper. The Department "red-tagged" the completed sign and the remaining permitted structures, thus halting further construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Florida Department of Transportation revoking permit numbers 11293-10, 11294-10, 11296-10, 11295-10, 11299-10, 11297-10 and 11298-10, issued to the Respondent National Advertising Company to construct four double-faced outdoor advertising signs on U.S. 41 in Lee County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30 day of June, 1983.
The Issue Whether the Plan Amendments to the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance Number 2001-18, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or are not "in compliance" as alleged in the petitions of The Sierra Club (Sierra) and Ellen A. Whitmer (Whitmer).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Sierra Club. Sierra alleged in its Petition that it "does business in St. Johns County and has a substantial number of members who reside in and own property in St. Johns County." Sierra is registered as a California corporation and maintains offices in St. Petersburg and West Palm Beach, Florida. The National Organization of Sierra publishes Sierra Magazine, which members receive in the County. Sierra's basic mission is to provide an opportunity for its members to explore, enjoy, and protect the outdoors and natural systems, including those which exist in the County. The Florida Chapter of The Sierra Club (Florida Chapter) is subdivided into 10-12 "groups," including the approximately 1,400-member Northeast Florida Group, serving Duval, St. Johns, and Clay Counties, with approximately 325 members living in St. Johns County. There are approximately 24,000 Sierra members in the State of Florida. Sierra holds monthly meetings in the County. Speakers discuss various educational subjects with members attending the monthly meetings. Sierra members hike in the County, and canoe and kayak on, for example, the Tolomato and Guana Rivers. These activities can be expected to be enhanced if the Plan Amendments are approved and the approximately 1,630-acre preserve area dedicated as planned. Sierra has held fundraisers in the County for the benefit of the three-county Northeast Group. The Northeast Florida Group sends out monthly newsletters, published in and mailed from Duval County, and publishes the Sierra Sentry: Standing Watch on Northeast Florida. Sierra does not maintain a business address or bank account in the County; nor does Sierra own or lease real property, offices or buildings in the County. The Plan Amendments are not reasonably expected to constrain, inhibit, or prevent activities of Sierra's members, including their educational and permitting activities, although a Sierra member testified that the Plan Amendments would potentially "be adverse to [Sierra's] mission in terms of experiencing outdoors and the wildlife associated with the outdoors " Sierra submitted timely oral and written comments to the St. Johns County Commission between the time the County transmitted the Plan Amendment for review and the time the County adopted the Plan Amendment. Sierra made a presentation at the public hearing related to the Plan Amendments. Ellen A. Whitmer. Whitmer resides and owns property within the County and submitted timely oral and written comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments. The parties agreed Whitmer has standing. Intervenors. SONOC owns the property which is the subject of the future land use map (FLUM) Plan Amendment being challenged in these proceedings. SONOC submitted oral and/or written comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments. SONOC has expended approximately $3.5 million in the approval process. The PARC Group is the agent of SONOC, and is the applicant/developer of the Nocatee development, which is the subject of the Plan Amendments. The PARC Group submitted oral and/or written comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments. St. Johns County. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the County prepared an evaluation and appraisal of the Plan and an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (the "EAR") in January 1998. The EAR process allows local government to periodically assess the success or failure of their comprehensive plan. The EAR is subjected to a sufficiency review by the Department. In May 2000, the County adopted the EAR-Based Comprehensive Plan Amendment (EAR-Based Plan Amendment), with supporting data and analysis, which the Department found to be "in compliance." This included the data and analysis for the future land use element (FLUE), which was adopted as part of the Plan. (Joint Exhibit 7-A). This is part of the data and analysis used to support the Plan Amendments at issue in this proceeding. The Department's "in compliance" review became final agency action without challenge. St. Johns County is located in the northeast portion of the State of Florida, south of Duval County and Jacksonville. The St. Johns River separates the County from Clay and Putnam Counties to the west. Flagler County borders the County to the south. There are three (3) incorporated municipalities located within the County, i.e., St. Augustine, St. Augustine Beach, and the Town of Hastings. The County comprises approximately 423,580 acres. St. Augustine is the largest municipality in the County. Agriculture and silviculture are the leading industries in the County. The County has a large portion of silviculture lands and there are more than 2.5 million acres in Northeast Florida. The intensive agriculture areas of the County are located in the southern part of the County. The Plan Amendments will not adversely affect the economic viability of agriculture or silviculture in the County. A barrier island runs the length of the County, from the Flagler County line to Duval County. Interstate 95 runs north and south through the County and is west of St. Augustine. U.S. Highway 1 also runs north and south and east of Interstate 95 and runs parallel to Interstate 95. The Tolomato and Matanzas Rivers form the majority of the Intercoastal Waterway on the eastern portion of the County and separate the barrier island from the mainland portion of the County. The Guana River State Park and Guana River State Wildlife Management Area form a significant part of the barrier island adjacent to the Tolomato River. The Department. As the state land planning agency, the Department reviewed the Plan Amendments and timely filed a Notice of Intent to find the Plan Amendments "in compliance." The Challenges While Petitioners cite to numerous statutory and rule provisions in their petitions, the principle allegations, that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance," may be placed into three general categories: "need" and urban sprawl; natural resource protection; and economic feasibility. Under each of these general subject headings, Petitioners raise allegations that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapters 163 and 187, Florida Statutes, and that they are internally inconsistent with the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan. The Nocatee Plan Amendments On February 23, 2001, the County amended its Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No. 2001-18. The Ordinance contains four changes to the Plan. First, the Ordinance creates a new FLUE category known as "New Town Development" (Text Amendment). Second, the Ordinance changes the FLUM designation of approximately 11,332 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to New Town (Map Amendment). Third, the Ordinance changes the FLUM designation for approximately 1,630 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to Conservation (Preserve Amendment). (Petitioners are not challenging the designation of the Nocatee Preserve as "Conservation.") Fourth, the Ordinance adds text (Policy H.1.6.6) to the Plan authorizing the Nocatee DRI "to utilize the standards and guidelines set forth in [Section 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes] to satisfy the County's transportation concurrency requirements by payment of a proportionate share contribution is [sic] as stated in the Nocatee [DRI] Order, Special Condition 25, entitled Transportation Resource Impacts." (This latter provision allows the use of "pipelining" and is referred to herein as the Transportation Amendment.) These Plan Amendments are related to a proposed development known as "Nocatee." The New Town category was crafted to provide criteria and guidelines for large projects such as Nocatee. The acreage designated New Town by the Map Amendment is the proposed site of the Nocatee development. The acreage designated Conservation by the Preserve Amendment is for the purpose of establishing the "Nocatee Preserve." The Nocatee development will utilize the Transportation Amendment to address anticipated development impacts on the roadway system. These amendments and the Nocatee development are discussed in more detail below. Ordinance No. 2001-18 provides that "[t]he data and analysis supporting [these Plan Amendments] includes, but is not limited to, the Nocatee Application for Development Approval, Sufficiency Responses, and Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Order adopted concurrently with this Ordinance, application materials submitted by the Applicant and reports generated by the County Growth Management Department." Pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, projects which must undergo Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review are subject to a multi-agency, multi-issue review of the proposed development's impacts and a process for mitigating those impacts. A DRI is a development order issued by a local government. It pertains to approval for a specific type of development for a particular site. A comprehensive plan is a different type of document, which considers long-term planning for an entire jurisdiction, taking into account the cumulative effect of many developments, including consideration of projected supply and demand in the future. DRIs are subject to the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. One of the requirements for a DRI is that it be consistent with the requirements of the local government's comprehensive plan, a determination that is separate from that undertaken here. On the other hand, comprehensive plans and amendments, as here, must comply with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which defines "in compliance" as being consistent with Sections 163.3177, 163.3178, and 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. A plan amendment does not have to be consistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to be "in compliance." A DRI development order does not guarantee that the site will be developed or developed as approved. For example, the development order may be amended through the substantial deviation process, or a development order may expire. Applications for DRI approval are prepared and submitted to the appropriate regional planning council by the developer. These applications are submitted in response to a set of criteria that differ from those applicable to a plan or plan amendment. Some of the information provided by a developer in support of a DRI request may be relevant to the review of a plan amendment, as here. However, a DRI development order, in general, and the Nocatee DRI Development Order specifically, are not subject to an "in compliance" review in this administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. At the conclusion of the DRI process, if project approval is attained, the local government issues a development order. Section 380.06(15), Florida Statutes. The development order must include, among numerous other information, a detailed listing of each land use by acreage and magnitude. Rule 9J-2.025(3)(b)(5), Florida Administrative Code. This land use information from the DRI development order is incorporated into the County Plan for any approved New Town. See Finding of Fact 33. In this case, the Nocatee DRI Application for Development Approval (ADA) was reviewed by the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council as required by Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, (and by other agencies), and the Council recommended that the ADA be approved, with conditions. It was stipulated that "[i]n considering comprehensive plan amendments, there is no requirement that favorable consideration be provided to a proposed amendment solely because it is a DRI." See generally Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes. The Nocatee DRI "is a proposed mixed use development on approximately 13,323 acres, of which approximately 11,332 acres are located in northeastern St. Johns County . . . and approximately 1,991 acres are located in southeastern Jacksonville, Florida." On February 22 and 23, 2001, concurrent with its consideration of the Plan Amendments, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners considered the merits of the Nocatee DRI ADA and approved same through Resolution No. 2001- 30. Accordingly, while Ordinance No. 2001-18, adopting the Plan Amendments, expressly relies on, in part, the data and analysis in the Nocatee DRI ADA and related documents, including the Nocatee DRI Development Order, and Policy A.1.19.15 expressly refers to the Nocatee DRI and incorporates the "allowable uses and mix of uses within the Nocatee" DRI,1 the Nocatee DRI is not subject to "in compliance" review in this administrative proceeding. See 1000 Friends of Florida and Robert Jenks v. City of Daytona Beach and Department of Community Affairs, et al., 16 F.A.L.R. 2428 (DCA June 16, 1994). See also Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, 795 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(discussing the scope of Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes). The Text Amendment The Text Amendment adds Objective A.1.19, "New Town Development," to the Plan, which is a new future land use category. The purpose of this new land use category is described as follows: The New Town Future Land Use category shall guide development into a series of clearly identified and distinct villages that together form a larger New Town. Within the New Town there is a clear hierarchy of development types utilizing neighborhoods as the basic development unit. Several neighborhoods and one or two village centers combine to form a village, and several villages form a New Town. A central village functions as the Town Center Village, and includes the main employment[,] shopping, and cultural activities for the New Town. Villages shall have central focal points of higher densities and intensities that create an identity and a sense of place. The planned mix of uses of New Towns shall help to provide a positive fiscal impact for the County. New Towns shall offer a wide range of housing choices, including affordable housing. The New Town Future Land Use category may be requested for any Development of Regional Impact that meets the policies set forth herein. The Board of County Commissioners may approve or deny any New Town on a project-by-project basis, after the New Town review. The Text Amendment is proposed to be included in the County's Plan as FLUE Objective A.1.19 – which is quoted in full immediately above – and fifteen (15) implementing policies (Policies A.1.19.1 through A.1.19.15). Unlike many of the other land use categories in the Plan, which are defined only by the statutorily-required minimum list of allowable uses and standards, the New Town land use category contains detail on a wide spectrum of issues ranging from fiscal impact analysis, affordable housing, to the "[i]nterconnectivity of pedestrian and vehicular routes through the [New] Town to encourage multi-modal circulation." The detail contained in the Text Amendment is necessary to ensure that a specific form of development occurs on land bearing the New Town future land use designation. The land use pattern of this category is a tool to combat urban sprawl, as further explained below, and was crafted with guidance from the following Rule definition. "New town" means a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town shall be of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. A new town shall be based on a master development plan, and shall be bordered by land use designations which provide a clear distinction between the new town and surrounding land uses. Rule 9J-5.003(80), Florida Administrative Code. The New Town category in the Text Amendment is consistent with and furthers the concept embodied in this definition, i.e., the creation of an efficient urban level of mixed-use development in a rural area. The Text Amendment sets 2,500 acres as the minimum size for any parcel to be eligible for designation as a New Town. The Text Amendment then establishes general land use standards applicable to the overall New Town parcel, which are embellished by more specific controls for the different components of the New Town. "At least 35% of lands within a New Town development shall be reserved for Open Space/Conservation and shall preserve a connected system of environmentally sensitive and passive recreation areas that will form a greenway system," and shall be provided for public uses. "The greenway system will serve the additional goal of surrounding and defining villages and the Town Center Village." ("Greenways, wetlands, and similar natural areas are open space/conservation. Open space/conservation does not include parks, golf courses, and other designated recreational lands.") At least 40 percent of the net developable acreage of a New Town must be residential units and, of the total residential units, at least 20 percent must be multi-family, and at least 50 percent must be residential single-family. Workplace land uses, i.e., retail, service, office, and industrial, must comprise at least five percent of the net developable acreage. This proportion of mix of uses is further refined in Policy A.1.19.9, where square footage requirements for each of the non-residential land uses are linked to the number of approved dwelling units, e.g., a minimum of 50 square feet of retail space for each dwelling unit and 30 square feet of civic space per dwelling unit in a Town Center Village and five square feet per dwelling unit for each Village. Other "specific use standards" are provided. New Towns are also required to provide land for libraries, fire stations, local government annexes, school sites and similar public uses and shall provide minimum park acreage equivalent to Comprehensive Plan LOS [level of service] requirements. In addition to this overall guidance, the Text Amendment directs a specific community form by assembling the several mixed uses into components which together will form the New Town. The "neighborhood" is designed to be the "basic development unit" within the New Town. Neighborhoods are to be compact residential areas with a mix of housing types. "Several neighborhoods and one or two village centers combine to form a village, and several villages form a New Town." Village Centers are areas designed to provide civic, service, limited retail, and elementary school uses for the surrounding neighborhoods. "A village shall contain distinct neighborhoods that will each have a central neighborhood park, which shall be called the neighborhood commons." At least 10 percent of each village must be retained in open space/conservation areas. While residential uses (at least 10 percent of net developable acreage) are also allowed in village centers, at least 45 percent of net developable acreage of the uses must be non-residential. Villages composed of these centers and neighborhoods are to be surrounded by greenways, golf courses, and natural features, and linked to the remainder of the New Town through interconnected roads and a pedestrian/bikeway system. Also, within villages, low density residential must have an overall net residential density between 1-2 units per acre. Medium density residential development must have an overall net density between 2-6 units per acre. Traditional neighborhoods must have an overall net density of 4-6 units per acre. In addition to the villages, each New Town is to contain a "Town Center Village," which "is intended to serve as the cultural, shopping, employment and civic center for the New Town, and shall include office uses, light industrial areas, and higher density residential uses surrounding a mixed-use core." In addition to some single-family residential and retail, the Town Center Village must contain at least 30 percent multi-family residential (percentage of units) and 45 percent (percentage of square feet) office use in order that "[t]he mixed-core shall have the characteristics of a downtown." The most intense of these uses are to be concentrated in the "Town Center Village Mixed-Use Core," which is to be the "pedestrian-oriented 'Main Street' area of retail, service, office, residential, and civic uses." Both the Town Center Village and its Mixed-Use Core are governed by specific design standards addressing matters such as sidewalks, signs, porches, and on-street parking. Overall, the Objective and Policies contained in the New Town land use category provide meaningful and predictable detail.2 The specific Policies describe the types and uses and how these uses will relate to one another, the mix of uses, transportation issues, interconnectivity, design, and urban features of New Towns. The Map Amendment In the same Ordinance in which the Text Amendment was adopted, the County adopted a Map Amendment changing the FLUM designation of approximately 11,332 acres from Rural/Silviculture to New Town. The Map Amendment was adopted to allow development of a project known as "Nocatee." As required by the Text Amendment, Nocatee has been designated as a New Town on the FLUM, and has been reviewed and approved as a DRI. The "allowable uses and mix of uses" within the Nocatee DRI Development Order have been incorporated into the County Plan Amendments. The Nocatee project includes approximately 11,332 New Town acres in St. Johns County. ("The Nocatee site consists of approximately 15,000 acres, with approximately 2200 acres in Jacksonville and the remainder in St. Johns County. The site is generally bounded on the west by [U.S.] 1, on the east by the Intercoastal Waterway, on the south by Pine Island Road, and extends north of CR 210 approximately 1.5 miles.") However, the portion of Nocatee in the southern portion of Duval County (Jacksonville) is not subject to the instant challenges. The land uses adopted in the Nocatee DRI Development Order and incorporated into the St. Johns County Plan are as follows: 2,872,000 square feet, 336 acres of office uses; 968,000 square feet, 150 acres and 3,900 parking spaces for retail commercial uses; 250,000 square feet, 29 acres and 500 parking spaces for light industrial uses; 12,579 total dwelling units, comprising 8,811 single family units, 3,228 multi-family units (including single-family attached units), and 540 assisted living units; 54 golf course holes, 485 hotel rooms, 5,531 acres of recreation/open space (including, but not limited to, parks, the Greenway, and golf courses), churches, schools, and civic uses. The uses described above are to be developed in five phases, each anticipated to last five years, with various combinations of uses allowed in each phase. Individual phases may be extended pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, or accelerated provided that all mitigation requirements have been satisfied for the particular phase to be accelerated. The Nocatee DRI includes a Town Center Village, a secondary town center, seven other villages, and up to two village centers in each village. Village centers may include limited intensity office and retail commercial uses and an elementary school. However, "[t]he specific location of all land uses will be determined through the [Planned Unit Development] PUD approval process." The Nocatee DRI Development Order contains a "conversion table" which authorizes the conversion, at a defined rate, of one type of land use to another, but prohibits the conversion of non-residential land uses to residential uses during the first two phases of development. The conversion tables cannot be used to convert the Nocatee DRI land uses below those established in the New Town land use category. The Preserve Amendment Along with the Text and Map Amendments, the County adopted the Preserve Amendment, which re-designated approximately 1,630 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to Conservation for purposes of establishing the "Nocatee Preserve." The Nocatee Preserve is an area of over 2500 acres including close to 1800 acres of land above the mean high water line. This strategic location with over 3 miles of frontage on the Tolomato River complements the Guana State Park and the Guana Wildlife Management area directly east of the river. The Nocatee Preserve will expand preserved environmental lands to both sides of the Tolomato River. This expansion of environmental lands will provide additional protection for the northern Tolomato River Basin and will provide passive recreation opportunities for both the Nocatee community and the entire region. Additionally, the Preserve will serve as a buffer between the Tolomato River and future development within Nocatee–a buffer that is between 1 and 1 1/2 mile wide. The Preserve includes the most ecologically significant (and economically valuable) part of the [Nocatee] property. Transportation Amendment The last change to the County Plan (Policy H.1.6.6) here at issue, the Transportation Amendment, provides: The Nocatee Development of Regional Impact, a multi-use development meeting the criteria of Chapter 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes, is authorized by the County to utilize the standards and guidelines set forth in the Statute to satisfy the County's transportation concurrency requirements by payments of a proportionate share contribution is [sic] as stated in the Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Order, Special Condition 25, entitled Transportation Resource Impacts. Pursuant to operation of the Transportation Amendment, Nocatee "will contribute up to $99,741,366 in cash payments and funded transportation improvements to offset the impacts of the Nocatee development upon the regional transportation system " Agency Review and Notice The Department is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Act), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Among the responsibilities of the Department under the Act is the duty to review plan amendments and determine if the plan amendments are in compliance with the Act. On or about June 1, 2000, the Department received the County's proposed Plan Amendments, and copies were distributed to various state, regional, and local agencies for their review and comments. On August 10, 2000, the Department submitted its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, Florida Administrative Code. Comments from the Department of Environmental Protection and the St. Johns River Water Management District were attached to the ORC. On or about January 22, 2001, the Applicant, The PARC Group, submitted its response to the Department's ORC. On February 22 and 23, 2001, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners held noticed hearings on the Nocatee DRI and related Comprehensive Plan Amendments and enacted Ordinance No. 2001-18 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-01D), adopting changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and also enacted Ordinance No. 2001-30, approving the Nocatee DRI. On March 5, 2001, the County furnished the Department with a submission package including documents relating to the Plan Amendments. On April 18, 2001, the Department caused to be published its Notice of Intent to find the Text Amendment, Map Amendment, Preserve Amendment, and Transportation Amendment "in compliance" pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187, and 163.3189, Florida Statutes. Need and Urban Sprawl The nomenclature "New Town," adopted as the title of the Text Amendment, is a reference to a form of land use described in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. By definition, a "New Town" means, in part, "a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct or geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns." In addition, a "New Town" will necessarily contain a full range of uses in order to support a variety of economic and social activities "consistent with an urban area designation." See Rule 9J- 5.003(80), Florida Administrative Code. The new town land use generally described in Rule 9J-5.003(80), is a category expressly designed to combat urban sprawl. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code, recognizes new towns as one of the "innovative and flexible" manners in which comprehensive plans may discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The weight of the evidence demonstrated that the New Town development form contained in the Text Amendment will discourage urban sprawl. For example, Dr. Downs and Mr. Porter, both of whom are national growth management experts with decades of experience, testified that new towns in general, and specifically, the Text Amendment adopted by the County, serve to discourage urban sprawl. Mr. Pennock, the primary author of the urban sprawl rule, which is now a part of Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, testified that the types and mix of uses in the Text Amendment are appropriate for a new town and will serve to discourage urban sprawl. The designated Nocatee New Town is located on the St. Johns County/Duval County line in the Northeast Planning District, and lies east of U.S. Highway 1, and straddles County Road 210. The Nocatee New Town lies in the rural/urban fringe, within the fastest growing sector of the County, in the regional growth corridor emanating from southeast Duval County and Ponte Vedra. This is an advantageous location because it is close enough to the main employment center in the area (Jacksonville), to afford residents employment opportunities. Additionally, the Nocatee New Town is a master-planned community, unlike piecemeal fragmented development which has occurred in other parts of the County. Consistent with the Text and Map Amendments, the Nocatee New Town is planned to include preserved natural areas and greenways and villages. Each village is expected to consist of neighborhoods and a village center, which will include elementary schools, civic and retail uses, and higher density housing. The Nocatee New Town serves as a cultural center, providing for a mix of higher density residential, retail, restaurant, hotel, office, and light industrial, schools, churches, a fire station, a library, a county annex, a police complex, parks and public spaces, and as athletic complex. The Nocatee New Town is geographically separated from existing areas by U.S. Highway 1 and preserved greenways, and is a functionally distinct land use. The Nocatee New Town is functionally similar in size and land use composition to other successful new towns, and includes basic economic activities in all major land use categories. Further, the Nocatee New Town is innovative planning, especially for a rapidly urbanizing county like St. Johns. In addition, it provides for flexibility in land use mixes by designating minimum land use percentages, but not requiring fixed percentages. This flexibility is desirable to allow for market adaptation over the 25-year build-out period. The expert testimony at the final hearing was persuasive that the location chosen for the Map Amendment is appropriate for a New Town in the County. Just a short distance to the north of the Map Amendment is Jacksonville, which was accurately described as "the major economic engine for the northeast Florida area . . . ." The past two decades of economic success for Jacksonville have resulted in growth along a corridor to the southeast, i.e., directly toward the site of the Map Amendment and the proposed Nocatee New Town. From 1991 to 1996, approximately 42 percent of the growth in St. Johns County occurred in the area around the proposed Nocatee New Town. The Nocatee New Town can be expected to improve the current, incremental and piecemeal development patterns of the County. Unfortunately, the emerging development pattern in the northeast area of the County exhibits indicators of sprawl. Currently, growth is not occurring in the most compact fashion. Sprawl is often viewed as a single-use or low- density residential setting. Here, the New Town concept offers a mixture of uses and the Plan Amendments, in particular, require an overall residential density range of three to eight units per net developable residential acre, whereas most of the residential areas of the County appear to have two residential unit per acre, and the proposed density for Nocatee is higher than the existing average in the northeast portion of the County. If Nocatee is developed according to its approved plan, it will be a New Town and will be a useful tool to fight this undesirable land use pattern of current development and is an anti-urban sprawl alternative to the existing sprawl development in the County. Petitioners maintain that the Text Amendment will allow, and the Map Amendment will promote, urban sprawl for essentially two reasons; first, there is no "need" for a new land use approval; second, there are insufficient guarantees that Nocatee or any future approval will actually develop as a New Town. The "need" question is founded in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires that "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth [and] the projected population of the area . . . ." This requirement is repeated in the statute's implementing rule, i.e., Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code ("The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections.") Finally, the "need" issue is one of the primary factors to be considered in any urban sprawl analysis. See Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code (urban sprawl may be present where a plan designates for development "uses in excess of demonstrated need"). The calculation of how much land is needed to accommodate the projected population involves comparing what is available for development under the comprehensive plan with the projected population over the same planning time frame applicable to the plan. An "allocation ratio" to express this need can be derived by dividing the development potential by the projected population. For example, if a comprehensive plan allocated 100 residential dwelling units over the planning time frame and the jurisdiction's population was projected to increase by 100 over the same time, there would be an allocation ratio of 1:1. This ratio would express an exact match between supply and demand. A ratio of 2:1, on the other hand, would demonstrate that the jurisdiction had twice as much land as designated for use as the projected population is expected to need. There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans are judged. The testimony in this case from the planning experts is that there is no accepted "hard and fast" allocation ratio at which a local government would be required to deny all future plan amendments. (There is testimony from Department planners that there is a recommended guideline, which set a ratio of 1.25:1 of supply over demand. This ratio has not been adopted as a rule nor has it been proven to be an accepted ratio to be applied in this case.) Rather, the allocation ratio is a planning guideline to be used for two purposes: first, ensuring a local government has enough land to accommodate future population; second, discouraging urban sprawl. The County divides St. Johns County into four Planning Districts (part of the data and analysis of the Plan) for purposes of calculating allocation ratios of the amount of land needed for particular land uses compared to an amount of land so designated. (Disaggregating allocation ratios into planning districts is professionally acceptable.) Planning districts differentiate the County into different growth scenarios, development trends, and land use patterns. County staff explained the analysis performed regarding each of the four Planning Districts. Separate ratios were developed for each Planning District. Population projections were developed based on historical growth and compared to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) numbers. See footnote 5. In part, the County analyzed the amount of developable land designated in the FLUM, which was converted "into a very specific GIS map, so [they] had more definitive areas . . . ." Developable and un-developable land was analyzed. The County also examined the nature of the future land use densities existing on the developable lands to derive "a potential development for those developable areas and compare[d] those to the population projections which converted into housing units." A comparison was made "between population projections or need for housing units and the amount of dwelling units that can be accommodated in this developable area on the map."3 As otherwise noted further in Joint Exhibit 7-A, page A-37, in part: These population projections are then converted into housing demand by planning district as discussed in the Housing Element. The demand for these housing units will occur in different residential densities. However, as an aggregate measure, the total housing units needed is useful for comparison to the maximum net densities allowed for the various residential land use designations. It should be pointed out that rarely are the maximum net densities achieved, particularly at the higher density lands. For instance, while the Mixed Use Districts allow up to 13 units per acre, historically these acres have developed at much lower densities. This trend has been particularly significant due to the shortage of multi-family dwelling units constructed in the County. Single-family residential developments generally cannot achieve the densities at the high density level (6-13 units per acre), and rarely exceed the threshold for low density development (less than or equal to 2 units per acre). The May 2000, County EAR-Based Plan Amendment for the FLUE, provides residential land use allocation ratios for the year 2015 ranging between 1.63:1 for the Northeast Planning District to 11.59:1 for the Southwest Planning District, and an overall County allocation ratio of 3.08:1. These ratios appear in Joint Exhibit 7A at A-41, Table A-10, and were previously approved by the Department. ("A comparison of the allocation of dwelling units from the available developable land with the projected housing demand by planning district is provided in Table A-10.") Intervenors' expert independently calculated County allocation ratios, including the Nocatee New Town Map Amendment, and arrived at a ratio of 2.33:1 for the Northeast Planning District and 2.9:1 for the entire County, using data available as of February 2001.4 It is at least fairly debatable that these allocations ratios are supported by appropriate data and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner. Numerous witnesses testified that allocation ratios should not be used as a bright line test because there are no adopted rules or clearly defined professional standards which establish a maximum ratio above which a plan amendment may not go. In other words, use of a maximum allocation ratio as a set upper limit, without consideration of other relevant factors to establish need, would offer no concrete, professionally accepted standard. Sierra offered no independent allocation ratios. Rather, Sierra elicited testimony from County staff that, if a series of assumptions supplied by Sierra were used to calculate the allocation ratios, based on Sierra's concept of using maximum theoretical density, the allocation ratios would be as high as 4.36:1 and 6.1:1 for the Northeast Planning District of the County. In other words, Sierra sought to have the County's calculations redone using the maximum theoretical density allowed under each land use category.5 The allocation ratios offered by Sierra raise a concern that, with the Nocatee development, there is a projected over-allocation of supply to meet the projected demand in the County, and, in particular, in the Northeast Planning District of the County. However, there is no persuasive evidence that the strict maximum theoretical density methodology offered by Sierra was professionally acceptable for use in the County to project the future need in light of the Plan Amendments. In fact, the testimony was that an allocation ratio utilizing the maximum theoretical density may be appropriate if only urban lands are included in the calculation, and if appropriate restrictions on the ability to realize this density are made a part of the equation. Sierra did not so limit its inquiry. Also, the weight of the evidence indicates that the use of maximum theoretical densities, as calculated according to Sierra, is more likely than not to overstate the realistic densities that will be achieved on the land designated for residential use by the County. While not mandating that every subsequent plan amendment must be categorically denied, the presence of an over-allocation will trigger a heightened, more thorough review of the indicators of urban sprawl when considering further plan amendments. Only amendments subjected to this greater scrutiny and still found to discourage urban sprawl may be found "in compliance" in the presence of an over- allocation. On the other hand, a higher allocation ratio may be appropriate in relatively high-growth counties, like the County, to offset the difficulties inherent in forecasting growth. An allocation ratio which is set too low may tend to reduce market choice, resulting in increased housing prices and a reduced employment base. There is persuasive evidence that the Map and Text Amendments meet this heightened level of sprawl analysis. Urban sprawl involves, at its core, the spreading of low density or strip commercial development from urban areas into rural lands. The determination of whether any amendment or plan constitutes urban sprawl is undertaken pursuant to the criteria of Rule 9J-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code. The emerging development pattern in northeast St. Johns County exhibits numerous symptoms of sprawl. There is persuasive evidence that the Text and Map Amendments can be reasonably expected to make the situation better by providing "an anti-sprawl alternative to what's there now." The rule applicable to sprawl speaks directly to this situation. If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k), Florida Administrative Code (emphasis added). Neither Petitioner offered persuasive evidence to rebut the finding that the Map and Text Amendments improve the existing development pattern in northeast St. Johns County. Sierra attempted to imply that the Text and Map Amendments allow for the proliferation of urban sprawl in the form of low-density residential development. Contrary to this argument, the evidence shows, for example, that the three to eight dwelling units per net developable residential acre contained in the Text Amendment, coupled with the text provisions directing the location of higher density residential uses, affordable housing, and the myriad of non- residential uses, provide meaningful and predictable standards for the development of an anti-sprawl New Town. The flexibility built into the Text and Map Amendments afford a reasonable ability to change and meet the market demands over a long-term build-out. Natural Resource Protection Every New Town development must adhere to the Policies in the Plan. The Plan Amendment adds additional requirements to the Plan in the environmental section, Policy A.1.19.5, "Environmental Consideration." Policy A.1.19.5 of the Text Amendment affords natural resource protection by requiring that at least 35 percent of any land designated New Town shall be "reserved for Open Space/Conservation lands and shall preserve a connected system of environmentally sensitive and passive recreation areas that will form a greenway system." "At least 15% of this open space component must be uplands." At least ten percent of a village must be retained in open space/conservation areas. According to Policy A.1.19.5, "[s]ignificant environmental characteristics" must "be incorporated into the New Town design, particularly into the greenway system." The applicant for a New Town designation is required to "provide data and analysis regarding potential environmental impacts, including, but not limited to[,] impacts to wetlands, sub- surface waters, and surface waters and the presence of plant and animal species that are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as threatened, endangered, or as a species of special concern." Natural resource protection is furthered through Objective A.1.19 which states: "The New Town Future Land Use category may be requested from any [DRI] that meets the policies set forth " in the Plan Amendments. The application form for a DRI requires a detailed listing of vegetation and wildlife. Rule 9J-2.010(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Any flora or fauna identified as listed must be protected in accordance with the Department's "Listed Plant and Wildlife Resources Uniform Standard Rule." Rule 9J-2.041, Florida Administrative Code. Master planning, such as in a DRI, better protects natural resource than piecemeal development. Moreover, there is persuasive evidence that natural resources can be better protected under the New Town category than in the existing Rural/Silviculture land use category. Pursuant to these provisions, there are 5,531 of the 11,332 acres designated as New Town set aside for recreation/open space, "including, but not limited to, parks, the Greenway, and golf courses." This set aside is based upon data and analysis compiled through the DRI review process. The Nocatee Preserve (an example of an "environmentally significant characteristic") is the most significant environmental resource on the Nocatee site and establishes additional resource protection. (The Plan Amendments designate approximately 1,630 acres (the Nocatee Preserve) lying above the mean high water line in the "Conservation" land use category. Petitioners do not object to this designation.) This Preserve is a mosaic of uplands and wetlands and includes tidal saltwater wetlands. It includes streams, uplands, and a variety of habitats. It fronts the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) of the Guana/Tolomato preserve areas. The Preserve adds protection for the aquatic preserve. The Nocatee Preserve is located between the Nocatee New Town and the Tolomato River and protects the parcel's approximately 3.5 miles of frontage on the Tolomato River (Guana-Tolomato Aquatic Preserve). It is likely to ensure the protection of wildlife habitat on both sides of the Tolomato River and a natural view for recreational boaters and others. In addition to the Nocatee Preserve, which is approximately 1 1/2 miles wide, "the greenways," comprising a minimum of 4,961 acres (at least 960 acres of uplands at build-out) in St. Johns and Duval Counties, will be preserved. Greenways will consist of wetlands and uplands. Vegetative communities currently found on site will be preserved. The County's FLUM series includes Map 9-B, entitled "Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL)." Within the County, the ESL designation is given to OFWs, estuaries, wetlands, essential habitat to listed species, coastal barrier resources and beach and dune systems, and other areas specifically designated by the Board of County Commissioners.6 (Policy E.2.2.5 of the Plan also requires the County to protect ESLs "through the establishment of Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which address the alternative types of protection for each type of" ESL.) The weight of the evidence indicates that Map 9-B is a generalized depiction of these ESLs. On its face, the Map contains a disclaimer that the data are provided from multiple sources, with varying degrees of accuracy. In essence, Map 9-B is used by the County for "reference only" purposes, i.e., data and analysis only, and is not intended to be used as a predicate for decision-making, for example, a determination is made as to the "exact location of a wetland jurisdictional line." Map 9-B, although part of the data and analysis, is not the best available data for site-specific analysis. Policy A.1.11.7 of the Plan Amendment states that "[i]n the event of a conflict between any of the Maps and the text of the Plan, the text of the Plan shall control." Pursuant to the Plan Amendments, see, e.g., Policy A.1.19.5, the County requires applicants for New Town plan amendments to provide the County with site-specific information, including environmental, and wildlife surveys (conducted pursuant to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's (FFWCC) requirements),7 including vegetative surveys, in order for the County to determine the extent of ESLs on the property, proposed for New Town designation. See Finding of Fact 95. This information is part of the data and analysis required under the Plan Amendments and is required to be based on professionally accepted methodologies. Site visits by County personnel are also required. Sierra alleges that the protective measures mentioned above in the Plan Amendments fail to adequately address natural resources because the term "significant environmental characteristics" in the Text Amendment and the protections attendant such areas are uncertain, and the depiction of greenways, wetland impacts, and development of the "Sandy Ridge Village" as depicted in various maps attached to the Nocatee DRI Development Order, allow undue impacts. The operation of the Text Amendment as a whole, including the provision for the protection of "significant environmental characteristics," when read in conjunction with the protections required in the Plan and Plan Amendments, can be expected to afford protection of natural resources. The remainder of Sierra's allegations rest on the presumption that the maps of development areas and greenways attached to the Nocatee DRI Development Order are part of the County Plan and are subject to this compliance review. However, the only portion of the Nocatee DRI Development Order incorporated into the Plan and subject to this review is the provision that establishes the "allowable uses and mix of uses." Policy A.1.19.15. The location of those uses, as shown in the Nocatee DRI Development Order is not incorporated into the Plan. (However, Ordinance No. 2001-18, recognizes the importance of the Nocatee DRI Development Order. See Ordinance No. 2001-18, Section 2, paragraph 5). Accordingly, and as further set forth below in the Conclusions of Law, Sierra's allegations that the Plan Amendment must be found not "in compliance," e.g., because of the location of uses and their potential impact on natural resources, is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Nevertheless, the data and analysis supporting the Nocatee DRI have been considered herein in order to determine whether the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." The Nocatee site in Duval and St. Johns Counties is approximately 15,000 acres, of which "approximately 8,000 acres of uplands and wetlands will be preserved in the Greenway, the Preserve and within preserved jurisdictional wetlands in the villages and Town Center Village " Further, it was apparent that when several maps are reviewed together, up to 474 acres of wetlands may be impacted by the development, subject to further permitting. At present, it is speculative as to the precise number of wetlands which will be impacted by the development. However, there are general depictions of wetlands delineated on, for example, Maps H-1 and H-3, which are anticipated to be preserved. Ultimately, the wetlands impacts are required to be addressed on a site- specific basis in future permitting by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the St. Johns River Water Management District.8 Sierra's expert (Mr. Hoctor) opined that the proposed greenways were, in some instances, too narrow because protected areas should be located at least 330 feet from developed areas due to "edge effect." However, Mr. Hoctor also stated that the distance of the edge effect could be less than 330 feet, although he believed that 330 feet "is a good base-line estimate of edge effects." On the other hand, the County and Intervenors' experts opined that the greenways, as designated, are sufficiently wide, and can be expected to provide adequate habitat to sustain the environmental resources on site.9 In general, on the Nocatee site, buffers of upland areas ranging from 15 to 100 feet will be preserved in their natural state adjacent to wetlands systems. In some areas, the width of the proposed buffers will exceed current County requirements. The buffers serve to push incompatible land uses away from surface waters and protect wetland functions. Further, Deep, Durbin, Smith, and Sweetwater Creeks are proposed to be protected by a minimum 100-foot buffer along the Creeks, which is twice as wide as other County requirements for these areas. (Theoretically, estuary systems, require a 50-foot buffer, whereas the Nocatee project has committed to a 100-foot buffer.) The County Land Development Code requires upland buffers adjacent to contiguous jurisdictional wetlands, and the buffer sizes vary, dependent upon the location of the wetlands. For example, a 50-foot buffer is required along the Tolomato River in areas where the high water line can be set; and in all other areas with contiguous wetlands, a 25-foot buffer and a 25-foot setback are required. As noted in the Nocatee DRI ADA, Question 16, Second Sufficiency Response: "The state-of-the-art stormwater management system proposed for Nocatee will limit the 100-year flood plain to greenways, wetlands, and stormwater management facilities. No post-development developed areas in Nocatee will be in the 100-year flood plain." This representation is adopted in the Nocatee DRI Development Order. Further, the bald eagle is a protected species and the habitat for the bald eagle is an essential habitat. The bald eagle's nest on-the Nocatee site is being protected by means of a 1,500-foot management zone (360 degrees). (The United States Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines indicate that a 1,500-foot buffer should be utilized.) Petitioners also offered evidence, by and through the testimony of Mr. Hoctor, that "only about 60 acres of both sand hill and scrub are proposed for protection out of at least 180 acres of zeric communities on site. Most of it long leaf pine sand hill and xeric oak sand hill." According to Mr. Hoctor, these areas include a 70-acre sandy hill parcel in the proposed Sandy Ridge Village, which is not expected to be preserved, and a 25-acre parcel, which will be preserved. (A 17-acre parcel of scrub-type habitat will also be preserved in the southwest corner of the site.) The experts agree that gopher tortoises live in and need sandy soils to construct their burrows. Gopher tortoises will be impacted by the Nocatee development. One of the guidelines set by the FFWCC states that a minimum size patch of 25 acres is necessary for on-site protection of gopher tortoises. The experts disagree as to whether preservation of a proposed 25-acre site (to be incorporated into a 20-mile greenway on-site) is sufficiently large enough to accommodate the gopher tortoises (and gopher frogs, indigo snakes, and other species) on the Nocatee site. The County and Intervenors provided reasonable explanations for requiring the preservation of the 25-acre site (as a significant natural communities habitat) in lieu of the 70-acre site. At the very least, reasonable minds have differed on this issue. It is also subject to reasonable debate whether gopher tortoises will remain on-site given the preserved 25-acre site. On the other hand, the 25-acre site has canopy and good ground cover vegetation for the gopher tortoise community. Also, pursuant to the Nocatee DRI Development Order, "as mitigation for impacts to gopher tortoises and their commensals, the Developer will be responsible for off-site mitigation of the equivalent of approximately 66 acres of habitat, in conjunction with the permit requirements of the [FFWCC]." "This off-site mitigation will be accomplished by the Developer by issuance of an incidental take permit or by purchase of habitat at an off-site location within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council." Total preservation on-site is expected to be approximately 33 percent which exceeds the ten percent Plan requirement. Sherman Fox Squirrels are a species of special concern. It appears that two fox squirrels have been sighted on the Nocatee site in the general vicinity of the St. Johns County/Duval County lines. This species is "highly mobile" and "will very likely migrate to other suitable habitat when the [Nocatee site is developed]." "[F]ox squirrel habitat will be included in the incidental take permit." The preservation of the fox squirrels has been addressed in a general way, i.e., through preservation of significant natural communities and the 8,000 acres of land which is being preserved on-site. Petitioners also presented expert testimony that the Nocatee site is an essential habitat for the Florida Black Bear, which should be protected by preserving a "large swath" of most or all of the southern portion of the Nocatee site which "would serve as a potentially functional wildlife corridor." (The Florida Black Bear is a threatened species. The minimum acreage required to sustain a viable population for the Florida Black Bear is between 500,000 and 1 million acres.) The experts disagreed whether portions of the Nocatee site are essential habitat for the Florida Black Bear population and the extent of the impacts on the Florida Black Bear if the Nocatee site is developed as proposed. (Mr. Hoctor suggested during cross-examination that the Florida Black Bear population, east of U.S. Highway 1 in the County, stood "only a fair to poor chance of being viable.")10 Part of the habitat data discussed by Mr. Hoctor indicates that bear road kills were more than 15 years ago. More recent bear kills have occurred in other parts of the County (west of the river or adjacent to the Twelve Mile Swamp property), but not east of Interstate 95 in the Nocatee area. Even if Florida Black Bears use the Nocatee site, more than one-half of the site (approximately 8,000 acres), which will be preserved for wildlife corridors, potentially may be used by Florida Black Bears for migration and foraging. It is at least fairly debatable whether the environmental components of the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." Land Use Suitability The Nocatee site plan was based upon a land use suitability analysis, considering soils, wetlands, vegetation, archeological sites, and topography. The Nocatee DRI ADA contains appropriate data and analysis, including testimony during the final hearing, related to such topics as "vegetations and wildlife," "wetlands," "soils," "floodplains," and "historical and archeological sites." The Nocatee scientists spent approximately 8,000 man hours in the field (on the Nocatee site) over a course of two and one-half years collecting detailed data related to these issues. The data was collected and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner. Economic Feasibility In General The Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of a Comprehensive Plan identifies facilities for which local government has financial responsibility, which include roads, water, sewer, drainage, parks, and solid waste. (As noted herein, this does not include schools for which the School Board has financial responsibility.) Petitioners raise numerous issues relating to the "financial feasibility" of the Plan Amendments. The record contains detailed data and analysis of existing and future public facility needs. The data and analysis were conducted in a professionally acceptable manner. Further, the County conducted a cost benefit analysis of the Nocatee development and determined that the development can be expected to produce a positive revenue stream for capital expenditures in each year. (For example, the County's Budget Director calculated that as of build-out (twenty-five year period), Nocatee will result in a net financial gain to the County of approximately $114 million.) This study was bolstered by Intervenors' cost benefit analysis documenting a net positive cash flow. Public Schools Sierra contends that the Map Amendment runs afoul of the State's growth management laws by not providing a financially feasible development that adequately addresses its impacts on the public school system. As set forth in the Conclusions of Law, existing laws do not require local governments to address public schools as part of comprehensive planning. This link between land use and public schools is currently optional and the County has not elected to pursue the option; this election is supported by extant law. There is persuasive evidence that the County is not responsible for funding public school facilities. Rather, the St. Johns County School Board is responsible for such funding. For example, the only portion of the school facilities construction paid by the County occurs when the School Board requests the County to pay for the upgrading of a facility to provide for use as a hurricane shelter. The Nocatee developers agreed to construct at least two such shelters in accordance with the Department of Education's standards. However, the placement of hurricane shelters is a decision made by the County, not the School Board. Furthermore, the County has not adopted a Public School Facilities Element or a school concurrency funding program. (Examples of concurrency requirements for the State of Florida include transportation, potable water, sanitary sewer, parks and recreation, drainage, and solid waste.) The St. Johns County School Board is an independent taxing authority with an established budget for school construction and operation. Nevertheless, with respect to the New Town Category, elementary schools are allowed within or adjacent to village centers and the Town Center Village. The Nocatee development will require an additional eight schools in the County in order to meet the projected need. (Mr. Toner projected that over a period of 25 years, eight new schools would be needed and that during the five-year planning horizon after construction begins at Nocatee, one middle school would be needed for the projected number of students, i.e., 450 would start to materialize. Mr. Toner desires that schools be built concurrently with development, which does not appear to be required.) The Nocatee developers have agreed to donate, at no charge to the County (or the citizens of the County), land for the eight public schools and to waive a credit against the school impact fees to which the developers would otherwise be entitled. The value of the land donation credit is approximately $12 million. Additionally, by build-out (in the twenty-fifth year), according to Intervenors' data and analysis, the School Board can expect to receive annual net revenue or gain of approximately $9.6 million. It is also expected that over the life of the Nocatee development and, in particular, during the later phases of the development, revenues will "significantly exceed the costs," in light of expected commercial, industrial, and additional residential development "that's generating the student load on the system." Transportation The Plan Amendments add Policy H.1.6.6. to the County's Comprehensive Plan stating: The Nocatee Development of Regional Impact, a multi-use development meeting the criteria of Chapter 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes, is authorized by the County to utilize the standards and guidelines set forth in the Statute to satisfy the County's transportation concurrency requirements by payment of a proportionate share contribution is [sic] as stated in the Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Order, Special Condition No. 25 entitled Transportation Resource Impacts. (See Ordinance No. 2001-18) The "pipelining" method of mitigating transportation impacts has been selected in the Plan Amendments. This method allows the transportation mitigation funds to be used to increase the transportation capacity of some links of a regional roadway network beyond that necessary to offset projected impacts. It allows impacts on the regional roadway network to be handled on a proportionate share basis. Pipelining contemplates that various proportionate share impacts along the regional roadway network are assessed and all of the calculated dollars under the pipelining method are aggregated to create "a pot of money" which is used "to build one or more whole transportation improvements." The pipelining statute takes precedence over the conflicting concurrency requirements of the County. Here, the mitigation package is based upon a "proportionate fair share" calculation, under which Nocatee will pay $99.7 million. This amount is supported by appropriate data and analysis based upon the application of professionally accepted methods. In addition to the payment, the mitigation will include right-of-way donation and roadway construction. Petitioners do not challenge the concept of "pipelining." Rather, Petitioners question whether the transportation components of the Plan Amendments are "economically feasible." Overall, there is persuasive evidence, presented in the form of data and analysis, that with the Nocatee approval and the Plan Amendments, the County's transportation capital funds are likely to be improved both at the 25-year build-out and within the first five years. (State law requires that land use decisions and transportation facility planning be coordinated over the five- year planning time frame in order to maintain and achieve adopted levels of service. See Section 163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The persuasive evidence indicates that the Nocatee development will not cause any roadway segment to fall below its adopted level of service (LOS) standard during the five-year planning time frame.) Petitioners, largely through the testimony and exhibits offered by Mr. Feldt (a former employee with the County whose area of expertise is transportation), contend that the proportionate fair share calculation was incorrectly calculated and that the Nocatee DRI development data and analysis understates transportation impacts which are likely to arise as a result of the Nocatee development. However, while Mr. Feldt maintained that the $99.7 million allocation would not be sufficient to cover some of the improvements he deemed necessary, such as right-of way, most of his concerns regarding the transportation component of the Nocatee DRI had been satisfied during the DRI review process leading up to the County's approval of the Nocatee DRI Development Order. It is at least fairly debatable that the pipelining transportation component of the Plan Amendments is supported by appropriate data and analysis, which is professionally acceptable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Plan Amendments adopted by St. Johns County in Ordinance No. 2001-18 are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendments to the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinances 2008- 048, 2008-049, and 2008-050 are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2008).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and has the statutory power and duty to review amendments to local comprehensive plans and determine whether the amendments are “in compliance,” pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The County is a political subdivision of the State and has adopted a comprehensive plan that the County amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes. Patricia Curry, Alexandria Larsen, and Sharon Waite own property and reside in Palm Beach County. They made comments to the County regarding the three amendments during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the amendments and ending with the adoption of the amendments. Patrick Wilson owns property and resides in Palm Beach County, but he presented no evidence at the final hearing to show that he made comments to the County on any of the challenged amendments. Sluggett is the owner of the parcel that is the subject of the amendment adopted by Ordinance 2008-050 (“Sluggett Amendment”). He resides in Palm Beach County on the land affected by the amendment. Coconut Northlake LLC and Northlake Land Group LLC are Florida corporations with their principal place of business in Palm Beach County. Coconut Northlake LLC is the owner of the property that is affected by the amendment adopted by Ordinance 2008-049 (“Northlake Amendment”). Northlake Land Group LLC has an option to purchase the property. Panattoni is a Florida corporation that entered into a contract in 2006 to purchase the property affected by Ordinance 2008-048 (“Panattoni Amendment”). Panattoni was the applicant for the Panattoni Amendment. After the application was filed, Panattoni transferred its rights and obligations under its contracts, including the contract to purchase the Panattoni Property, to Panattoni Development Company, Inc. The Amendments Ordinance 2008-50 (“Sluggett Amendment”) would change the future land use designation of a 64.48-acre parcel located at the northwest intersection of Southern Boulevard and Seminole Pratt Whitney Road (“Sluggett Property”) from Rural Residential 10 (one dwelling unit per 10 acres) to Commercial-Low/Rural Residential 5 (one dwelling unit per five acres). Ordinance 2008-49 (“Northlake Amendment”) would change the future land use designation of a 30.71-acre parcel located on the southwest corner of Coconut Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard (“Northlake Property”) from Rural Residential 20 to Commercial-Low/ Rural Residential 5. Ordinance 2008-48 (“Panattoni Amendment”) would change the future land use designation of a 37.85-acre parcel located on the south side of Lake Worth Road, 1,320 feet east of Lyons Road (“Panattoni Property”) from Low-Residential 2 to Commercial-High with an underlying 2 units per acre. Findings Applicable to all Amendments The County adopted a Managed Growth Tier System in 1999, which places all lands in the County into one of five tier classifications: Urban/Suburban, Exurban, Rural, Agricultural Reserve, and Glades. The tiers are intended to define distinct geographical areas within the County that “allow for a diverse range of lifestyle choices, and livable, sustainable communities.” None of the three amendments propose to change the Tier in which the affected properties are located. The new future land use designations created by the three amendments are allowable land uses within their respective tiers. In the Department’s Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, following the transmittal of the three amendments, the Department objected to the amendments for the following reason: These amendments include statements or conditions that would limit development to a certain size, use, or intensity. Without these development limitations, one or more specific facilities (water supply, water and wastewater treatment, and road capacity) would not be available at the adopted level of service standards to serve these sites if they are developed at their maximum development potential. The County has not included these site specific limitations or conditions in a policy in the Future Land Use Element nor included a corresponding and appropriate notation on the Future Land Use Atlas to clearly indicate that development limitations apply to these sites. The County addressed the Department’s objection by agreeing to place notations in its Future Land Use Atlas (FLUA) to indicate that the land uses on the properties affected by the amendments are subject to special limitations and conditions. The three amendments affect properties located near the “Acreage” and “Loxahatchee,” which are areas of antiquated subdivisions that are suburban in nature and home to approximately 50,000 people. When these areas were first platted and developed, they were far to the west of the urbanized areas of the County, and had insufficient commercial uses in or around them to serve the residents. The planning studies that have been conducted for this central-western area of the County have consistently concluded that the area needs more commercial land uses to serve the residential population. Today, there are only about 40,000 square feet of commercial uses in this central-western area of the County. Based on a planning ratio of 35 square feet of commercial uses per capita, about 1.5 million square feet of commercial uses would be needed to serve the residential population. The Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan requires applicants for a FLUA amendment to demonstrate consistency with Policy 3.5-d of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), regarding traffic impacts. Policy 3.5-d requires a long-term traffic analysis based on the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (“Test One”) and a short-term, five-year traffic analysis based on the County’s five-year plan (“Test Two”). Under Test One, if the traffic associated with an amendment to the FLUA would significantly impact a road that is projected to fail to operate at adopted level of service (LOS) standard “D” based on the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan, the amendment cannot be adopted. In contrast, a failure to meet an LOS standard based on the County’s five-year plan -- Test Two -- can be remedied. Under Test Two, if LOS standards on affected roads would not be maintained, the applicant must commit to make or fund additional road improvements to accommodate the traffic impacts associated with the future land use re-designation. Alternatively, an applicant could be required to develop the land in phases so that the traffic impacts associated with each development phase can be accommodated without exceeding the capacity of the roadways. The County’s income from gas tax sources which are used to fund transportation improvements has decreased due to the nationwide downturn in the economy, and the decrease has affected the timing of some planned transportation improvements. However, the County has not abandoned the scheduled improvements for the roads that are affected by the challenged amendments. Map LU 4.1 of the comprehensive plan depicts the public wellfield protection zones within the County and the Turnpike Aquifer Protection Overlay. These planning zones were established to protect sources of public drinking water. The properties affected by the three amendments are located outside of these protection zones. Petitioners presented no competent evidence that the three amendments, alone or in combination, would harm the sources of public drinking water. Petitioners’ evidence was only sufficient to support the general proposition that more land development increases the potential for contamination of surface water and groundwater. The evidence did not establish that the three amendments, alone or in combination, create a measurable increase in the potential for contamination or pose a foreseeable threat of adverse impact to surface water or groundwater. Petitioners’ expert witnesses conceded that they had insufficient data and had conducted no specific studies to support an opinion that any of the amendments would cause harm to natural resources, generally, or to the aquifer, in particular. Ordinance 2008-50, the Sluggett Amendment2/ The Sluggett Amendment would change the future land use designation of a 64.48-acre parcel located at the northwest intersection of Southern Boulevard and Seminole Pratt Whitney Road from Rural Residential 10 to Commercial-Low/Rural Residential 5. The Sluggett Property is within the Rural Tier. Southern Boulevard and Seminole Pratt Whitney Road are major arterial roadways. The Commercial-Low designation limits building coverage to a maximum of 10 percent. On the Sluggett Property, that would equate to about 280,000 square feet of commercial development. However, the Sluggett Amendment contains a condition that further restricts the intensity of commercial development on the Sluggett Property to 161,000 square feet. Residential density on the Sluggett Property is limited to 15 residential units, and is derived from the allowed density for the 64-acre parcel (12 units), plus three more units which are allowed under the County’s Workforce Housing bonus program. The Workforce Housing bonus program allows an increase in density when some units will be developed as low or moderate income housing. The Sluggett Amendment includes a condition that requires that the commercial and residential development on the Sluggett Property meet a Traditional Marketplace Development form. Traditional Marketplace Development is a development form that requires low intensity commercial and institutional uses, vertically integrated with residential uses, with a pedestrian orientation. This development form is achieved primarily through the design and organization of buildings and public spaces and the dispersal of parking. The Sluggett Amendment limits any single non- residential or commercial single tenant to a maximum of 65,000 square feet. To the north of Sluggett Property are lands classified Rural Residential 5 and Rural Residential 2.5. To the east is Loxahatchee Groves, the County’s newest municipality. Directly south, across Southern Boulevard, is land owned by the South Florida Water Management District. Southeast of the Sluggett Property is the incorporated Village of Wellington. The Sluggett Property is separated from the Acreage community to the west by a stormwater drainage canal and 80- foot-wide stormwater drainage easement managed by Seminole Improvement District. To provide compatibility with the residential areas north of the Sluggett Property, the Sluggett Amendment includes a condition that requires a minimum of ten acres of open space on the northern portion of the Sluggett Property. Because the Sluggett Property is located at the intersection of two arterial roadways, it meets the siting requirement of FLUE Policy 1.4-f for commercial uses in the Rural Tier. In prior planning studies in the central-western area of the County, the Sluggett Property was specifically identified as an appropriate location for neighborhood-serving commercial development. The residential component of the Sluggett Amendment is supported by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research population projections and by other data and analyses in the record. The residential units are also necessary to achieve the preferred Traditional Marketplace Development form. The inclusion of residential units also serves to achieve the County’s objective of increasing workforce housing. The need for the Sluggett Amendment was adequately demonstrated. The Sluggett Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. The LOS standard for the affected roads would not be maintained if the Sluggett Property were developed at the maximum commercial intensity allowed under the proposed future land use designation (plus 15 dwelling units). This situation would cause the Sluggett Amendment to fail Test One of FLUE Policy 3.5-d, described above. If development of the Sluggett Property is limited to 161,500 square feet of commercial, Test One is met. Therefore, the Sluggett Amendment limits development of the Sluggett Property to 161,500 square feet or commercial. The Sluggett Amendment includes two other conditions related to traffic to avoid potential roadway failures based on Test Two’s five-year analysis. These conditions limit the development to 46,500 square feet of commercial, “until construction commences on the south approach of the intersection of Southern Boulevard and Big Blue Trace to provide for dual left turn lanes, or one through lane and dual right turn lanes.” The potential traffic impacts associated with the Sluggett Amendment have been addressed in a manner consistent with relevant provisions of the comprehensive plan. Water and wastewater utilities are available to the Sluggett Property and there is adequate capacity to serve the Property. School facilities, emergency medical services, and fire and police services are also available and adequate to serve the Sluggett Property. Although Petitioners suggested that the Sluggett Amendment would cause stormwater drainage problems, no competent evidence was presented to demonstrate that a real threat of stormwater contamination exists or that any comprehensive plan provision related to stormwater would be violated. In their petition for hearing, Petitioners claimed that the Sluggett Amendment meets the definition of urban sprawl, but included no specific factual allegation other than the amendment would allow “strip-type commercial development.” The requirement of the Sluggett Amendment that ten acres of open space be set aside in the northern portion of the property, and the requirement to develop as a Traditional Marketplace Development prevents a strip development, as that term is normally applied in land use planning. The Sluggett Property is somewhat distant from other commercial uses, a consequence of the poorly planned development of the residential subdivisions in the area. The Sluggett Amendment reduces a deficit in neighborhood-serving commercial uses and thereby remedies an existing imbalance of land uses caused by the past urban sprawl. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council determined that the Sluggett Amendment was consistent with the Council’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Petitioners did not show how the Sluggett Amendment causes an inconsistency with any provision of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Ordinance 2008-49, the Northlake Amendment3/ The Northlake Amendment would change the future land use designation of a 30.71-acre parcel located on the southwest corner of Coconut Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard from Rural Residential 20 to Commercial-Low/ Rural Residential 5. The Northlake Property is in the Exurban Tier. East of the Northlake Property, along Northlake Boulevard, are the residential communities of Bayhill Estates and Rustic Lakes, which were developed at a density of one unit per two acres and one unit per five acres, respectively. Farther east, is the large, gated golf course development called Ibis, which consists of approximately 2,000 units developed at 1.25 dwelling units per acre. On the north side of Northlake Boulevard is a large tract of agricultural land located in the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Northeast are Osprey Isles and Carlton Oaks, which are residential developments with quarter-acre lots, and a cemetery and land designated for commercial low/office development. South of the Northlake Property, across two-lane Hamlin Road, is the Acreage. Existing and proposed institutional development in the vicinity of the Northlake Property include the adjacent parcel to the east, which is proposed to be developed as a 21,000- square-foot U.S. Post Office and, to the west, the existing Pierce Hammock Elementary School. The comprehensive plan allows development of institutional uses in the Exurban Tier at intensities of up to .20 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The Northlake Amendment proposes development at less than half that intensity, .08 FAR. The Northlake Property is located in an area that was the subject of a regional planning effort called the Western Northlake Corridor Study (WNCLUS) conducted by the county, the City of West Palm Beach, and the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The WNCLUS was completed in 1998 and is now being updated. In April 2008, an updated, intergovernmental analysis of the need for commercial uses in the study area concluded that the need exceeded the square footage of commercial uses that would be provided by the Northlake Amendment. The Northlake Property is one of the few parcels in the area that meets the commercial land use siting criterion in FLUE Policy 1.3-f, having frontage on an arterial road and a collector road. In their petition for hearing, Petitioners claimed that the Northlake Amendment meets the definition of urban sprawl, but included no specific factual allegation other than the amendment would allow “strip-type commercial development.” The Northlake Amendment only affects one parcel. The amendment would not extend any existing commercial uses on Northlake Boulevard or Coconut Boulevard. The applicant has agreed to record restrictive covenants on parcels owned by the applicant that are west of the Northlake Property, which would remove any potential for their future development for commercial uses. Executed restrictive covenants and easements are being held in escrow by the County Attorney and would be recorded after the approval of the Northlake Amendment. Although the Northlake Property is not integrated with other commercial uses, that situation is a consequence of the poorly planned development of the residential subdivisions in the area. The Northlake Amendment reduces a deficit in neighborhood-serving commercial uses and thereby remedies an existing imbalance of land uses caused by past urban sprawl. The residential density allowed by the Northlake Amendment (one dwelling unit per five acres) conforms with the adjacent residential densities, which range from one unit per five acres to one unit per 1.25 acres. The Northlake Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. If the Northlake Property were developed at the maximum commercial intensity of 133,000 square feet, LOS standards on affected roadways would likely be exceeded. Therefore, the Northlake Amendment includes a condition that limits development to 106,566 square feet of commercial. Water and wastewater utilities are available to the Northlake Property and there is adequate capacity to serve the property. School facilities, emergency medical services, fire and police services are all available and adequate to serve the Northlake Property. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council reported that it considered the Northlake Amendment to be inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, “unless and until the County updates the WNCLUS in coordination with the Cities of Palm Beach Gardens and West Palm Beach.” The Council did not identify any specific provision of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan with which the Northlake Amendment was inconsistent. The Council issued its comments without the opportunity to consider subsequent data and analysis that are included in the record of this case. For example, after the Council issued its report, the City of Palm Beach Gardens expressed support for the Northlake Amendment. In addition, the County planning staff’s objections to the Northlake Amendment, which appeared to be the primary basis for the Council’s finding of inconsistency, were subsequently refuted by the County’s Planning Director. Ordinance 2008-48, the Panattoni Amendment4/ The Panattoni Amendment would change the future land use designation of a 37.85-acre parcel located on the south side of Lake Worth Road, and 1,320 feet east of Lyons Road, from Low- Residential 2 to Commercial-High with an underlying 2 units per acre. The Panattoni Property is within the Urban/Suburban Tier. The Urban/Suburban Tier is described in the Plan as “urban levels of service.” The Urban/Suburban Tier is expected to accommodate about 90 percent of the County’s population. The Panattoni Property is also within the County’s Urban Service Area. The Urban Service Area is the area in which the County anticipates the extension of urban services through the long range planning horizon. The properties to the north, south, east, and west are designated Low Residential 2. There is an existing residential community to the west. The properties to the north, south, and east are vacant. The Panattoni Amendment requires the property to be developed as a Lifestyle Commercial Center. The Lifestyle Commercial Center is similar to a Traditional Marketplace Development, being a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly form of development. The Panattoni Amendment meets the commercial land use siting criteria in FLUE Policy 1.2-k. The county planning staff anticipated that the surrounding vacant properties would be developed at a higher density than two units per acre through one or more of the county’s density bonus programs. The Panattoni Amendment includes a condition that at least five percent of the project must be designated as public open space as squares, greens, or plazas. Parking must be dispersed through the site. The interconnected vehicular and pedestrian circulation system must provide on-street parking and access to transit stops and off- site pedestrian and bicycle systems where feasible. The Panattoni Property be developed with building mass and placement to provide a spatial definition along streets. Additionally, the design must incorporate human-scale elements along streets and in common areas that includes seating, landscaping, lighting and water or art features. No single tenant can exceed 100,000 square feet and cannot not be a “big box.” The Panattoni Amendment would not result in strip development. The Panattoni Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. Petitioners testified that a number of stores in the area have closed as evidence that the area does not need additional commercial uses. A window survey of empty stores is not an accurate way to evaluate vacancy rates, in particular, or the need for commercial uses, generally. Panattoni provided an adequate justification and demonstrated need for the 396,000 square feet of commercial uses authorized by the Panattoni Amendment. The Panattoni Property is located in the tier in which the County has indicated it wants most of its development to occur. Petitioners presented no evidence that the Panattoni Amendment would cause urban sprawl. There are adequate public services and infrastructure to accommodate the Panattoni Amendment. The potential traffic impacts associated with the Panattoni Amendment were reviewed under the Test One and Test Two analyses. As to Test One, the traffic analysis shows that affected roads will not meet the LOS standard in 2025 at the maximum development intensity. Therefore, the Panattoni Amendment includes a condition that the development must be limited to 396,000 square feet of commercial use. As to Test Two, the traffic analysis shows that all roads will operate at the adopted LOS standard if the project is limited to 65,000 square feet until construction has commenced for the recommended improvements at Lake Worth Road/Turnpike interchange. Therefore, the Panattoni Amendment includes this condition on the development. Construction of the improvements has already commenced. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council determined that the Panattoni Amendment is consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Petitioners did not show how the Panattoni Amendment causes an inconsistency with any provision of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the amendments adopted by Palm Beach County by Ordinances 2008-48, 2008-49, and 2008-50 are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 2009.
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation properly denied sign permits to the Petitioner on the basis that the commercial zoning on the property was not comprehensive zoning within the scope of that phrase as it is used under the applicable federal sign regulations and on the basis that the parcel was not of sufficient size to support commercial activities other than a sign.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Flynnstone Outdoor Advertising Inc., is a Florida Corporation in Tallahassee, Florida. The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Title 23, United States Code of Federal Regulations concerning the signs on the federal highway system. See Section 479.02, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's Applications for Outdoor Sign Permit numbers 53758 and 53579, were duly received by the Department and were duly denied on April 30, 2002. The subject sign permit applications sought authority to located a v-shaped, bi-directional sign on a three-foot diameter post twenty-two fee above the ground with overall dimensions of eighteen feet in width and 30 feet in length. The location sought for the sign was on a .33 acre parcel of land approximately 3,128 feet east of Brickyard Road in Gadsden County, Florida. The parcel of land is within the city limits of the City of Midway, Florida. The parcel is irregular in shape and has 75 feet of frontage along the CSX railroad right-of-way adjacent and parallel to U.S. 90 West on the east side, a south side dimension of 234.32 feet, a western dimension of 200 feet and an overall area of approximately 14,838.32 square feet. The parcel has a viable access road onto U.S. Highway 90. The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Midway designates all of the property along both sides of U.S. Highway 90 West from the subject property to the Interstate Highway 10 interchange, approximately 3/4 of a mile to the north of the site. The City of Midway's city building inspector, Roosevelt Morris, testified. The area in the vicinity of the subject parcel was originally annexed into the City of Midway as agricultural land. Once annexed, the subject parcel was zoned commercial and the adjacent 9.9 acres to the north was re-zoned high-density residential. The area along U.S. Highway 90 North of the high- density residential parcel all the way to Brickyard Road near the Interstate 10 interchange is zoned commercial. On the east side of U.S. Highway 90 directly across from the subject property, the land is zoned commercial and is used for a large commercial modular home sales facility. North of the mobile home center on the East side of U.S. Highway 90 West, a large commercial car/truck travel is located. City of Midway building inspector Roosevelt Morris testified regarding the zoning plans of the City of Midway. The plan is to have commercial zoning for the entire area along U.S. Highway 90, from the subject parcel north to Interstate 10. The Petitioner leases the subject parcel with an option to purchase it from the owner. The owner/developer of the subject parcel and the adjacent multi-family residential parcel, James A. Stiles, testified. These parcels were originally purchased and were zoned as agricultural. The adjacent 9.9 acre parcels were re-zoned multi-family so that a prospective purchaser, Tampa-based Citizens Realty Corporation, could put approximately one hundred government-subsidized residential apartment units on the parcel. The subject .33 acre parcel was re-zoned commercial in order to place a commercial Laundromat, convenience store or mini-storage facility adjacent to the apartments to serve the residents of the complex. The federal grant application for the multi-family project was denied, and there is litigation pending regarding the development. If the development fails, the owner will re-zone the parcel commercial. City of Midway building inspector Roosevelt Morris testified regarding the City of Midway Land Development Code. It provides that the minimum lot size for a commercial lot is 75 feet by 100 feet in depth for a total square footage of 7,500 square feet. According to those standards, the subject parcel meets the minimum requirements. The applicable state and federal authorities require that for a parcel to be eligible for a sign permit, among other requirements, it must be zoned commercial or industrial as a part of comprehensive zoning. More specifically, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23 "Highways" provides as follows in Section 750.708 "Acceptance of State Zoning": 23 U.S.C. 131 (D) provide that signs 'may be erected and maintained within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way within areas . . . which are zoned industrial or commercial under authority State law.' Section 131 (d) further provides, 'The States shall have full authority under their own zoning laws to zone areas for commercial or industrial purposes, and the actions of the States in this regard will be accepted for the purpose of this act.' State and local zoning actions must be taken pursuant to the State's zoning, enabling statute or constitutional authority and in accordance therewith. Action which is not a part of comprehensive zoning and is created primarily to permit outdoor advertising structures, is not recognized as zoning for outdoor advertising control purposes. The Department does not dispute that the first part of the zoning test is met. See T.9, Line 20. The future land use in this area is commercial. The Department denied the applications because the zoning, agricultural, was changed to commercial on this parcel (1/3 of an acre) upon which the sign is to be placed. The future land use would be industrial and commercial under the comprehensive development plan, and the city has opted out of industrial. Mr. Morris testified regarding the housing project. It had been annexed into the City of Midway and had to be zoned agricultural when it was brought into the city. Once in the city, it was re-zoned commercial and high-density residential. The plan for future development calls for the area along Highway 90 to be commercial. All of the property in this area would be re-zoned commercial under the future land use plan. The property on the other side of the highway is commercial and being developed as such. The subject parcel and the ten-acre residential tract are separated from the highway by an active railroad track. The track will also impact the future land use of the ten-acre residential parcel, which the owners indicate they will seek to re-zone. Roosevelt Morris, the local zoning and building official, testified that the small parcel in question meets the requirements for a commercial lot. The only current access to the subject parcel is through a larger parcel. There is no indication of utilities on the subject parcel. However, there is nothing to preclude access or utilities being provided to the parcel. The Department points to the required set backs of 20 feet from each boundary as the strongest argument for concluding this parcel was zoned to accommodate the sign, and not other development. It was the Department's view the setback precluded any development. If there had been a commercial activity on the property, the Department's administrator would have still denied the application. The administrator did not consider commercial uses immediately across the highway because it was "separated" by the rights-of-way from the highway and railroad.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: The Department should grant the pending permits for the outdoor advertising signs. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2002.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether two City of Palm Bay Comprehensive Plan Amendments, one of which was "small scale development amendment" under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Brevard County (County) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. See Section 7.05, Florida Statutes. The County is bordered on the north by Volusia County, on the west by Volusia, Orange, and Osceola Counties, on the south by Indian River County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The City of Palm Bay (City) is a municipality in southeast Brevard County, just to the southwest of the City of Melbourne. In its extreme northeast, the City borders on the Intracoastal Waterway. From there, it fans out to the southeast, surrounded on all sides by the County. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The Small-Scale Amendment: Review and Adoption On June 3, 1999, William Wilson submitted an application to amend the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for a 1.1558-acre (small-scale) parcel of land in the unincorporated County at the southeast corner of the intersection of Valkaria Road (an east/west thoroughfare) and Babcock Street (a north/south thoroughfare), in anticipation of annexation by the City. In this vicinity, the unincorporated County lay to the east, across Babcock Street, between the City and the Intracoastal Waterway. The unincorporated County land to the north, east, and south of the parcel had a future land use designation of "Residential" on the County's FLUM; the City land to the west had a residential future land use designation on the City's FLUM. The requested amendment was from the existing County "Residential" designation to City "Commercial." A zoning change also was requested from County AU (Agricultural Residential) to City CC (Community Commercial). The parcel subject to the small-scale amendment request has a single-family home and free-standing residential garage located onsite. Projected impacts from commercial development on the parcel met all relevant City level of service (LOS) standards. (The County has not put environmental suitability at issue with respect to the parcel.) The City planning staff recommended approval of the requested plan amendment; staff recommended approval of the zoning change but to City NC (Neighborhood Commerical). These requests were heard by the City Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the local planning agency (LPA), on October 20, 1999. The LPA voted to recommend to the City Council that the plan amendment be approved and that the zoning change to City NC also be approved. By Ordinance 2000-08, adopted on March 2, 2000, the City annexed the small-scale parcel, effective immediately upon enactment of the Ordinance. By Ordinance No. 2000-09, also adopted on March 2, 2000, the City Council granted the request to change the future land use designation of the parcel on the City's FLUM to City "Commercial." By Ordinance No. 2000-10, zoning on the parcel was changed to City NC. The Large-Scale Amendment: Review and Adoption On July 6, 1999, Brian West submitted an application to amend the City's FLUM for a 19.57-acre parcel on the northeast corner of the intersection of Valkaria Road and Babcock Street (immediately north of the small-scale parcel, across Valkaria), in anticipation of annexation by the City. The requested amendment was from the existing Brevard County "Residential" designation to City "Commercial" future land use. A zoning change from County AU (Agricultural Residential) to City CC (Community Commercial) also was requested. This 19.57-acre (large-scale) parcel is vacant. The County has not put environmental suitability at issue with respect to the large-scale parcel. The City's planning staff recommended approval of the requested plan amendment, which was heard by the City's Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the LPA, on October 20, 1999, along with the small-scale request. The LPA voted to recommend to the City Council that the large-scale amendment be denied. On February 15, 2000, the City Council conducted a special meeting to consider the requested large-scale annexation, plan amendment, and zoning change and voted to approve the requests. However, at the time, the City also was in the process of developing plan amendments in response to its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR); as a result, transmittal to DCA was deferred until transmittal of the EAR-based amendments. On January 18, 2001, the City Council met in regular session and voted to transmit the requested large-scale amendment to DCA, along with the other EAR-based amendments. On May 17, 2001, DCA issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report regarding the transmitted comprehensive plan amendments. DCA raised several objections and made comments regarding the amendment. The ORC Report was received by the City on May 21, 2001. (The greater weight of the evidence was contrary to testimony of the City's Planning Manager that the ORC Report received on that date was incomplete.) On October 2, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2001-65, which adopted the requested amendment for the large-scale parcel from County Residential to City Commercial future land use. The EAR-based amendments also were adopted on the same date by Ordinance 2001-66. By Ordinance 2001-86 adopted on November 1, 2001, the City annexed the large-scale parcel, effective immediately. Re-Adoption of Plan Amendments at Issue At some unspecified time after October 2, 2001, the City became aware of concerns voiced by DCA regarding the sequence and timing of the large-scale annexation and FLUM amendment. To address these concerns, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2001-105 on December 20, 2001. This Ordinance repealed and re-adopted Ordinance No. 2000-65. At some unspecified time after March 2, 2000, the City became aware of concerns raised by DCA that adoption of the small- scale FLUM amendment took place before the City adopted plan amendments to comply with new school siting requirements, contrary to a statutory prohibition. In order to address these concerns, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2000-79 on January 4, 2001, to repeal and re-adopt Ordinance No. 2000-09, re-designating the small-scale parcel for "Commercial" future land use. DCA Notice of Intent and City's EAR-Based Amendments On January 21, 2002, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the readopted large-scale amendment "in compliance." DCA subsequently caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find this readopted amendment "in compliance." The EAR-based amendments adopted on October 2, 2001, included certain text amendments, but these amendments had no direct bearing on the plan amendments at issue in this case. All plan text provisions relating to the plan amendments at issue in this case remained "substantially the same" after the EAR-based amendments. Need for Additional Commercial Future Land Use and Internal Consistency The County contends that analysis of the data in existence at the time of adoption of the plan amendments at issue in this case does not support a need to change the future land use on these parcels from County Agricultural Residential to City Commercial. But the following Findings are based on these data and analysis. City data and analysis dated January 2001 indicated in pertinent part: In 2011 the City will need 719 acres of commercial land and at buildout, will need approximately 1,725 acres. The Future Land Use Map currently allocated approximately 1,612 acres for commercial and office development. This is slightly below the needs identified over the long term time periods. The expansion of existing Activity Centers and the development of new Activity Centers should easily accommodate this minor increase. Between now and the next required Plan update in 2007, the City should analyze the available commercial land to determine if existing designated lands are appropriately located or whether new areas should be established and existing designations converted to other land use types. Of particular interest in that regard would be the large amount of neighborhood commercial presently designated but which is primarily vacant. It was not clear from the evidence how the acreage figures in the data and analysis were calculated. It does not appear from the evidence that the figure for commercial acreage "needed" included any "cushion" or "margin of error." If the City has more land allocated for commercial future land use than is expected to be "needed" within the planning horizon of its Comprehensive Plan (the year 2011), it may be the result of pre-platting of the City by General Development Corporation. If so, the City also has an even greater excess of acreage allocated for residential future land use since approximately 90 percent of the City was pre-platted for small, quarter-acre residential lots. As a result of pre-platting, it now appears that, at build-out (expected in about 20-30 years), the City will have an excess of allocated for residential land use and a shortage of acreage allocated for commercial land use (among other non-residential uses.) As a result, there is a current need to begin to reduce the amount of acreage allocated for residential future land use and add commercial acreage (as well as other non-residential uses.) A disproportion of City land allocated to commercial future land use is in the northern part of the City, between Malabar Road and Palm Bay Road, a considerable distance from the intersection of Babcock Street and Valkaria Road. Before the plan amendments at issue in this case, there was hardly any commercial future land use in the City in the vicinity of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Almost all of what little commercial future land use could be found in the vicinity was in small parcels--the single exception being a 15-acre parcel at the intersection of Eldron and Grant approximately two miles to the south. There also was very little land allocated to commercial future land uses in the unincorporated County anywhere near the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Almost all of the unincorporated County in the vicinity had Rural Residential future land use. There was some County Neighborhood Commercial across Babcock from the 15- acre parcel of City Commercial two miles to the south of the intersection. There also was some County Neighborhood Commercial and a small amount of County Community Commercial future land use east of Babcock about a mile to the north of the intersection. A 40-acre parcel approximately 650 feet to the east of the intersection was changed from County rural residential to general commercial zoning in 1988. But at around the time the City began to process the plan amendments at issue in this case, the County purchased the land and re-designated it for Public future land use and GML (Government-Managed Land) zoning. Most of the City's population growth in the last 20 years has been in the southern and western part of the City, to the west of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Between 1986 and 1999, residential development within 2-3 miles of the amendment sites increased approximately 160 percent. As a result, whereas 17 years ago most of the City's population was east of Interstate 95, now approximately half the population resides west of Interstate 95 (although 60 percent still resides north of Malabar Road.) Due to the sparse commercial use in the vicinity, either in the City or the unincorporated County, there is a need for more land designated for commercial future land uses in the southern part of the City to serve the rapidly growing population in that area. The applicant for the large-scale amendment submitted a letter projecting a need for 1.5 million square feet of retail space in the City based on a comparison of "current space" with average retail space per capita in Florida. The County criticized the professional acceptability of this submission as data and analysis to demonstrate need for additional commercial acreage in the City. Standing alone, the submission may be fairly subject to the County's criticism; but considered along with the other data and analysis, the submission adds to the demonstration of need for the plan amendments. It was estimated that commercial uses at the intersection of Babcock and Valkaria will generate an additional 12,000 vehicle trips on Babcock in the vicinity of its intersection with Valkaria. This estimate further demonstrates a need for additional commercial future land use in the vicinity. At least some of the vehicle trips expected to be generated in the vicinity of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection as a result of adding commercial future land use there would correspond to a reduction in vehicular traffic from the southern part of the City to and from commercial areas in the northern part of the City. For that reason, by helping balance the amount of commercial land use available in the northern and southern parts of the City, adding commercial future land use in the southern part of the City could be reasonably expected to reduce traffic overall. Commercial land uses generally generate higher tax revenue and demand fewer government services than residential land uses. Meanwhile, the City provides most of the government services in the Babcock/Valkaria vicinity and has a backlog of infrastructure projects. For that reason, an economic benefit reasonably is expected to accrue to the City from adding commercial in the southern part of the City.2 Future Land Use Element FLU Objective 3.1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Provide additional commercial areas by type, size and distribution, based upon area need. . . ." FLU Policy 3.1A states: "The acreage of commercial land permitted by the Future Land Use Map shall not exceed projected needs." The County did not prove that the proposed FLUM amendments are inconsistent with either this Objective or this Policy. The plan amendments at issue are based upon area need and do not exceed projected needs, as reflected in the data and analysis. Compatibility and Internal Consistency The County contended that City Commercial future land use for the amendment parcels is incompatible with surrounding land uses and internally inconsistent with provisions the City's FLU Objective 2.3, to: "Prevent incompatible land uses from locating in residential areas in order to promote neighborhood stability and prevent deterioration." In the unincorporated County to the east of Babcock Street, there are primarily large-lot, rural residential land uses with some agricultural uses such as horses and tree-farming. But, as indicated, there are platted residential lots in the City to the west of Babcock Street that are urban (or suburban) in character. During the course of these proceedings, the County abandoned its contentions as to incompatibility of the small-scale amendment except for the existence of a residential structure on the property. In arguing that the existence of the residential structure on the property makes commercial future land use incompatible, the County relied on the City's zoning LDRs. But zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs are not at issue in this comprehensive plan amendment case. See Conclusion 52, infra. Even if zoning and consistency with zoning LDRs were at issue, the applicant's residential structure would not defeat the applicant's proposed future land use change; rather, granting the application would mean that use of the residential structure would have to be discontinued after the future land use change. As to the large-scale amendment, the County also relies in part on alleged inconsistency with an LDR--in this instance, the City's LDR for Community Commercial zoning that these areas are "to be primarily located in or near the intersection of arterial roadways." But, again, zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs are not issues for determination in this comprehensive plan amendment case. Id. Even if zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs were at issue, consistency and compatibility still would be fairly debatable. The evidence was that Valkaria was designated as a collector road at the time of adoption of the proposed large-scale amendment and that Babcock was designated as an arterial roadway to the north of Valkaria and as a collector to the south of Valkaria. The City characterized Babcock as a minor arterial. By its terms, the LDR in question does not prohibit Community Commercial zoning except in or near the intersection of arterial roadways; it only provides that these areas are to be located primarily in or near these intersections. Even if City Community Commercial zoning were clearly inconsistent with the City's LDR for Community Commercial zoning, City Neighborhood Commercial zoning has no similar provision for location vis-a-vis arterial roads. Since the City only has one commercial future land use category, City Commercial would be the appropriate City future land use designation for City Neighborhood Commercial zoning. The County's contentions as to the large-scale amendment also are seriously undermined by the existence of both County Community Commercial and County Neighborhood Commercial future land use east of Babcock. In addition, a County-sponsored Small Area Study (SAS) of approximately 11,500 acres of land east of the intersection along Valkaria Road recommended County Neighborhood Commercial future land use for the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of Babcock and Valkaria (as well as County Restricted Neighborhood Commercial zoning). As indicated, the City's Comprehensive Plan does not distinguish between the two categories of commercial future land use and, if any commercial future land use is compatible with surrounding land uses, City Commercial future land use is appropriate. Contrary to the County's argument, it makes no difference to the appropriateness of City Commercial future land use that County Neighborhood Commercial future land is more limited than City Commercial future land use (or that County Restricted Neighborhood Commercial zoning is more limited than City Community Commercial zoning). The County argued that the large-scale future land use amendment was inconsistent with City FLUE Policy 2.3A, which states that LDRs must "continue to contain provisions to ensure that land uses surrounded by and/or abutting residential areas are not in conflict with the scale, intensity, density and character of the residential area." There is nothing about the proposed FLUM changes that is inconsistent with this Policy. Consistency of LDRs with this Policy is not at issue in this proceeding. See Conclusion 53, infra. The County also questioned the adequacy of buffer between commercial uses on the large-scale parcel and nearby residential uses. Precise questions as to the adequacy of buffer are decided under the LDRs, during site development review and permitting. However, it is noted that there is a 50-foot wide "paper street" (i.e., a platted right-of-way that never was developed as a street) to the west of the large-scale parcel. In addition, zoning as City Community Commercial was conditioned upon additional buffer to the east (25 feet wide) and to the north (50 feet wide). Consideration also is being given to a Habitat Conservation Plan of an undetermined size in the northern portion of the site for use as a "fly-over" for scrub jays. In addition, actual use of the residential land in the unincorporated County to the north of the large-scale parcel includes a car repair business with garage and approximately 15 cars in various states of disrepair.3 For all of the foregoing reasons, the evidence did not establish either internal inconsistency or incompatibility of commercial uses on the large-scale parcel with existing residential uses. Infrastructure and Internal Consistency At the time of adoption of the plan amendments at issue, central water and sewer services had not yet been extended to the two parcels. However, it was clear from the evidence that adequate central water and sewer capacity existed to accommodate commercial development on these parcels and that central water and sewer was being extended to the parcels. The Capital Improvements Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan listed $1.7 million being budgeted for water and sewer improvements in fiscal year 2001/2002, and in excess of $15.3 million budgeted in fiscal year 2002/2003. FLU Objective 3.1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Provide additional commercial areas by type, size and distribution, based upon . . . the availability of supporting infrastructure." The County did not prove that the proposed plan amendments are inconsistent with this Objective. Urban Sprawl and Internal Consistency The County maintains that the proposed plan amendments exacerbate urban sprawl. But the County provided no detailed analysis of the indicators of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, to support its contention. In arguing urban sprawl, the County relied on its contentions that there was no demonstrated need to convert County rural residential land use to City commercial land use. This argument has been rejected. See Findings 20-31, supra. The County's urban sprawl argument also focused on uses in the unincorporated County east of Babcock and characterizes the plan amendments as placing commercial land use in a rural area. This focus and characterization ignores the existence of urban residential uses in the City west of Babcock. Seen in proper perspective, the proposed plan amendments allow commercial land use that would tend to mitigate and discourage the kind of urban sprawl promoted by the pre-platting of the City. Instead of having to travel to access commercial uses in distant parts of the City, City residents in the vicinity would have a much closer option under the proposed amendments (as would County residents in the vicinity). FLU Objective 1.4 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Establish a Growth Management Area to control urban sprawl." FLU Policy 1.4B states: "City funds shall not be utilized to expand public facilities and services for future growth outside of the established Growth Management Area." The small-scale parcel was outside the established Growth Management Area (GMA) at the time of adoption of the small-scale amendment. But it does not follow that the small-scale amendment constitutes urban sprawl. Nor does it follow that the small-scale amendment is inconsistent with either the Objective or the Policy. The small-scale amendment can be made a GMA before any City funds are used to expand public facilities and services for future commercial use of the small-scale parcel.
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 finding both the small-scale amendment and the large- scale amendment of the City of Palm Bay (adopted by Ordinance 2000- 79 and by Ordinance 2001-105, respectively) "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: The City of Oakland Park and Its Roadways The City of Oakland Park is an incorporated municipality located in Broward County, Florida. It is situated in the geographic center of the County. A six-lane divided expressway, I-95, runs north/south through the middle of the City. Among the major east/west thoroughfares in the City is Oakland Park Boulevard. It is a six-lane divided roadway that is functionally classified by the Florida Department of Transportation as an urban principal arterial. The roadway is lined almost exclusively with commercial development. I-95 can be accessed at Oakland Park Boulevard. The Stroks' Property and Its Surroundings Mr. and Mrs. Strok own 20.709 acres of contiguous land in the City. The land is among the few remaining undeveloped properties in the City. The Stroks' property abuts Oakland Park Boulevard to the south. Its southernmost point is a relatively short distance to the west of the Oakland Park Boulevard/I-95 interchange. At present, Oakland Park Boulevard provides the only vehicular access to the Stroks' property. Commercial development lies immediately to the east and to the west of that portion of the Stroks' property fronting on Oakland Park Boulevard. Further north on the property's western boundary is a residential neighborhood of single family homes. Single family homes also lie to the east of the Stroks' property north of Oakland Park Boulevard, but they are separated from the property by a canal. Oakland Park Boulevard, in the vicinity of the Stroks' property (Segment 366), is heavily travelled. Currently, it is operating well over its capacity and therefore, according to standards utilized by the Florida Department of Transportation, is providing a Level of Service (LOS) of "F." There are no formal plans at the moment to expend public funds on capital improvements that would increase the capacity of Oakland Park Boulevard. Whether the Stroks' property is ultimately used primarily for commercial purposes or for single family residential purposes, the development of the property will increase the traffic volume on this segment of Oakland Park Boulevard, as well as other roadway segments in the County that are now operating over capacity, but are not programmed for any capital improvements. As a general rule, however, commercial development generates more traffic than single family residential development. The City's 1989 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map The City adopted its 1989 comprehensive plan on April 5, 1989. Adopted as part of the plan was a Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which was based upon appropriate surveys, studies and data concerning the area. Over Petitioners' objections, all but a small portion of the Stroks' property was designated for commercial use on the FLUM. 1/ Under the City's two prior comprehensive plans, the Stroks' entire property was designated for commercial use. "Commercial uses" are defined in Chapter IV, Section 1.32 of the City's 1989 comprehensive plan as "activities within land areas which are predominantly connected with the sale, rental and distribution of products, or performance of services." Furthermore, Chapter IV, Section 3.02(C) of the plan provides as follows with respect to lands designated for commercial use on the FLUM: Each parcel of land within an area designated in a commercial land use category by the City's land Use Plan Map must be zoned in a zoning district which permits any one or more of the following uses, but no other uses: Retail uses. Office and business uses. Wholesale, storage, light fabricating and warehouses uses, if deemed appropriate by the City. Hotels, motels and similar lodging. Recreation and open space, cemeteries, and commercial recreation uses. Community facilities and utilities. a. Special Residential Facility Category (2) development . . . . b. Special Residential Facility Category (3) development . . . . Non-residential agriculture uses. Residential uses are permitted in the same structure as a commercial use provided that the local government entity applies flexibility and reserve units to the parcel and: The residential floor area does not exceed 50% of the total floor area of the building; or The first floor is totally confined to commercial uses. Recreational vehicle park sites at a maximum density of ten (10) sites per gross acre if permanent location of recreational vehicles on the site is permitted by the City land development regulations, or twenty (20) sites per gross acre if such permanent location is prohibited by the local land development regulations, subject to allocation by the City government entity of available flexibility or reserve units. Transportation and communication facilities. The decision to designate in the City's 1989 comprehensive plan almost all of the Stroks' property for commercial use was not made without consideration of the adverse impact commercial development would have on traffic in the vicinity of the Stroks' property. Although it was recognized that such development would add more traffic to the already congested roadways in the area than would single family residential development, the prevailing view was that the additional traffic that would be generated by commercial development, as compared to that which would be generated by single family residential development, would be relatively insignificant. The designation of the major portion of the Stroks' property for commercial use is not inherently incompatible with the designations assigned other parcels of property in the surrounding area. The Stroks' property was designated for commercial use under Broward County's 1989 comprehensive plan. The Broward County Charter mandates that the land use plans of the County's incorporated municipalities be in substantial conformity with the County's land use plan. Goals, Objectives and Policies The City's 1989 comprehensive plan also includes various goals, objectives and policies. Those of particular significance to the instant case provide in pertinent part as follows: Goal 1- Protect and enhance the single family residential, multiple-family residential, non-residential and natural resource areas of Oakland Park. Objective 1.1- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, revise the development code to assure that all new development . . . avoids traffic problems now impacting the City . . . . Policy 1.1.5- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the development code shall be amended to specify that no development permit shall be issued unless assurance is given that the public facilities necessitated by the project (in order to meet level of service standards specified in the Traffic Circulation, Recreation and Infrastructure policies) will be in place concurrent with the impacts of the development. A concurrency management system shall be included that specifies the latest DCA and City criteria for what constitutes "assurance" in addition to budgeted projects or signed development agreements. Goal 2- To develop an overall transportation circulation system which will provide for the transportation needs of all sectors of the community in a safe, efficient, cost effective and aesthetically pleasing manner. Objective 2.1- Provide for a safe, convenient and efficient motorized and non-motorized transportation system. Policy 2.1.1- Monitor annual traffic accident frequencies by location. Policy 2.2.2- Improve selective enforcement at high accident locations. Policy 2.1.4- Within one year of Plan submission, or when required by legislative mandate, provide safe and convenient on-site traffic flow through development review procedures. Policy 2.1.7- Reduce the amount of through traffic on local streets and collectors through the implementation, within three years of plan adoption, of a Local Area Traffic Management Program (LATMP) . . . . Policy 2.1.11- Improve the efficiency of traffic flow on existing roadways by implementing the policies of Objective 2.1. Objective 2.2- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, coordinate the traffic circulation system with existing and future land uses as shown on the Future Land Use Map. Policy 2.2.1- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide a Development Management System that will allow development to occur in concurrence with the Future Land Use Map and in concert with development of the traffic circulation system. Provide daily and peak hour LOS "D" on all arterial and collector roadways where existing plus committed traffic allows, and maintain traffic conditions on all other roadways segments. Provide daily and peak hour LOS "C" on all local roadways. LOS shall be based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and the FDOT Generalized Daily and Peak Hour Level of Service Maximum Volumes. Other methods may be utilized but are subject to technical review and acceptance by the City. Policy 2.2.2- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of local roadway segments where traffic operations are at LOS "C" or better. This list may be based on the February 21,1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development or other sources as appropriate. Policy 2.2.3- After 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.1, under the following circumstances: There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "C" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "C" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.4- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are at LOS "D" or better. This list shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. Policy 2.2.5- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.1, under the following circumstances: There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.6- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are worse than LOS "D" and there is a scheduled improvement in the City 2010 Traffic Circulation Plan. Traffic operations shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. These links will be identified as "Planned Improvement Facilities" and the LOS will be "Maintained" within 10% of identified existing plus committed conditions, where traffic conditions are measured by volume to capacity ratios. Policy 2.2.7- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.3, under the following circumstances: The proposed impacts will "Maintain," within 10% of existing plus committed traffic conditions and the scheduled 2010 improvement will be able to operate at LOS "D" once constructed. There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are under construction, under contract for construction or the City Council determines they will be under contract during the same fiscal year. The necessary improvements to provide LOS "D" are included in an enforceable development agreement. Policy 2.2.8- Within 120 days of plan adoption, adopt a list of arterial and collector roadway segments where traffic operations are worse than LOS "D" and there is no scheduled improvement in the City 2010 Traffic Circulation Plan. 2/ Traffic operations shall be based on the February 21, 1989 run of the Broward County TRIPS model, which includes traffic generated by committed development. These links will be identified as "Constrained Facilities" and the LOS will be "Maintained" within 10% of identified existing plus committed conditions, where traffic conditions are measured by volume to capacity ratios. Policy 2.2.9- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, the City will only issue development permits for projects impacting links identified from Policy 2.2.5, under the following circumstances: The proposed impacts will "Maintain," within 10% of existing plus committed traffic conditions. There is an approved Action Plan accompanying the traffic impacts of the proposed development, where an Action Plan refers to any combination of accepted transit, ride- sharing, transportation systems management methods, etc. methods of traffic impact mitigation. Policy 2.2.10- The City will annually update existing traffic counts and review updated Broward County Trips assignments. Based on the update the City may reclassify any roadway segment within the City. The City may also reclassify a roadway segment if development from outside the City has effected traffic conditions within the City. Policy 2.2.11- Subsequent to plan adoption, modify the land development regulations such that after 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, require trip generation studies from all proposed development within the City and traffic impact studies for developments generating more than 10% of adjacent roadway capacity and allow development contingent upon the provision of LOS Standards. Objective 2.4- Provide for the protection of existing and future rights of way from building encroachment. Policy 2.4.2- Modify land development regulations to ensure consistency with the Broward County Trafficways Plan right-of-way requirements during development review activities. Goal 9- To ensure the orderly and efficient provision of all public services and facilities necessary to serve existing and future local population needs. Objective 9.2- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide that development or redevelopment proposals are approved consistent with existing service availability or coincident with the programmed provision of additional services at the adopted level of service standards and meets existing and future facility needs. Policy 9.2.1- Within one year of Plan submission, or when required by legislative mandate, revise development procedures to review development proposals cognizant of the City's adopted level of service standards, existing levels of service and where appropriate, the timeframe for implementation of additional facility improvements. Policy 9.2.2- After 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, condition the approval of proposed development or redevelopment projects on the basis of project related needs being concurrently available at the adopted level of service standards specified in Policy 9.2.4. Policy 9.2.3- After November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, allow for phasing of development related infrastructure improvements concurrently with project impacts on public facilities. Policy 9.2.4- The Level of Service (LOS) for capital facilities shall be: * * * for Arterials and Collectors- LOS "D" or "Maintain" for Local Roadways- LOS "C" ADT, PSDT and PKHR Objective 9.3- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, provide that private developers participate on a proportionate share basis in any facility improvement costs necessary to maintain LOS standards. Policy 9.3.2- Establish a preference for the actual construction of adjacent site road improvements in lieu of impact fee payments. Policy 9.3.3- By November 1989, or when required by legislative mandate, establish in the land development regulations a process for assessing new development on a pro rata share of the costs necessary to finance public facility improvements in order to maintain the adopted level of service standards specified in Policy 9.2.4. Development Review Requirements Chapter IV, Section 4 of the City's 1989 comprehensive plan prescribes development review requirements. It provides in pertinent part as follows: Following the effective date of the Land Use Plan, the City shall not grant a permit for a proposed development unless the City has determined that public facilities are adequate to serve the needs of the proposed development or unless the developer agrees in writing that no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for the proposed development until public facilities are adequate to serve its needs. Public facilities may be determined to be adequate to serve the needs of a proposed development when the following conditions are met. Traffic circulation . . . public facilities and services will be available to meet established level of service standards, consistent with Chapter 163.3203(g) Florida Statutes and the concurrence management policies included within this Plan. Local streets and roads will provide safe, adequate access between buildings within the proposed development and the trafficways identified on the Broward County Trafficways Plan prior to occupancy. Capital Improvements Implementation Chapter VII of the plan deals with the subject of capital improvements implementation. It contains a section which addresses the matter of level of service standards. This section provides in pertinent part as follows: The minimum criteria for Comprehensive Plans requires that Level of Service Standards for the City of Oakland Park be included for public facilities described in the plan. The Level of Service Standards for the City of Oakland Park are provided in the following Table 2. Subsequent to the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, all future development approvals will be conditioned upon the provision of services at the local level of service standards. Table 2 sets forth the following level of service standards for roadways: Principal Arterials- LOS "D" or "Maintain" Minor Arterials- LOS "D" or "Maintain" Collectors- LOS "C"- AADT, 3/ PSDT 4/ PKHR 5/ Submission and Approval of the Stroks' Plat On June 6, 1989, the Stroks submitted to the County Commission for its approval a final plat of their property. The plat reflected the Stroks' plan to have 15 single family dwelling units, 180,000 square feet of office space and 36,000 square feet of commercial space constructed on the property. County staff analyzed the plat to ascertain the impact that the proposed development would have on traffic. In performing their analysis, they relied on the County's TRIPS computer model. Broward County assesses impact fees against a developer where it is projected that a development will add traffic to road segments in the County that are over-capacity, but are planned for improvement. The TRIPS computer model is used to determine the amount of the assessment. County staff did a TRIPS run on the Stroks' plat on September 13, 1989 and determined that the development proposed in the plat would generate a total of 6,879 trips on road segments throughout the County, including over-capacity road segments that were not planned for improvement, as well as over-capacity road segments that were planned for improvement. 6/ The County Commission approved the Stroks' plat on September 19, 1989. A short time earlier, the City Council had also approved the plat. Petitioners' Motives Petitioners are all residents of the City of Oakland Park. In filing their petitions challenging the City's 1989 comprehensive plan, they were motivated only by a desire to improve the quality of life in their city. They had no ulterior motive. They filed the petitions because they felt that it was in the best interest of the City that they do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs issue a final order finding that the City of Oakland Park's 1989 comprehensive plan is "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of th Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1990.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether amendments to the City of Stuart's comprehensive plan, designated amendments 97-S1, 97-1, 98-R1, and 98-ER1 by the Department of Community Affairs, are "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Board of County Commissioners of Martin County (hereinafter referred to as "Martin County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Petitioner, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "1000 Friends"), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation. The corporate purpose of 1000 Friends includes monitoring and ensuring the proper implementation of the State's growth management laws. Respondent, City of Stuart (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipal corporation located within Martin County. Respondent/Intervenor, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). No evidence concerning Intervenor, Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., was presented. Standing. Martin County owns real property located within the jurisdiction of the City. Although Martin County is also an "adjoining local government," the evidence failed to prove that the amendments at issue in these cases will produce "substantial impacts" on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment within Martin County's jurisdiction. There has been a negative impact on Martin County's ad valorem tax base by the annexation of properties formerly under its jurisdiction. Those impacts, however, were caused by the annexation of the properties and not by the amendments at issue in this case. Additionally, those impacts did not cause any need for "publicly funded infrastructure." There may also be some impact as a result in the change in land use designations for some of the annexed property. Martin County's conclusion about the extent of the increase in commercial uses, however, was not supported by the evidence. The evidence also failed to prove that any of the text amendments at issue in these cases will have a negative impact on Martin County's need to provide publicly funded infrastructure. The evidence also failed to prove that the reduction of land subject to Martin County's municipal service taxing district and any resulting decrease in taxable values with the district will cause Martin County to provide additional publicly funded infrastructure. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Martin County has designated any areas "for protection or special treatment within their jurisdiction" or that there will any "substantial impact" on such areas. Martin County made oral and written comments to the City during the adoption of the amendments at issue in these cases. 1000 Friends, since its formation, has had approximately 6,000 members in Florida. Members from Martin County and the City have totaled approximately 835 and 235 persons, respectively. Martin County and City members constitute a substantial percentage of 1000 Friends' total membership. 1000 Friends' corporate purposes include the representation of its members in legal and administrative proceedings involving the Act. 1000 Friends' litigation committee specifically authorized its participation in these proceedings. The type of relief sought by 1000 Friends in these cases is the type of relief 1000 Friends is authorized to seek on behalf of its members. 1000 Friends made written comments to the City during the adoption of certain large scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the City's comprehensive plan and amendments to the City's comprehensive plan adopted as a result of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Martin County and 1000 Friends are "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 1000 Friends' standing is limited, however, to standing to challenge certain large scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the City's comprehensive plan and text amendments to the City's comprehensive plan adopted as a result of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Intervenor, Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., failed to prove its has standing to participate in this proceeding. General Information About Martin County and the City. Martin County is a relatively small county located in the central southeast portion of Florida. Martin County is abutted on the north by St. Lucie County, on the west by Lake Okeechobee and a small portion of Okeechobee and Glades Counties, on the south by Palm Beach County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. Martin County has a population of approximately 118,000 permanent residents. The population increases by 32 to 34 percent during the fall and winter. Martin County has the third highest per capita income in Florida. There are four municipalities in Martin County, including the City. The City is located on the Atlantic Ocean at the mouth of the St. Lucie River, which divides the City into two land masses. Most of the City is located south and east of the St. Lucie River. A small part of the City is located just to the north of the St. Lucie River. The north and south portions of the City are connected by the Roosevelt Bridge. The City is connected to Palm City to the west by the Palm City Bridge. The City has a population of approximately 14,000. During the day the population of the City increases significantly to an estimated population of between 25,000 and 30,000. Because of the City's relatively small population and the large influx of persons traveling to the City during the day, the City has a need for a significant amount of ad valorem taxes. More than half of the City's ad valorem property taxes comes from commercial property located in the City. In November 1996 commercial land use in the City accounted for approximately 24 percent of the City's land area. The City is the only full-service incorporated municipality in Martin County. It is the county seat for Martin County and serves as the center of legal, medical, social, commercial, and governmental activities in Martin County. The City has recently characterized itself as follows: For most of its history the character of Stuart was one of low to moderate intensity development in a waterfront community, with a small town feel. A four-story height limit and 10-unit density limit for most residential building were the two main forces that continue this character. In addition, Stuart has long been a hub for Martin County, home to many public and private institutions and businesses. As a result, the percentage of commercial, institutional, and public land in the City was higher than it would be in a city that did not serve as a hub. This role was evident in 1991, and a balance between the residential needs of the citizens of Stuart and the sometimes competing, sometimes complementary needs of those hub-related land uses seemed to drive the 1991 Future Land Use Element. It was recognized at Plan adoption that Stuart was near build-out, and barring further major annexations, would have limited vacant land remaining for new development. City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report, Martin County Exhibit 11 at page 33. Prior to 1997, approximately 2,800 acres of land were located within the jurisdiction of the City. Compared to the rest of Martin County, the City is relatively modest economically. Per capita income in the City is approximately 80 percent of the Martin County-wide average per capita income. Housing in the City consists of approximately 6,300 units. Two-thirds of the City's housing stock is multi-family. Approximately 92 percent of the multi-family housing stock is valued at less than $70,000.00. Approximately 69 percent of the other third of the City's housing stock, which consists of single-family housing, is valued at less than $70,000.00. The median value of owner-occupied housing in the City has been growing at a much slower rate than Martin County, neighboring counties, and the State as a whole. Between 1980 and 1990, the median value of owner-occupied housing in the City increased 56 percent while in Martin County the median value increased 112 percent, in Indian River County 69 percent, in Palm Beach County 77 percent, in St. Lucie County 66 percent, and in the State of Florida 68 percent. Because of the relatively low value of the City's housing stock, ad valorem taxes generated from housing is relatively low. The U.S. 1 Corridor. One of the main thoroughfares in Martin County is United States Highway 1, "Southeast Federal Highway" (hereinafter referred to as "U.S. 1"). U.S. 1 runs north-south through the City. It crosses the St. Lucie River via the Roosevelt Bridge. Land located within unincorporated Martin County along U.S. 1 north of the Roosevelt Bridge almost to the St. Lucie County line is mostly developed or approved for development. Development includes major retail stores such as Target, Sports Authority, Barnes & Noble Bookstore, Office Max, Marshall's, Service Merchandise, PetSmart, Home Depot, Lowe's Home Improvement Center, and grocery stores. There are also many smaller retailers located in strip commercial shopping centers. Most of the development has been permitted during the past five to six years by Martin County. The area to the west and northwest of property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge during 1997 and 1998 includes Treasure Coast Mall, strip shopping centers, offices, restaurants, and single-family housing at a density of four to five units per acre. The area to the east and northeast of the property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge includes single-family housing at a density of four units per acre, multi- family housing, and commercial and industrial property. The area to the north of the property annexed by the City north of the Roosevelt Bridge includes a development of regional impact known as "West Jensen." West Jensen runs from Jensen Beach Boulevard north to the St. Lucie County line. By 2003, when the project is projected to be fully developed, West Jensen will include 260,000 square feet of limited industrial space, 729,000 square feet of general commercial space, 23,000 square feet of limited commercial space, 235,000 square feet of office space, 200 hotel rooms, 931 residential units, and four golf courses. The area to the immediate south of the City is fully developed. Along U.S. 1 there are large shopping centers, restaurants, car dealerships, strip shopping centers, single-family housing of four to five units per acre, and condominiums. The Martin County Airport abuts U.S. 1 on the east. The area to the west of the City, Palm City, is fully developed. Growth of the City Through Annexation. To the extent that the City grew during the 1970's, it did so through annexation. Subsequent to the 1970's, however, the City turned from annexation and focused on redevelopment of the City's downtown area and the eastern part of the City. Between 1988 and November 1996, the City only annexed 298 acres in 30 annexations. This amounted to an increase of only 18 percent in the geographic size of the City. Subsequent to late 1995, the City shifted its policy back to annexation as a means of growth. Of the 30 annexations the City was involved in between 1988 and November 1996, 19 took place in October 1995. In approximately 1996, the City performed an analysis of its projected revenues and expenditures through the year 2003. The City projected that its revenues would be less than its expenditures. Based upon more recent projections, which take into account recent City annexations, the City has projected that its revenues and expenditures should be about the same for the next eight to nine years. The City has projected that its revenues will increase as a result of ad valorem and sales taxes and other revenues which should be generated from the newly annexed properties. During the Spring of 1997, the City received a number of requests for voluntary annexation pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes. These requests were accepted by the City and the first 16 parcels were annexed in the Spring of 1997. During 1998, another 27 parcels were annexed through voluntary annexation. Between the spring of 1997, and the end of 1998 the City annexed a total of almost 1,200 acres, increasing the geographic area of the city by 48 percent. The City annexed 254.8 acres in 1997 and 934 acres in 1998. The first requests for voluntary annexations began shortly after Martin County determined that certain roads had no more capacity to sustain further growth. As a consequence of this determination, Martin County imposed a moratorium on new development that would impact U.S. 1 north of the Roosevelt Bridge and the area west of the City on the other side of the Palm City Bridge. Some of the parcels annexed by the City in 1997 and 1998, could not be developed because of the transportation concurrency problem Martin County determined it had. Although there was no direct testimony from owners of parcels annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998, as to the reason they sought voluntary annexation of their property by the City, it is clear that at least some of the voluntary annexations were influenced by Martin County's moratorium and the hope of property owners that the City would take sufficient actions to resolve the transportation concurrency problem on U.S. 1 to allow owners to develop their property. More significantly, the annexations were probably influenced by a perception of property owners that obtaining approval for development from Martin County was a more difficult process generally than obtaining approval through the City. During 1997, the level of service (hereinafter referred to as "LOS") standard selected by Martin County for roads under its jurisdiction was a LOS D. While the City ultimately modified its LOS for roads impacted by development of some of the parcels annexed during 1997 and 1998, the evidence failed to prove that the City's modifications were not based upon reasonable planning principles. The 1997 Small Scale Amendments. The City did not determine specifically how the 16 parcels it annexed during 1997 would impact the City of Stuart's Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan") before it accepted the voluntary annexations. Pursuant to Section 171.062(2), Florida Statutes, the 16 parcels the City annexed in 1997 remained subject to the Martin County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "County Plan") and Martin County's land development regulations until the City amended the City's Plan to incorporate the parcels into the City. In particular, the parcels remained subject to the County Plan until the City amended the City's Plan to assign appropriate land uses to the annexed parcels. Therefore, as the parcels were annexed, the City undertook efforts to amend the City's Plan to assign appropriate land use designations to the parcels. The first nine of the 16 parcels annexed by the City during 1997 took place on September 8, 1997. The parcels were annexed pursuant to the voluntary annexation procedure of Section 171.044, Florida Statutes. Each of the nine parcels consisted of less than ten acres of land. Simultaneously with the annexation of the parcels, the City adopted ten small scale amendments to the Future Land Use Map (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM") of the City's Plan assigning land use designations under the City's Plan to the parcels. The small scale amendments adopted by the City on September 8, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Small Scale Amendments"), were designated Amendments 97S-1 by the Department. The Department did not, however, review the amendments because they constituted small scale amendments exempt from review by the Department pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes. On October 8, 1997, Martin County filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Division of Administrative Hearings contending that nine of the 1997 Small Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The Petition was designated Case No. 97-4582GM. 1000 Friends did not challenge the 1997 Small Scale Amendments or intervene in Case No. 97-4582GM. Martin County alleged that the 1997 Small Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with Sections 163.3187(c)(1)(c) [sic] and 163.3187(c)(3)(c) [sic], Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1997 Small Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. In two instances, the Kornbluh and Luce properties, the City's land use designations were virtually the same as Martin County's. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1997 Small Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the parcels by the City: Kornbluh property (Parcel 1) This parcel consists of 1.4 acres. In the County, approximately half of the parcel was designated commercial/residential (COR), and the other half commercial. The parcel is surrounded by commercial land use to the north, south, east and west, and a portion of the western boundary abuts existing developed low density residential. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1482-97. There is no substantive difference between the County's land use designation for the Kornbluh property and the City's land use designation. The same types of uses are permitted in both, such as gas stations, restaurants, bars, professional offices, veterinary offices, and other retail and commercial uses. 1st Christian Church property This parcel consists of approximately 2.8 acres and has an existing church on the property. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential. The property abuts some commercial property, some vacant property that was low density residential in the County but which has been changed to neighborhood special district in the City, a mobile home park, and some vacant land designated a medium density residential. Because the land has an existing church on the property, the City determined that institutional was a more appropriate land use designation. Thus, the City adopted an ordinance giving the property a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1494-97. City Cemetery property (Parcel 7) This parcel consists of 2.06 acres. Part of the property is used as a cemetery and the other part is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial general. The City has given that part of the property that is used as a cemetery a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1501.97 and the vacant part a designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1502.97. The City Cemetery property is at the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Monterey Road which is one of the most developed intersections in all of Martin County. The property is surrounded by commercial development and also a mobile home park. Luce property (Parcel 8) This parcel consists of approximately 4 acres. In the County, the land use designation was commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1506-97. There is no difference between the City's and County's land use designation. The City considered a commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Luce property based on the existing use of the property and the surrounding land uses. Specifically, half of the property is currently used as a produce market and the property abuts commercial land use to the north and to the west. To the east, it abuts the old City landfill which is currently closed and to the south it abuts the Martin County jail. Mush property (Parcel 9A) This parcel consists of approximately 3 acres and is fully developed. In the County, the land use designation was industrial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1509-97. The City considered the commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Mush property because it is fully developed as a contractor's showcase office. In addition, the surrounding land uses are commercial to the north and west and industrial to the south and east. The City's land use designation of commercial is more restrictive than the County's land use designation of industrial. The County's industrial designation allows both industrial types of uses and commercial uses, such as a gas stations, professional offices, retail buildings, etc. The City's land use designation of commercial does not allow industrial uses. Treasure Coast Auction House property (Parcel 9B) This parcel consists of approximately 5½ acres and is fully developed. In the County, the land use designation was industrial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1512-97. The City considered the commercial land use designation as appropriate for the Treasure Coast Auction House property because it is fully developed as a Scotty's store. In addition, the surrounding land uses are commercial to the north and west and industrial to the south and east. As explained above in the findings of fact regarding the Mush property (9-A), the City's land use designation of commercial is more restrictive than the County's land use designation of industrial. Hospice property (Parcel 10) This parcel consists of approximately 10 acres. In the County, the land use designation was half low density residential and half commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of institutional pursuant to Ordinance No. 1515-97. The Hospice property is developed as a hospice facility and the owners have plans to expand the facility. The property abuts Indian Street, which is an existing two-lane facility which will become a four-lane facility. Indian Street is considered a major collector in the County's comprehensive plan and it links U.S. 1 and State Road 76. Bailey property (Parcel 11) This parcel consists of approximately 10 acres and is currently vacant. In the County, the land use designations was half low density residential and half commercial limited. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1519-97. The Bailey property abuts Indian Street, which is an existing two-lane road which will become a four-lane road. Indian Street is considered a major collector in the County's comprehensive plan and it links U.S. 1 and State Road 76. Since it is a commercial corridor, the City considered the commercial designation on the property to be more appropriate than low density residential. Armellini property (Parcel 12) This parcel consists of approximately 1.2 acres. In the County, the land use designation was industrial and the City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1522-97. The Armellini property is on the corner of U.S. 1 and Indian Street and is in close proximity to other commercial development. The types of uses permitted by the City's commercial category is similar to the types of uses allowed by the County's industrial category, such as gas stations, office buildings, restaurants, and bars. The 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the Future Land Use Element Amendment. On December 7, 1997, the City adopted an amendment to the text of the Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE") of the City's Plan. This amendment added a new land use designation to the City's Plan: "Neighborhood/Special District." The amendment also added goals, objectives, and policies concerning the new land use category. The newly created Neighborhood/Special District allows mixed land uses, including neighborhood commercial, office, residential, and recreational. Mixed residential and non- residential uses either in the same building or on the same site are required for a Neighborhood/Special District. A Neighborhood/Special District must have at least 30 percent residential uses and at least ten percent non-residential (excluding recreational) uses. Parking must be clustered in separate pockets rather than located in one expanse, and pedestrian interconnections must be used. On December 8, 1997, the City annexed seven parcels of property by voluntary annexation. On the same date the City adopted nine FLUM amendments assigning land use designations to the annexed property consistent with the City's Plan. Each of the parcels to which the FLUM amendments applied consisted of more than ten acres of land and, therefore, were not considered small scale amendments exempt from Department review. The nine large scale amendments to the FLUM and the FLUE amendment adopted by the City in December 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "1997 Large Scale Amendments and the "FLUE Amendment," respectively), were designated Amendment 97-1 by the Department. The Department reviewed the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment. In a Statement of Intent issued February 9, 1998, the Department found the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment were not "in compliance." The Department's determination was based upon its conclusion that the new land use category and existing non-residential land use categories applied in the 1997 Large Scale Amendments lacked a density/intensity standard. On February 17, 1998, the Department filed a Petition of the Department of Community Affairs with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petition was designated Case No. 98-0794GM. Martin County was granted leave to intervene in Case No. 98-0794GM by Order Granting Intervention entered March 11, 1998. Martin County challenged the FLUE Amendment and the 1997 Large Scale Amendments. Martin County alleged that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They can not be reasonably implemented; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They fail to establish intensities of use; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; and They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast. 1000 Friends did not challenge the 1997 Large Scale Amendments or the FLUE Amendment. Nor did 1000 Friends intervene in Case No. 98-0794GM. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1997 Large Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1997 Large Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the properties by the City: Hendry property (Parcel 3) This parcel consists of approximately 7½ acres. The property contains an existing fully developed office warehouse, and in the County the land use designation was commercial general. The parcel abuts commercial property to the north, south, and west, and to the east it abuts a mobile home park as well as a conservation easement within a walled, gated residential development. Because the existing use was a warehouse, the City determined that a more appropriate land use designation would be industrial and suggested this land use to the owner. The City adopted the industrial land use designation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1488-97. With regard to the Hendry property, there is no difference between the County's land use designation of commercial and the City's land use designation of industrial. The existing office warehouse on the property is permitted both in the County's commercial designation. Millenium property (Parcel 4) This parcel consists of approximately 24½ acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1491-97. There is no difference between the County's commercial land use designation and the City's commercial land use designation. Wacha property (Parcel 6) This parcel consists of approximately 47 acres. In the County, the land use designation was part mobile home, part low density, part medium density, and part industrial. The owner of the property approached the City with the idea of building a mixed use village on the property. The City was supportive of this idea and worked with the Treasure Coast Regional Council to develop a new land use category, neighborhood special district, as well as refine the site plan to create the mixed use village concept. The neighborhood special district land use category was adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 1498-97. Part of the property that was originally designated industrial in the County was designated commercial in the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 1497-97. The neighborhood special district land use category will allow the Wacha property to be developed as a traditional neighborhood development project. The proposed development will include a town square area with shops and restaurants on the ground floor, apartments on the second floor, and parking behind the buildings to create a pedestrian-friendly thoroughfare. The development also includes a home office district where people can live and work in the same building. The development also proposes a single family residential neighborhood clustered around a common green with garages to the rear, and the building set with front porches on the street. The City and County's land use designation for the Wacha property differ significantly. The City's land use designation requires a mix of uses, with not less than 30% residential and not less than 10% commercial or non-residential development within a given property. The County's land use designations are exclusive, so that each specific property can only be used for mobile home park or light industrial or medium density residential or low density residential. The County would not permit a mixed use development on this property. The Wacha property is part of the City's Community Redevelopment Area. The City determined that the neighborhood special district land use designation would further the intent and purpose behind the Community Redevelopment Area which is to encourage redevelopment of blighted areas. Dubner North property (Parcel 13), Republic Industries property (Parcel 14), Dubner South property (Parcel 15) The Dubner North parcel consists of approximately 48 acres, the Republic Industries property consists of approximately 11½ acres, and the Dubner South property consists of approximately 56 acres. In the County, the land use designation for each of the properties was industrial. The City has given the Dubner North property a land use designation of part commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1525-97 and part industrial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1526-97, the Republic Industries property a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1529-97, and the Dubner South property a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1532-97. The Dubner North, Republic Industries, and the Dubner South properties are bound by the railroad tracks to the east. To the north, south, and west, the properties are surrounded by either County industrial or commercial future land uses or City commercial land uses. The Remedial Amendments. Subsequent to the opening of Case No. 98-0794GM, the Department and the City entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes. Martin County declined to enter into the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. The City agreed to adopt remedial amendments which included text descriptions of various land use categories, including the Neighborhood/Special Districts category, and a table setting for residential densities and commercial intensities for land use categories created in the City's Plan. On August 24, 1998, the City adopted remedial amendments consistent with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Remedial Amendments"). The Remedial Amendments were adopted by Ordinance No. 1646-98. The Remedial Amendments, designated Amendment 98-R1 by the Department, were determined to be "in compliance" by the Department. Upon the adoption of the Remedial Amendments and the determination that the Remedial Amendments were "in compliance," the parties in Case No. 98-0794GM were realigned as required by Section 163.3184(16)(f)1, Florida Statutes, to reflect that Martin County was challenging the Department's conclusion that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment, as modified by the Remedial Amendments, were "in compliance." Martin County also filed a Petition for Formal Hearing challenging the Department's determination that the 1997 Large Scale Amendments and the FLUE Amendment, as modified by the Remedial Amendments were "in compliance." That Petition was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 17, 1998. The Petition was designated Case No. 98-5501GM. 1000 Friends did not challenge the Remedial Amendments. Nor did 1000 Friends intervene in Case No. 98-5501GM. I. The 1998 Large Scale Amendments. Between April 13, 1998, and June 22, 1998, the City annexed 16 large parcels through voluntary annexation. On August 24, 1998, the City adopted 33 FLUM amendments assigning land use designations to the newly annexed parcels consistent with the City's Plan. Eleven of the FLUM amendments were small scale amendments pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the 1998 Small Scale Amendments). The 1998 Small Scale Amendments were not reviewed by the Department even though they were submitted to the Department with the other 22 FLUM amendments. The parcels to which the other 22 FLUM amendments related consisted of more than ten acres of land and, therefore, were not considered small scale amendments exempt from Department review. The 22 large scale amendments adopted on August 24, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "1998 Large Scale Amendments), were designated Amendment 98-1 by the Department. The Department reviewed the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and found them "in compliance." Martin County and 1000 Friends filed separate Petitions for Formal Hearing with the Department challenging the determination that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were "in compliance." The Petitions filed by Martin County and 1000 Friends were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 17, 1998. The Petitions were designated Case Nos. 98- 5503GM and 98-5510GM, respectively. Martin County alleged that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. 1000 Friends alleged that the 1998 Large Scale Amendments were not "in compliance" because they were adopted without intergovernmental coordination. The land use designations assigned to the parcels to which the 1998 Large Scale Amendments apply were determined by the City based upon a consideration of the existing uses of the properties, existing and future land use designations of surrounding properties, natural resources on the properties, development trends in the area, analysis of infrastructure availability, and land use designation of Martin County for the properties. Modifications to Martin County's land use designations for the properties were based upon consideration of existing non-conforming land uses of the properties and existing patterns of development in the area. Modifications in Martin County land use designations were based upon sound planning principles. The following findings of fact (with paragraph numbers, footnotes, and citations omitted) were recommended by the City in its Proposed Order. These findings accurately describe the parcels to which the 1998 Large Scale Amendments relate and the rationale for the land use designations assigned to the properties by the City: Pulte Homes property (Parcel F3), Vista A property (Parcel F5), Gibson property (Parcel F6), and Debartolo property (Parcel F24) The Pulte Homes parcel consists of approximately 312 acres. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential and high density residential. The City has given it a combination of conservation, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1549- 97, low density residential, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1550-97, and neighborhood special district, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1551-97. The Vista A parcel consists of approximately 9 acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was commercial/office/residential (COR) and high density residential. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1546-97. The Vista B parcel consists of approximately 44 acres and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was low density residential and the City has given it a land use designation of low density residential pursuant to Ordinance No. 1553- 97. The Gibson parcel consists of approximately 100 acres. In the County, the land use designation was low density and commercial general. That part of the property that was designated commercial in the County was given a commercial land use designation in the city pursuant to Ordinance No. 1557-97. That part of the property that was designated low density residential in the County was given a combination of low density residential and conservation (Ordinance No. 1558-97), and multi-family residential (Ordinance No. 1559-97) pursuant to Ordinance No. 1549-97, low density residential, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1550-97, and neighborhood special district, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1551-97 in the City. The Debartolo parcel originally consisted of 205.90 acres. However, a portion of the parcel has been reannexed by the City to cure the defects found by the circuit court. The County's land use designation was a mixture of low, medium and high density residential. The City has given it a combination of part neighborhood special district pursuant to Ordinance No. 1618-97, part low density residential and conservation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1620-97, and part multi-family and conservation pursuant to Ordinance No. 1622-97. These five parcels (Pulte, Vista A, Vista B, Gibson, and Debartolo) contain a series of wetlands that form a slough that drains through Arant's swamp, or Haney Creek, and into the St. Lucie River. In terms of long- range planning, the City believed it best to implement a series of greenways and flow-ways to interconnect those wetlands and preserve areas to help clean up a non-point source pollution problem that was occurring in the St. Lucie River. Thus, recommending an appropriate land use designation for these properties, the City considered the pattern of wetlands in the area that form the slough and proposed a conservation land use designation for parts of some of the properties. In addition, the City received a grant from the Florida Communities Trust to purchase 84 acres of Arant's swamp or Haney Creek. This area is south of the five properties described above. The 84 acres form a flow- way for all of the water flow that comes from north to south and ultimately into the St. Lucie River. The City is proposing to construct a greenway which would connect the wetlands in the five properties described above so that water can flow unimpeded into Arant's swamp and ultimately into the St. Lucie River. Those connections would be accomplished at site planning and connected under roadways with staged culverts so animals can travel along the sides and water can flow through the middle. Comparing the City and County's land use designations for these five parcels, the land use designations adopted by the City are more appropriate than the County's land use designations and will result in a better use of the properties. For instance, by changing some of the land uses from low density residential in the County to conservation in the City, the environmentally sensitive areas will be preserved in perpetuity. In addition, by changing the County's high density residential use for the Pulte Homes property to neighborhood special district in the City, the development will require a mix of uses including some commercial which will be interconnected in a pedestrian fashion to the existing single family home development which lies to the east. This will lessen the need for additional vehicular trips and encourage alternative forms of transportation. Stewart property (Parcel F11), Madyda property (Parcel F12), First Eastern Residential property (Parcel F13), First Eastern property (Parcel F14), and SK Partner's I property (Parcel F15) The Stewart parcel (F11) consists of approximately 15 acres of land and is vacant. In the County, the land use designation was a mix of low and medium density residential, and commercial/office/residential (COR). The City has given it a land use designations of multi-family residential pursuant to Ordinance No. 1576-97. The Madyda parcel (F12) consists of approximately 6½ acres. The County's land use designation was a mix of medium density residential and commercial/office/residential (COR). The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1579-97. The First Eastern Residential parcel (F13) consists of 50 acres and is a fully developed low income housing project. The County's land use designation was medium density and low density residential. The City has given it a designation of multi-family pursuant to Ordinance No. 1582-97. The First Eastern parcel (F14) consists of 32.20 acres and is vacant. The County's land use designation was a mixture of Commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1585-97. The SK Partners I parcel (F15) consists of 18.94 acres and is vacant. The County's land use designations was commercial general. The City has given it a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance No. 1588-97. There is no difference between the City's and the County's land use designations. Sunbelt Partners/Stetson property (Parcel F17), Sunbelt Partners property (Parcel F18), SK Partners II property (Parcel F190) The Sunbelt/Stetson parcel (F17) consists of approximately 25½ acres, the Sunbelt Partners parcel (F18) consists of approximately 2.5 acres, and the SK Partners II parcel (F19) consists of approximately 38 acres. All three parcels are vacant. The City's original annexation of the Sunbelt Partners/Stetson parcels was invalidated by the circuit court. However, a portion of the parcel has been reannexed. The County's land use designation for the three parcels was primarily commercial, with a small amount of commercial/office/ residential. The City's gave all three parcels a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1615-97, 1612-97, and 1609-97. There is no real difference between the County's and the City's land use designations. Dubner East property (Parcel F22), Sellian property (Parcel F22), Dubner West property (Parcel F23) The Dubner East parcel consists of approximately 11.5 acres, the Sellian parcel (F22) consists of approximately 4 acres, and the Dubner West (F23) consists of approximately 10 acres. Dubner East is vacant, the Sellian property is developed as an office building and indoor assembly, and the Dubner West property is partially developed as an office building. The County's land use designation for each of the parcels was industrial. The City has given each a land use designation of commercial pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1600-97, 1603-97, and 1606-97. The three properties abut County industrial land uses, although for the most part, the properties are developed as commercial uses. The properties also abut City commercial land uses. The City's land use designation is more restrictive than the County's because the County industrial allows both industrial and commercial uses while the City's commercial designation allows only commercial uses. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report Amendments. Consistent with Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the City conducted an Evaluation and Appraisal Report, including suggested amendments to the City's Plan. On August 24, 1998, simultaneously with the adoption of the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and the 1998 Small Scale Amendments, the City adopted amendments to all elements of the City's Plan (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "EAR Amendments") based upon the recommendations of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. The EAR Amendments include density and intensity standards adopted as part of the Remedial Amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments revise the schedule for capital improvements and establish new concurrency requirements as part of the Capital Improvements Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments set out the steps the City will take to coordinate the City's Plan and its implementation with other agencies and entities as part of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the City's Plan. The EAR Amendments revise LOS standards for transportation in the Transportation Element of the City's Plan The EAR Amendments were reviewed by the Department simultaneously with the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and found to be "in compliance." The EAR Amendments were designated Amendment 98-ER1 by the Department. The 1998 Small Scale Amendments were also submitted to the Department with the 1998 Large Scale Amendments and the EAR Amendments but were ultimately withdrawn by the City at the request of the Department. Martin County and 1000 Friends also challenged the EAR Amendments in their Petitions challenging the 1998 Large Scale Amendments filed in Case Nos. 98-5503GM and 98-5510GM, respectively. Martin County alleged that the EAR Amendments were not "in compliance" because: They are not supported by data and analysis; They were adopted without adequate intergovernmental coordination; They are internally inconsistent with the City's Plan; They do not discourage urban sprawl; They do not adequately protect natural resources; They cannot be accommodated by existing and planned infrastructure; They are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes; They are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast; and They are inconsistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Martin County did not allege which specific elements of the City's Plan amended by the EAR Amendments were being challenged in its Petition. It merely alleged that "Stuart's comprehensive plan amendments" are not in compliance. In the Joint Proposed Order filed by Martin County and 1000 Friends, specific portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (Policies A1.13 through A1.23, Policy A2.4, Policy A7.3, Objective 8, and Policies A8.1 through A8.11), the FLUE (Policies B1.2 through B1.4), and the Capital Improvements Element (the selection of LOS E) are cited. The specific objective and policies cited in the Joint Order are hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Additionally, the Future Annexation Map adopted as part of the EAR Amendments by the City is cited in the Joint Proposed Order. The Future Annexation Map includes 8,000 additional acres which are projected to be annexed into the City by the year 2015. 1000 Friends' challenge to the EAR Amendments is limited to a challenge to the City's Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Data and Analysis. At the time that all of the amendments at issue in this proceeding were adopted there was more than adequate data and analysis to support all of the amendments. The data and analysis relied upon by the City in adopting the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments, the FLUE Amendment, the Remedial Amendments, the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, and the EAR Amendments was professionally acceptable. The testimony of Martin County's expert planner concerning data and analysis was not persuasive. That testimony was not based upon a complete review of the data and analysis relied upon by the City and the Department. The evidence presented by Martin County concerning data and analysis focused largely on the fact that the property to which the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments related had been annexed before the accumulation of all the data and analysis relied upon in support of the amendments. That evidence was irrelevant because the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder do not govern annexations; they govern plan amendments and require that the data and analysis be available at the time a plan amendment is adopted and not at the time of annexation. Data and analysis were required for the 1997 Small Scale Amendments and the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments, not to support the need for the annexed property, but to support the City's choice of land use classifications assigned to the annexed property. There were ample data and analysis to support the City's choices. Once the properties at issue in this proceeding were annexed consistent with Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, the City began the process of considering the amendments to the City's Plan necessary to accommodate the annexations and bring them under the City's Plan. While the evidence did prove that the City now has approximately 33 years of commercial property to meet the needs of the City during the 20 years of the City's Plan, there is no requirement in the Act or the implementing rules that a need for annexed property be present before annexation occurs. The commercial property located in the City as a result of the 1997 Small Scale Amendments and the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments is not significantly different from the amount of commercial property which existed prior to the amendments. Most of the annexed property was designated commercial or industrial by the County Plan. Industrial uses under the County Plan include many of the same uses of commercial property under the City Plan. Under these circumstances, the City made the most reasonable planning decision by classifying the annexed property consistent with surrounding land uses and Martin County's prior land use designation of land use for the property. The City completed a needs analysis as part of its review and revision of the City's Plan through the EAR Amendments. That analysis was based upon data available at the time of the EAR Amendments. The data was also available at the time the 1997 Small Scale Amendments, the 1997 and 1998 Large Scale Amendments, the FLUE Amendment, and the Remedial Amendments were adopted. The City's needs analysis included an allocation of land uses to the land use categories designated in the City's Plan. Although the allocation of land resulted in an allocation of more commercial land than may be required during the life of the City's Plan, the evidence failed to prove that such a surplus results in any under allocation of land to other classifications. Approximately 150 acres of the property annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998 were re-designated commercial by the City. Eighteen of those acres have already been developed, leaving an additional 132 acres of commercial land in the City. The evidence failed to prove that this increase of acreage is significant. Evidence presented by Martin County as to the increase in commercial property was not persuasive. In actuality, the increase in property designated commercial as a result of City's annexations amounts to approximately 48 acres. There were a total of 35 parcels designated commercial by the City, including the 1998 Small Scale Amendments. Most of those parcels were already developed in whole or in part with commercial, commercial-like, or industrial land uses. The uses of property classified industrial are also substantially similar to the uses allowed for commercial to result in little discernable effect on the supply of commercial property in the City. The only vacant parcels assigned a land use designation of commercial by the City that were not classified commercial or industrial by Martin County were referred to at hearing as parcels 1, 11 F4, F7, F12, and F14. Parcel 1 consisted of 1.4 acres. Approximately half of parcel 1 was designated commercial and the other half was designated commercial/office/residential. At most, this amounts to an increase of .7 acres of commercial. Parcel 11 consists of ten acres, parcel F4 consists of nine acres, parcel F7 consists of 5.06 acres, parcel F12 consists of 6.67 acres, and parcel F14 consists of 32.20 acres. Half of parcel F14 was classified as commercial by Martin County. The evidence also proved that the possible intensity of use for the property annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998, when compared with the possible intensity of use under the County Plan is less under the City's land use classifications. Martin County's expert testimony concerning increases in intensity was not credible. That testimony was based upon small scale parcels 5, 10, and 11, and large scale parcels 6, F6, and F24. Parcel 5 is already developed as 1st Christian. Parcel 10 is partially developed and the testimony concerning Martin County's land use designation for the property was incorrect. For parcel 6, the Wacha property, the testimony by the Martin County expert concerning Martin County's land use designation for part of the property was incorrect. The portion of the property designated commercial by the City was classified as industrial by Martin County. For parcel F6, the Gibson property, only a fourth of the property was designated multi-family. The rest of the property was given a land use designation that is the same or less intense then that allowed by the County. For parcel F24, the Debartolo property, Martin County's land use designation was a combination of low, medium, and high density residential and not just low density residential as testified by Martin County's expert witness. Most of the property was low density residential under the County's Plan and remained low density residential under the City's Plan. The calculations concerning the increase in intensity of use made by Martin County's expert witness were flawed and not credible, as explained in findings of fact 123 through 125. Martin County's assertion that the Remedial Amendments are not supported by data and analysis because of the increase in intensity of commercial property is rejected. In addition to the question of data and analysis to support the land use classifications assigned to the annexed property by the City, Martin County has suggested that there is insufficient data and analysis concerning how public facilities will be provided to the annexed property. The evidence failed to support this assertion. At the time of the 1997 and 1998 Small and Large Scale Amendments the City did not perform a concurrency analysis. Concurrency analyses are required at the time of site plan review or other application for another development permit. Therefore, neither the Act nor the City's Plan required a concurrency analysis. A transportation analysis involves transportation planning for an extended period of time and not planning for individual parcels. Capital facilities and available capacity for a five-year period are looked at in a transportation analysis. Concurrency analyses, on the other hand, are performed on individual parcels of property at the time of proposed development of those parcels. Neither a transportation analysis nor a concurrency analysis is required when a local government designates a general land use classification for a parcel of property. Martin County has asserted that the City's decision to adopt a LOS E and to "maintain" the actual existing LOS for two segments of U.S. 1 and State Roads 707 and 714, both of which are projected to have LOS F within the next five years in light of the moratorium it has imposed on development along U.S. 1 supports its argument that the FLUM amendments are not supported by data and analysis. They assert that evidence presented by the City's expert transportation engineer cannot be considered data and analysis because it was prepared after the FLUM amendments. This assertion is rejected. While the analysis may not have been available, the data was. More importantly, the testimony of the City's expert engineer may be relied upon to refute Martin County's assertion that there existed a transportation concurrency problem at the time the FLUM amendments were adopted. Martin County based its conclusion on an outdated Florida Department of Transportation table adopted as part of the County's Plan. That table lacked a footnote that cautioned against anything other than very general reliance on the table. Martin County's assertions concerning transportation concurrency were also refuted by the more accurate analysis performed by the City's expert engineer. Based upon his analysis, which was unrefuted by credible evidence, there is in fact no LOS deficiency not addressed by the City's Plan. The difference between the LOS adopted by the City and Martin County's LOS is not significant. The reports of the City's expert transportation engineer were sufficient data and analysis to support the EAR Amendments to the Capital Improvements and Transportation Elements. The LOS selected by the City, LOS E, is the most efficient use of the City's arterial roadways under current conditions. The evidence failed to prove that there were inadequate data and analysis to support Policy A1.1 of the FLUE. The evidence failed to prove that there were inadequate data and analysis concerning the effectiveness of existing intergovernmental coordination mechanisms. Intergovernmental Coordination. In May 1997, the City notified Martin County that it was considering a series of voluntary annexation requests it had received. The City and Martin County have entered into formal and informal agreements dealing with the provision of a number of services, including water and sewer, emergency rescue, solid waste, and law enforcement. Impact fees are dealt with by interlocal agreement pursuant to which the City collects impact fees for library services, regional parks, and county roads on behalf of the Martin County. Following the City's notification to Martin County of the voluntary annexation requests it had received, City staff and the Director of Public Works for Martin County met to discuss the provision of water and sewer service to the annexed areas. An agreement was reached between the City and Martin County as to which entity would be responsible for water and sewer services to each parcel to be annexed. Discussions between City and Martin County staff concerning responsibility for maintenance of roads were also held, including discussions at meetings of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee. The Metropolitan Technical Advisory Committee was established to provide for intergovernmental coordination in Martin County. Issues concerning road maintenance were resolved. Beginning essentially at the time of the notice to Martin County of the voluntary annexation requests the City had received, Martin County attempted to prevent the annexations. Although Martin County cooperated to resolve some of the problems that resulted from the annexations, Martin County prepared an emergency agenda item directing staff to evaluate the annexations and seek ways of preventing the annexations. Martin County staff reports concerning the proposed annexations indicated few problems that would result from the annexations. The reports were submitted to the City by Martin County. Martin County indicated, however, that it would be conducting further analysis on potential traffic impacts. Martin subsequently reported to the City that it had further concerns and would be attending a City scheduled workshop to be held in July 1997. No one from Martin County attended the workshop held in July or the workshop held by the City in September 1997. City staff reviewed all of Martin County's comments, notified the City Commission of the comments, and took the comments into consideration in making recommendations concerning the annexations and amendments to the City's Plan to the City. On September 16, 1997, the City notified Martin County of further requests for voluntary annexation. City staff thereafter attempted to schedule meetings with Martin County staff to discuss these annexations. Additional discussions were held with Martin County concerning utilities. These discussions resulted in agreements concerning the provision of utilities to the annexed parcels. Discussions concerning stormwater were also held between the City and Martin County. Transportation issues were discussed at Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee meetings. Martin County wrote letters to the City and made oral comments concerning the FLUM Amendments. Martin County raised concerns over urban sprawl, concurrency, and intergovernmental coordination. Martin County also filed challenges to the City's annexations resulting in a number of civil actions between the City and Martin County. As a result of these actions and Martin County's attempts to prevent the annexations, relations between City and Martin County staff became strained. It became increasingly difficult for staff to work together to resolve common issues. In November 1997 Martin County sent a letter to the City expressing concerns over the late 1997 annexations involving urban sprawl and transportation concurrency. These comments were considered by the City. Martin County staff attended an August 1998 meeting at which the City adopted the FLUM Amendments relating to the late 1997 annexations. These comments were considered by the City. While the City and Martin County did not come to a consensus over all issues relating to the FLUM amendments, it cannot be said that there was not sufficient intergovernmental coordination between them. Given the diametrically opposing positions of the two governments concerning the annexations which gave rise to the amendments at issue in these cases, it is doubtful that any further coordination between the City and Martin County could have resolved the issues between the City and Martin County. Prior to adopting the EAR Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, the City's planning consultant reviewed the FLUM amendments that had already been adopted, the EAR Amendments, and the additional FLUM amendments the City was considering. The consult obtained data from Martin County concerning population and traffic. Efforts to obtain information from Martin County, however, were by this time difficult. The City even had to result to a public records request from Martin County to obtain some information. Again, while the City and Martin County did not come to a consensus over all issues relating to the EAR Amendments and the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, it cannot be said that there was not sufficient intergovernmental coordination between them. Given the state of deterioration of the relationship between the City and Martin County by the time these amendments were considered and adopted by the City, it is doubtful that any further coordination between the City and Martin County would have resulted in any improvement in the EAR Amendments or the 1998 Large Scale Amendments. In addition to the fact that the intergovernmental coordination between the City and Martin County under the circumstances of this matter was adequate, any lack of coordination did not result in any substantial issues concerning the amendments to the City's Plan not being resolved. The evidence in these cases has not supported Martin County's or 1000 Friends' alleged deficiencies with the amendments. Evidence concerning intergovernmental coordination or the lack thereof before and during annexation of the parcels to which the FLUM amendments in these case relate was irrelevant. Nothing in the Act or the rules promulgated thereunder requires intergovernmental coordination on annexations. The City adopted an Intergovernmental Coordination Element as part of the EAR Amendments. The Element includes policies which relate to procedures for dealing with coordination concerning the development of the annexed areas. Those policies are quoted in the City's Proposed Order at finding of fact 149 and are incorporated herein by reference. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element adopted by the City does not meet the requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes. It does, however, meet the requirements of Sections 163.3177(4)(a) and (10)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.015, Florida Administrative Code. The requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, must be met by local governments no later than December 31, 1999. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(h)4., Florida Statutes, the Department adopted Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code, providing, in part, that the City submit an intergovernmental coordination element in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, no later than June 1, 1997, and that the element be adopted no later than December 31, 1997. In a publication of the Department called the Summer 1998 Community Planning publication, the Department informed the City to ignore Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code, and submit its intergovernmental coordination element no later than December 31, 1999. The City complied with this direction from the Department. The Department did not repeal Rule 9J-40, Florida Administrative Code. Although Section 163.3177(6)(h)4., Florida Statutes, authorizes local governments to comply with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, earlier than December 31, 1999, the City has not opted to do so. Internal Inconsistency. Goal A of the FLUE provides that the City will "[m]aintain and enhance its small town waterfront character." Although the City has increased its size by 48 percent, it has not increased its "waterfront." None of the amendments to the FLUM at issue in these cases involve property located on the City's waterfront. The evidence also failed to prove that a 48 percent increase in the size of the City in and of itself is contrary to the City's small town character. Finally, the impact on the City's character is a result, not of the designation of land use categories for the annexed property, but from the annexation itself. Although annexation is the catalyst for the amendments being challenged in this proceeding, the fact of the annexation cannot be the issue. Policy A.3.2 of the FLUE provides that the City should "direct development to areas already served by adequate government utilities, services and schools . . . ." While some of the roads serving many of the annexed parcels were determined to be over-utilized, that over-utilization was based upon Martin County's LOS. Based upon the City's newly established LOS E, there are adequate road services for the annexed properties. The delivery of other utilities, services, and schools to the annexed properties has been coordinated between the City and Martin County or those services are already being provided. Objective B.3 of the FLUE provides that the City will discourage urban sprawl and continuous linear development along major roadways in order to achieve a compact urban form. While the annexed parcels are located along U.S. 1, their designated land uses pursuant to the amendments at issue are essentially consistent with their present uses or designated land uses. Little change in the form of development of the annexed parcels will occur as a result of the amendments. Therefore, the FLUM amendments do not increase linear development. Rather, they recognize it. As discussed, infra, the annexed properties do not constitute urban sprawl. As amended by the EAR Amendments, Objective B.1 of the FLUE provides that the City will "[d]iscourage urban sprawl by planning for urban infill and redevelopment of lands located within Stuart." The FLUM amendments constitute urban infill and are consistent with Objective B.1 as amended by the EAR Amendments. Objective B.3 of the FLUE requires a commitment of the City to the promotion of patterns of land use that are compatible and convenient to residents, businesses, and visitors, and the avoidance of the wasteful use of land. The evidence failed to prove that the FLUM amendments are inconsistent with this objective. Again, there is little difference in the uses of the property which is the subject of the FLUM amendments before and after their annexation. Policy A.8 of the Infrastructure Element of the City's Plan requires that the City will maximize the use of existing facilities and discourage urban sprawl through its annexation policy. Policy A.3.3, Objectives A.5, A.6, A.7, and A.9, and Policy A8.1 also provide similar guidance to the City. As discussed, infra, the FLUM amendments do not fail to discourage urban sprawl. The FLUM amendments also are not inconsistent with these provisions to the extent that they require the City to maximize the use of existing services. Policy A1.1 of the Housing Element of the City's Plan provides that the City must designate adequate residential land to accommodate projected need for housing. The most up to date analysis of existing population data suggests that there is adequate housing to meet the City's need for housing through the year 2015. The evidence failed to prove that anything about the amendments at issue in these cases are inconsistent with this policy. The evidence failed to prove that the amendments at issue in these cases are inconsistent with any provision of the City's Plan. The consistency of the foregoing goals, objectives, and policies with the City's Plan were the only ones specifically addressed in the Joint Proposed Order. The City also addressed the consistency of a number of other goals, objectives, and policies with the City's Plan. Those findings of fact (182-190, 193-195, 197, and 200-204) are hereby accepted and incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Urban Sprawl. The areas annexed by the City, while including some vacant land, are not located in a rural or predominately rural area. Instead, the annexed parcels are all located in an area designated in the County's Plan as the "Primary Urban Service Area." An independent evaluation of the properties confirms their urban location. The indicators of urban sprawl listed in Rule 9J- 5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, do not apply to the annexed parcels when considered "within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality." The testimony of Martin County's witnesses concerning the "linear pattern" of development evidenced by the annexed parcels failed to take into account the character of surrounding and abutting, unincorporated properties and the location of all the parcels within the "Primary Urban Service Area" established in the County's Plan. Testimony offered by Martin County concerning urban sprawl was also not credible because Martin County's expert witness did not complete the land use analysis of Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), Florida Administrative Code, because she failed to evaluate local conditions and development controls. Natural Resources. The evidence did not prove that any of the amendments at issue in these case fail to adequately protect natural resources. Availability of Infrastructure. As explained, supra, the City and Martin County coordinated the continued provision of most public utilities and services to the annexed parcels. Continued water, sewer, emergency rescue, law enforcement, and solid waste disposal services for the annexed parcels were all coordinated between the City and Martin County. Water and sewer services and recreational facility needs were analyzed by the City and found to be adequate. The evidence failed to prove that any necessary infrastructure is not available or will not be provided by the City. The Future Annexation Map. The City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report included a Map of Future Annexation. The Map of Future Annexation identified a small area south of the City for future annexation over the next ten years. The areas actually annexed by the City during 1997 and 1998 involve a more extensive area than that identified on the Map of Future Annexation. The areas identified on the Map of Future Annexation were areas which the City believed it would likely desire to annex and did not take into account voluntary annexation. The Map of Future Annexation was not intended to exclude such voluntary annexations. The EAR Amendments also include a Future Annexation Area Map (hereinafter referred to as the "FAA Map"). The FAA Map identifies approximately 8,000 additional acres of land which the City may consider annexing through the year 2015. The FAA Map is not, however, intended to represent an area which the City intends to pursue for annexation. It simply identifies the maximum area within which the City intends to consider annexation. It is, in effect, intended as a limitation on annexations that the City would pursue. The evidence failed to prove that the FAA Map is not a reasonable boundary for the possible expansion of the City through the year 2015 by annexation. The State and Regional Plans. The evidence failed to prove that any of the challenged amendments are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove that any of the challenged amendments are inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast. The Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Treasure Coast was not offered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order dismissing Hospice Foundation of Martin & St. Lucie, Inc., as a party. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the 1997 Small and Large Scale Amendments, the Remedial Amendments, the 1998 Large Scale Amendments, and the EAR Amendments to be "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Bradshaw, Esquire Paul R. Bradshaw, P.A. 1345 Dupont Road Havana, Florida 32333 Gary K. Oldehoff, Esquire Martin County Attorney 2401 South East Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996 Terrell Arline, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. 926 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert C. Apgar, Esquire Yeline Goin, Esquire 902-A North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Carl Coffin, Esquire City of Stuart 121 South West Flagler Avenue Stuart, Florida 34994 Shaw Stiller, Assistant General Counsel Karen A. Brodeen, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Tim B. Wright, Esquire Louis E. Lozeau, Jr., Esquire Warner, Fox, Seeley, Dungey and Sweet, L.L.P. Post Office Drawer 6 Stuart, Florida 34995 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
