The Issue Whether an amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 15-10 on June 3, 2015, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Roger Thornberry, Georgette Lundquist, Steven Brodkin, Ruby Daniels, Rosalie Prestarri, and James Giedman, reside in and own property within Lee County. Petitioners submitted oral and written comments to Lee County concerning the challenged Plan Amendment during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendment. Respondent, Lee County (the County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and maintain a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes (2015). Intervenors, RH Venture II, LLC; RH Venture III, LLC; and Greenpointe Communities, LLC (Greenpointe), are the owners and developers of the property which is subject to the Plan Amendment. Intervenors are the applicants for the Plan Amendment. The Lee County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) allocates future land uses based on community plans for 22 distinct communities within the County. The Fort Myers Shores planning community is located in eastern Lee County. Within Fort Myers Shores is a sub-community planning area known as Caloosahatchee Shores, which is located south of the Caloosahatchee River, east of Interstate 75 (I-75), and west of Hickey’s Creek. The southern boundary of Caloosahatchee Shores is the Orange River and State Road 82. Caloosahatchee Shores contains a mixture of future land use designations. The majority of the land is designated Suburban, Sub-Outlying Suburban, Rural, or Urban Community. The subject property is located in Caloosahatchee Shores within an existing 1,978-acre mixed-use golf community known as River Hall. Most of the existing development in River Hall was completed between 2004 and 2009 by the original developer, Landmar Group, which was then owned by Crescent Resources. Crescent Resources declared bankruptcy in 2009. Those portions of River Hall subject to the Plan Amendment were acquired by Greenpointe in 2010. The property subject to the Plan Amendment is approximately 585 acres of non-contiguous land within the existing mixed-use development. All of the property subject to the Plan Amendment is located within the Rural future land use category. The Plan Amendment changes the future land use category of the subject property from Rural to Sub-Outlying Suburban.2/ The density of development allowed in Rural is one dwelling unit per acre and the density of development allowed in Sub-Outlying Suburban is two units per acre. In 2001, the Lee County Board of County Commissioners (Lee County Commission) adopted procedures to encourage community planning aimed at specific neighborhood interests within the County. A coalition of property owners in Caloosahatchee Shores developed the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Plan (Community Plan) between 2001 and 2003. The Community Plan was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan in 2003 and is codified as Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Goal 21 and its implementing objectives and policies. FLUE Goal 21 reads as follows: GOAL 21: CALOOSAHATCHEE SHORES: To protect the existing character, natural resources and quality of life in Caloosahatchee Shores, while promoting new development, redevelopment and maintaining a more rural identity for the neighborhoods east of I-75 by establishing minimum aesthetic requirements, planning the location and intensity of future commercial and residential uses, and providing incentives for redevelopment, mixed use development and pedestrian safe environments. This Goal and subsequent objectives and policies apply to the Caloosahatchee Shores boundaries as depicted on Map 1, page 2 of 8 in the Appendix. The Community Plan was amended in 2007 and again in 2009. Policy 21.1.5 was added to the Community Plan in 2009, and reads as follows: POLICY 21.1.5: One important aspect of the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Plan goal is to retain its’ [sic] rural character and rural land use where it currently exists. Therefore no land use map amendments to the remaining rural lands category will be permitted after May 15, 2009, unless a finding of overriding public necessity is made by three members of the Board of County Commissioners. It is undisputed that the Plan Amendment removes land from the Rural land use category. It is undisputed that the Lee County Commission did not make a finding of an “overriding public necessity” when it adopted the Plan Amendment. Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 21.1.5 because the Lee County Commission did not make the requisite finding of an “overriding public necessity” to remove property from the Rural land use category.3/ Respondent and Intervenors argue that Policy 21.1.5 does not apply to the Plan Amendment because the existing development on the property subject to the Plan Amendment is not rural in either character or land use. Respondent and Intervenors introduced abundant evidence to establish that the property subject to the Plan Amendment is suburban development served by the full spectrum of urban services and devoid of any of the trappings of rural development, such as large-lot residential and agricultural uses. Respondent and Intervenors advocate an interpretation of Policy 21.1.5 which requires a finding of “overriding public necessity” only if a plan amendment removes property that exhibits rural character or rural land use from the Rural land use category. The County offered the testimony of Brandon Dunn, one of its principal planners. Mr. Dunn characterized the Policy as an “if/then statement”: if property in the Rural land use category (subject to a plan amendment) exhibits rural character and rural land use, then a finding of “overriding public necessity” is required. Under Mr. Dunn’s analysis, Policy 21.1.5 does not apply to the Plan Amendment because River Hall is a suburban community. Intervenors’ planning expert, Dr. David Depew, testified that the first sentence narrows the application of the second. Dr. Depew testified that the first sentence indicates “we aren’t talking about the category per se.”4/ Under Dr. Depew’s reading, the second sentence only applies to plan amendments which exhibit rural character or rural land use, rather than all plan amendments removing property from the Rural land use category. Neither Mr. Dunn’s nor Dr. Depew’s opinion is persuasive.5/ The interpretation advanced by both Respondent and Intervenors adds language to the second sentence of Policy 21.1.5 limiting its application to only those plan amendments which exhibit rural character and rural land use. The plain language of Policy 21.1.5 contains no such limitation. The policy directs the County to make a finding of an “overriding public necessity” as a prerequisite to removing land from the Rural land use category in Caloosahatchee Shores. The first sentence of Policy 21.1.5 does not constitute a limitation on the directive for a finding of an “overriding public necessity.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the Lee County Plan Amendment, adopted by Ordinance 15-10 on June 3, 2015, is not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a final order amending the development order for the Quadrangle DRI to authorize the replacement of office space with multifamily residential units.
Findings Of Fact The Roles of Residential Units and Residential Acreages in Quadrangle Development Orders Petitioner is a joint venture. Its partners are Weyerhauser Realty Company and RMDC Quadrangle Company. RMDC Quadrangle Company is a subsidiary of Reynolds Metal Development Company. (Tr., p. 320.) The partners have divided development rights between themselves, but legal title remains in Petitioner. (Tr., p. 321.) All references to "Petitioner" include Petitioner's predecessors in interest. On November 5, 1984, Respondent issued a development order (DO) approving the application for a development of regional impact (DRI) known as The Quadrangle (Quadrangle). (Resp. Ex. 3.) Quadrangle is located on 465 acres immediately west of the University of Central Florida in east Orange County. Quadrangle occupies about two-thirds of the area bounded by University Boulevard on the south, Alafaya Trail on the east, Rouse Road on the west, and McCulloch Road on the north. (Resp. Ex. 1.) At this location, McCulloch Road separates Orange and Seminole counties. (Tr., p. 87.) As originally proposed, Quadrangle was to have been a corporate business center with over two million square feet of office space and nearly one-half million square feet of supporting uses, including hotels and restaurants. (Resp. Ex. 1, pp. 10 and 13.) (All page references are to the actual number of pages starting with the first page of the exhibit and typically do not correspond to the page numbers shown on the exhibit.) The original DRI application identified 21 parcels: 13 for office, two for hotel, one for professional office/health center, one for retail, one for restaurant, one for bank/office, one for restaurant/recreation/park, and one for professional office. (Resp. Ex. 1, Table 1.) The original DRI application designated as office what is now known as Tract 7, which is the parcel at issue in this case. (Cf. Resp. Ex. 1, Land Use Plan, with Pet. Ex. 2A.) Ensuing requests for approvals of proposed land use changes addressed the requirements of local and state law governing, respectively, planned developments (PD) and DRIs. This case involves exclusively the DRI process. The documents initiating amendments to the DRI DO are contained in packages entitled "Notice of Change for the Quadrangle DRI" (NOPC). (The first such package bears a slightly different name.) The NOPCs contain the same information as that contained in the packages used to initiate PD amendments. (Each of these PD packages is called an "Amended Land Use Plan" (ALUP) and contains a map known by the same name. In December 1993, Petitioner filed an NOPC requesting a DO amendment approving residential development. (Pet. Ex. 3.) This was the first request to add any form of residential development, exclusive of hotels, to Quadrangle. The December 1993 NOPC explains the purpose of this request: The proposed amended development program has been designed to introduce multi-family housing into the project in an attempt to address a current deficiency in the marketplace as well as provide a more diverse mixture of land uses within The Quadrangle and the University Activity Center. As demonstrated in Table 1, the currently proposed changes include a reduction of office space by 825,000 square feet, the addition of 960 multi-family units and an increase of 250,000 square feet in the retail land use. The multi-family parcels will be developed with densities up to 18 dwelling units per acre. (Pet. Ex. 3, p. 3.) Explaining the flexibility that Petitioner sought for the Quadrangle DRI, the December 1993 NOPC adds: Exhibit 1--Development Plan (Revised) illustrates the proposed changes to the master development plan. The applicant requests approval to consider each remaining development parcel as a potential site for either commercial/retail, multi-family residential, or office land uses, thereby providing the flexibility needed to adequately incorporate the new land use proposed for the project. Table 1 of the December 1993 NOPC is a Substantial Deviation Determination Chart. This table provides Respondent and other reviewing agencies with information to help them determine, in the DRI process, if the proposed land use change is a substantial deviation from the development already approved by the DO, as previously amended. The Substantial Deviation Determination Chart contains six rows of land uses and four columns: land use, change category, proposed plan, and approved plan. (Pet. Ex. 3, Table 1.) Under Residential, Table 1 states, for the approved plan, "not applicable" because the then-current DO authorized no residential uses. For the proposed plan, Table 1 indicates 960 multifamily units and 56 acres. For "site locational changes," Table 1 refers to Exhibit 1. (Pet. Ex. 3, Table 1.) Exhibit 1, which is also mentioned in paragraph 7 of this recommended order, is the "Development Plan (revised)." The Development Plan comprises a color map, "land use legend," table entitled "Amended Development Program," and untitled table showing tracts, land uses, and acreages. (Pet. Ex. 3, Ex. 1.) Reflecting the proposal that was the subject of the December 1993 NOPC, the land use legend shows Tract 7 as "Office/M.F. [Multifamily] Residential." The Amended Development Program reports an introduction of 960 multifamily residential units, increase of 250,000 square feet of commercial retail/service, and decrease of 825,000 square feet of office/showroom. (Pet. Ex. 3, Ex. 1.) The untitled table on the Development Plan identifies specific, authorized land uses for each parcel. Also reflecting the proposal that was the subject of the December 1993 NOPC, the untitled table states: Tracts Land Use Acreage 1 Commercial/Office/Hotel 20.75 ac. 4A Office/M.F. Residential 23.87 ac. 4B Office/M.F. Residential 15.00 ac. 5 Office/M.F. Residential 18.13 ac. 7 Office/M.F. Residential 24.62 ac. 12 Office/M.F. Residential 12.63 ac. 17B Office/M.F. Residential 04.02 ac. 17C Office/M.F. Residential 07.70 ac. 21 Commercial/Office/Hotel 11.27 ac. 25B Commercial/Office 02.19 ac. 25C Commercial/Office/Hotel 03.89 ac. (Pet. Ex. 3, Ex. 1.) TOTAL 144.07 ac. Attachment B to the December 1993 NOPC is a traffic analysis prepared in November 1993 by Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc. The analysis explains adequately how no additional traffic impacts would result from the replacement of 825,000 square feet of office and office/showroom with 960 multifamily dwelling units and 250,000 square feet of retail. (Pet. Ex. 3, Attach. B.) Respondent is not challenging Petitioner's request for an amended DO on the basis of traffic impacts. (Tr., p. 283.) In any event, the single measure of the impact of Quadrangle was traffic trips. (Tr., pp. 120-21.). The November 1993 Kimley- Horn analysis established a formula by which Petitioner could and did demonstrate that all amendments to the DRI DO that Petitioner sought, including the subject amendment, did not generate offsite traffic impacts due to the decreases in Office that accompanied increases in Multifamily Residential. (Tr., pp. 279 et seq.) Each NOPC concludes with a proposed DO. The proposed DO attached to the December 1993 NOPC contains the Development Plan, which is described in paragraphs 10-12 of this recommended order. Although the hearing exhibit is incomplete, the proposed DO presumably incorporates by reference, in the same manner as described below for subsequent NOPCs, "the development quantities" set forth in the Development Plan. (Pet. Ex. 3, last two pages.) The DO actually approving the December 1993 NOPC is the Non-Substantial Deviation Amendment to Development Order for the Quadrangle Development of Regional Impact, dated May 10, 1994. The DO states that the "development quantities and land uses . . are . . . amended as described and stated in the attached Exhibits 'A' and 'B.'" (Stipulated Facts filed December 20, 1999 (Stip.), Ex. D, p. 2.) Exhibit A to the May 10, 1994, DO sets exchange ratios of one multifamily unit for 300 square feet of office and 1000 square feet of retail for 2400 square feet of office, in both cases up to the maximum measures of intensity approved by this DO. Exhibit A subjects these exchange ratios to the "following maximum result: Office--2,744,263 square feet[;] Commercial-- 397,000 square feet[;] Hotel--450 rooms[; and] Residential--960 units." (Stip., Ex. D, Ex. A.) Exhibit B to the May 10, 1994, DO is the Development Plan that is attached to the December 1993 NOPC. (Stip., Ex. D, Ex. B.) The ALUP accompanying the December 1993 NOPC is dated January 1994. (Pet. Ex. 4.) The January 1994 ALUP contains design standards for the newly added residential land use. (Pet. Ex. 4, p. 15.) For the most part, these standards involve buffers, setbacks, and net livable areas (Pet. Ex. 4, Ex. 3 (ALUM map)), although the PD approval presumably added other design standards to all residential development within Quadrangle. The first two issues, as stated in the Preliminary Statement above, involve the calculation and purpose of the acreage figures supplied by Petitioner for Multifamily Residential. Although over 100 acres bore the designation of Multifamily Residential after approval of the amendments sought by the December 1993 NOPC, the same acreage also bore the designation of Office. In calculating the 56 acres used in Table 1 of the December 1993 NOPC, Petitioner added the acreage of Tracts 4A, 4B, and 5. (Tr., p. 219.) (The total of these three parcels is actually 57 acres; all acreages in this case are approximations.) Although Tracts 7, 12, 17B, and 17C also bore an alternative Multifamily Residential designation, Petitioner chose to include in Multifamily Residential only the combined acreage of Tracts 4A, 4B, and 5, because Petitioner believed that these were the most likely parcels to be developed for residential, rather than office, uses. Also, Petitioner did not want to distort the Office designation by removing all of these parcels from Office when it was likely that some of them would develop as Office, not Multifamily Residential. Petitioner's acreage assignment is roughly consistent with the maximum allowable density; if each of these tracts developed at its maximum of 18 units per acre, these 56 acres would yield 1008 units, or 48 more units than authorized by the DO approving the December 1993 NOPC. In February 1997, Petitioner filed another NOPC seeking approval of 290 more residential units. The February 1997 NOPC states that the "approved program is shown on Table 1, Substantial Deviation Determination Chart." Explaining further, the February 1997 NOPC adds: "The proposed amended development program has been designed to expand multi-family housing to Tract #1 in an attempt to address a current deficiency in the marketplace and to specify some specific commercial uses so as to provide a more diverse mixture of land uses within The Quadrangle and the University Activity Center." The February 1997 NOPC notes that "Exhibit 1, Development Plan (Revised) illustrates the proposed changes to the master development plan." (Pet. Ex. 7, p. 3.) Exhibit 1 to the February 1997 NOPC is a Development Plan (revised February 10, 1997) featuring a color map. Tract 7 remains designated as Office/Multifamily Residential, as are Tracts 5, 12, 17B, and 17C. The Development Plan discloses that Tracts 4A, 4B, and 25B have been developed or sold. The table entitled "Amended Development Program" shows an increase of 290 multifamily residential units and a decrease of 72,000 square feet of commercial retail/service. (Pet. Ex. 7, Ex. 1.) Reflecting the sales of the three parcels and minor acreage recalculations, the untitled table included on the Development Plan provides the following information: Tracts Land Use Acreage 1 Commercial/Hotel/Office/ M.F. Residential 24.00 ac. 5 Office/M.F. Residential 15.95 ac. 7 Office/M.F. Residential 24.62 ac. 12 Office/M.F. Residential 12.63 ac. 17B Office/M.F. Residential 04.02 ac. 17C Office/M.F. Residential 07.70 ac. 21 Commercial/Office/Hotel 11.45 ac. 25C Commercial/Office/Hotel 04.13 ac. TOTAL 104.50 ac. (Pet. Ex. 7, Ex. 1.) Table 1 in the February 1997 NOPC is the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart. This chart indicates that the proposed plan is for an additional 290 multifamily residential units, to a new total of 1250 such units. Under the row for Residential, the chart shows the approved plan as 56 acres and the proposed plan as "Add Tract 1 77 acreage." (Pet. Ex. 7, Table 1.) The proposed DO attached to the February 1997 NOPC amends the "development quantities" to reflect the information contained in an exhibit that was omitted from the copy of the February 1997 NOPC admitted into evidence. Presumably, the attached document was the Development Plan. (Pet. Ex. 7, last two pages.) The DO actually approving the February 1997 NOPC is the Non-Substantial Deviation Amendment to Development Order for the Quadrangle Development of Regional Impact, dated June 24, 1997. The DO states that the "development quantities and land uses . . . are . . . amended as described and stated in the attached Exhibits 'A' and 'B.'" (Stip., Ex. E, p. 2.) Exhibit A to the June 24, 1997, DO is the Development Plan that is attached to the February 1997 NOPC. Exhibit B to the June 24, 1997, DO is the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart that is attached to the February 1997 NOPC. (Stip., Ex. E, Exs. A and B.) Petitioner calculated the 77 acres for Multifamily Residential by adding the acreage of Tract 1 to the 56 acres represented by Tracts 4A, 4B, and 5. (Tr., p. 222-23.) The reasoning was largely the same as that used when totaling the 56 acres in the December 1993 NOPC. Attempting to distinguish why Petitioner would add the acreage of Tract 1, but not Tract 7 at the time of the next NOPC for more residential units (discussed below), Petitioner explained that Tract 1 had not previously been designated Multifamily Residential. (Tr., p. 153.) By this time, Tracts 4A and 4B were under development as multifamily residential. (Cf. Pet. Ex. 3, Ex. 1 with Pet. Ex. 7, Ex. 1.) Occupying nearly all of the McCulloch Road frontage of Quadrangle, these parcels were, respectively, Phases I and II of a large apartment complex known as Knights Krossing. (Pet. Exs. 20, p. 20, and 47.) Tract 1 (except for less than two acres devoted to retail) became Phase III of Knights Krossing. (Pet. Ex. 20, p. 20.) In September 1997, Petitioner filed another NOPC seeking approval of additional residential units. The September 1997 NOPC requests the DO amendment that is the subject of this case. The September 1997 NOPC states that the "approved program is shown on Table 1, Substantial Deviation Determination Chart." Explaining further, the September 1997 NOPC adds: "The proposed amended development program has been designed to expand multi-family housing previously approved on Tract #7 and hotel rooms and restaurant in Tract #25C in an attempt to address an increasing deficiency in the marketplace, the project and the UCF Activity Center. Due to the tremendous growth of the University of Central Florida (currently 30,000 students), the need for these types of uses has increased." The September 1997 NOPC notes that "Exhibit A, Development Plan (Revised) . . . illustrates the proposed changes to the master development plan." (Pet. Ex. 11, p. 3.) Exhibit A to the September 1997 NOPC is the Development Plan (revised August 1997) featuring a black-and-white map. The Development Plan continues to designate Tract 7 as Office/Multifamily Residential, but shades the tract to show that it is an "amended area." The Development Plan also shades Tract 25C, which bears the underlying designation of Commercial/Office/Hotel. The only other tracts designated as Office/Multifamily Residential continue to be Tracts 5, 12, 17B, and 17C, and Tract 1 continues to bear its designation as Commercial/Hotel/Office/Multifamily Residential. The table entitled "Amended Development Program" shows an increase of 53 hotel rooms, 310 multifamily residential units, and 8000 square feet of commercial retail/service and a decrease of 234,863 square feet of office/showroom. (Pet. Ex. 11, Ex. A.) The untitled table on the Development Plan provides the following information: Tracts Land Use Acreage 1 Commercial/Hotel/Office/ 24.00 ac. M.F. Residential 5 Office/M.F. Residential 15.95 ac. 7 Office/M.F. Residential 24.62 ac. 12 Office/M.F. Residential 12.63 ac. 17B Office/M.F. Residential 04.02 ac. 17C Office/M.F. Residential 07.70 ac. 21 Commercial/Office/Hotel 11.45 ac. 25C Commercial/Office/Hotel 04.13 ac. (Pet. Ex. 11, Ex. A.) Table 1 in the September 1997 NOPC is the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart. This chart indicates that the proposed plan is for an additional 310 multifamily residential units, to raise the total for the Quadrangle DRI to 1560 such units. Under the row for Residential, the chart shows that the approved plan is still for 77 acres. (Pet. Ex. 11, Table 1.) The proposed DO attached to the September 1997 NOPC amends the "development quantities, land uses and acreage" to reflect "the attached schedules and master plans" as Exhibit A, which is the Development Plan. (Pet. Ex. 11, last three pages, and Stip., Ex. F, Attach. B, Ex. A.) The September 1997 NOPC marks the first time that Petitioner sought additional Multifamily Residential units without increasing the acreage assigned to residential uses in the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart. Petitioner admits that, in retrospect, it probably should have added the 24.62 acres represented by Tract 7. (Tr., p. 200.) As revealed by the shading of Tract 7 and the text quoted in paragraph 32 of this recommended order, Petitioner's purpose in increasing Multifamily Residential by 310 units was to allow residential development of Parcel 7. (Tr., p. 235.) However, Petitioner wanted its acreage figures to balance (Tr., p. 236), and Petitioner was concerned that adding the acreage of Tract 7 to Multifamily Residential would distort the Office acreage. (Tr., p. 233.) Only later did Petitioner discover, after discussions with a representative of the Department of Community Affairs, that Petitioner could have listed contingent acreages, so as to disclose that the actual use of parcels bearing multiple designations could not be ascertained until their sale or development. (Tr., p. 238.) The parties eventually bifurcated the requests contained in the September 1997 NOPC, and Respondent approved the exchange of 44,263 square feet of office space for 53 hotel rooms. (Stip., Paras. 8-12.) After discussion with nearby homeowners (Tr., p. 168), Petitioner reduced its request for 310 multifamily residential units to 240 such units. (Tr., p. 168 and Stip., Para. 13.) On March 23, 1999, Respondent conducted a public hearing on the residential aspect of the September 1997 NOPC and accompanying ALUP. (Stip., Para. 15.) Petitioner's present request for additional Multifamily Residential units is for a nonsubstantial deviation to the existing DO. (Stip., Para. 20.) No objection to this aspect of the September 1997 NOPC was lodged by the Department of Community Affairs (Stip., Para. 21), the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (Stip., Para. 22), or Respondent's Development Review Committee, which found the amendment to be consistent with the Orange County Comprehensive Plan (Stip., Para. 23). In a DO, as defined by Section 380.031(3) and (4), Florida Statutes, Respondent denied the portion of the September 1997 NOPC seeking additional Multifamily Residential units. (Stip., Para. 17.) The only residential development in Quadrangle is Knights Krossing. (Stip., Para. 14.) Currently constructed and proposed units in Knights Crossing will use 965 of the already- approved 1250 Multifamily Residential units, leaving 285 such units available. (Stip., Para. 14.) Tract 4A has 241 units on 20 acres, Tract 4B has 217 units on 20 acres, and Tract 1 has 290 units on 19.4 acres, for a total of 748 units on about 60 acres. (Pet. Ex. 20, p. 20.) The additional 217 units are proposed for Phase IV of Knights Krossing. (Pet. Ex. 20, p. 27.) Phase IV will be developed on Tract 5, if the required land use approvals are obtained. (Tr., p. 191.) The prospective developer of Knights Krossing, Phase IV, is Mr. Davis. (Pet. Ex. 43, p. 1 and Pet. Ex. 19, p. 3.) The 217 units sought for Tract 5 plus the 748 units developed on Tracts 1, 4A, and 4B total the 965 units stated in the Stipulated Facts. The number of Multifamily Residential units requested by Petitioner in this case is dependent upon the resolution of the Davis proposal. The two obvious alternatives are if the Davis proposal were granted or if the Davis proposal were denied. However, if the Davis proposal were denied, there are two alternatives: if Tract 5 were developed residentially at its maximum density or if Tract 5 were not developed residentially (or, to the same effect, if the DO amendment sought in this case were to ignore subsequent residential development of Tract 5). Certain facts are common to all three alternatives. First, Petitioner (or its assignee) wishes to develop 420 Multifamily Residential units on Tract 7, regardless whether the Davis proposal were approved. (Tr., p. 327.) Second, Tracts 5 and 7 are the only unsold parcels bearing the Multifamily Residential designation. (Tr., p. 208.) Tract 17C was sold sometime ago (Pet. Ex. 23), Tract 12 has completed review by the Development Review Committee for office use, and Parcel 17B is under contract for hotel use (Tr., p. 208). (This recommended order shall ignore the possibility that Tracts 12 and 17B may return to the market undeveloped.) Third, at the maximum, per-tract density of 18 units per acre and ignoring any more restrictive effect of design standards, Tract 7 could accommodate a maximum of 450 Multifamily Residential units. In early Development Plans, Tract 5 was shown as 18 acres, so it could accommodate a maximum of 324 Multifamily Residential units. (See, e.g., Pet. Ex. 3, Exhibit 1.) However, in later Development Plans, Tract 5 was shown as 16 acres, due to the removal of two acres of open space from its northwest corner. (Pet. Ex. 23.) If the density is derived on a gross acreage basis, so as to include the excised open space, Tract 5 can still accommodate a maximum of 324 units. As for the first alternative, if the Davis proposal were approved, only 285 units of the currently approved 1250 units would remain for development. In this event, Petitioner would need an additional 135 units, so that 420 units could be developed on Tract 7. (Tr., p. 326.) Under this alternative, in which Petitioner needs an additional 135 Multifamily Residential units, Petitioner is seeking a DO amendment approving a total of 1385 Multifamily Residential units in Quadrangle. As for the second alternative, if the Davis proposal were denied and no proposal for the residential development of Tract 5 emerged (or, at least, were considered at this time), 502 units would remain for development. After subtracting the 420 units for Tract 7, 82 units would remain, unused. Under this alternative, Petitioner does not need a DO amendment to develop 420 Multifamily Residential units on Tract 7, except possibly to acknowledge Petitioner's right to develop 420 such units on Tract 7 for the reasons set forth with respect to the remaining three issues in this case. As for the third alternative, if the Davis proposal were denied and the DO amendment in this case were to take into account subsequent residential development of Tract 5 at the maximum density, Petitioner would need 242 additional Multifamily Residential units to accommodate 420 units on Tract 7 and 324 units on Tract 5. The calculations supporting these figures begin with the 748 units in Tracts 1, 4A, and 4B. This leaves 502 units of the presently approved 1250 units. If Petitioner effectively were to reserve the maximum number of units--324--for Tract 5, then 178 units would remain for Tract 7, and Petitioner would need another 242 units to reach 420 units. Under this alternative, in which Petitioner needs an additional 242 units, Petitioner is seeking a DO amendment approving a total of 1492 Multifamily Residential units in Quadrangle. In this case, Petitioner has chosen to pursue the first and third alternatives. (Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 8.) Petitioner's adoption of the third alternative is evidenced by the following statement: Because the number of units to develop Tract 5 might increase, however, if [Petitioner] loses the appeal of the County's denial of the current request (and the current contract for it expires, requiring the formulation of a new development plan for Tract 5), [Petitioner] has continued to request approval for 240 additional units (and a total of 1490 units for the whole development) . . .. (Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 8.) Petitioner's request for 240 units is contingent only upon the approval of 217 units for Tract 5; if this occurs, Petitioner would need only an additional 135 units. However, if the Davis proposal were denied, Petitioner would take all 240 units. After adding them to the 502 units remaining after the development of Tracts 1, 4A, and 4B, the resulting 742 units would provide the 420 units sought for Tract 7 and two units less than the maximum number of units allowable on Tract 5, assuming, again, that the density is calculated on the basis of gross acres (or that Petitioner has forgotten that two acres of open space have been taken from Tract 5). As Respondent contends, the third alternative is premature and excessively contingent. By seeking 240 units if the Davis proposal were denied, Petitioner is effectively trying to obtain residential units for Tracts 7 and 5 in this proceeding, without consideration of the specific compatibility issues pertinent to Tract 5, which is closer to the already- developed part of Knights Krossing and most of the residential development along McCulloch Road. By obtaining units now for the maximum development of Tract 5 through an as-yet identified development proposal, Petitioner would deny Respondent the opportunity of examining the proposal, as Respondent is examining Petitioner's proposal for Tract 7 in this case. Petitioner would also deny Respondent the opportunity of obtaining consistency concessions from the future developer of Tract 5 or its predecessor, as Respondent is doing in this case. The Davis proposal for Tract 5 has proceeded further in the land use approval process than has Petitioner's proposal for Tract 7. (Tr., p. 207.) Thus, the possibility of an approval of the Davis proposal is not unreasonably contingent, nor is the possibility of a denial. But the possibility of a denial followed by a hypothetical proposal at maximum density for Tract 5 is unreasonably contingent and prematurely presents land use issues, including compatibility, better left to future consideration by Respondent and the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission with full knowledge of all relevant facts surrounding a specific development proposal. The preceding analysis reveals an insubstantial contingency in Petitioner's requested number of additional units, if the Davis proposal were granted; an insubstantial contingency in Petitioner's requested number of additional units, if the Davis proposal were denied and no proposal of residential development for Tract 5 were considered in addressing, in this case, the number of Multifamily Residential units in Quadrangle; and an unreasonable contingency in Petitioner's requested number of additional units, if the Davis proposal were denied and an alternative, hypothetical proposal were considered in addressing, in this case, the number of Multifamily Residential units in Quadrangle. For these reasons, as to the first issue, Petitioner has shown that its request for additional Multifamily Residential units is not so contingent as to preclude informed consideration and approval, provided that, if the Davis proposal were approved, the amended DO approves an additional 135 Multifamily Residential Units and, if the Davis proposal were denied, the amended DO approves no additional Multifamily Residential units, but acknowledges that Petitioner may use the 420 units, subject to design standards, on Tract 7 and based on the favorable resolution of the following three issues. The second issue requires analysis of the means by which the Quadrangle DOs restrict land uses. Land use restrictions imposed on residential uses at Quadrangle express themselves in four ways: 1) the per-tract density limitation of 18 units per acre; 2) the design standards found in the ALUPs and PD restrictions; 3) the designation of only certain tracts as eligible for Multifamily Residential; and 4) the maximum number of Multifamily Residential units allowed on those tracts designated Multifamily Residential. Respondent contends that the acreages cited in the Substantial Deviation Determination Charts are a fifth restriction upon residential uses in the Quadrangle DOs. However, this is a misreading of these DOs, invited, perhaps, by Petitioner's inconsistent treatment of acreages. At no time did Petitioner add the acreages of all the tracts designated Multifamily Residential in any of its submittals to Respondent. To have done so would have understated--badly, at the start--the potential nonresidential uses in Quadrangle. In the first two residential DO amendments, Petitioner exercised reasonable judgment in deciding which acreages to include in the total acreage cited for Multifamily Residential. For these DO amendments, Petitioner rationally explained the bases for the totals of 56 and 77 acres, respectively, for Multifamily Residential. The explanation for omitting Tract 7 from the third requested DO amendment--initiated by the September 1997 NOPC--was unpersuasive. The purpose for again increasing the number of Multifamily Residential units was to allow residential development of Tract 7, and an increase in acreage would have better informed Respondent as to what was being proposed. However, Petitioner clearly revealed its intention to use the additional residential units on Tract 7 by shading the tract on the Development Plan and by the text quoted in paragraph 32 of this recommended order. In the final analysis, Respondent's contention that the Quadrangle DRI DOs restrict land uses by the acreages shown on a Substantial Deviation Determination Chart imposes an unreasonably simple restriction upon the way in which this DRI has operated from its inception. Multiple designations by parcel have preserved maximum flexibility for developers. Treating the acreages listed in the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart as restrictions on land uses frustrates the obvious purpose of multiple designations. Respondent was never misled by the listed acreages, given the numerous indicators of flexible land uses contained in the NOPCs. The limits upon residential land uses were always derived in this DRI from per-tract densities, design standards, tract designations, and maximum allowable units of Multifamily Residential. A single notation of projected acreage offered by way of background explanation does not defeat the clear purpose of multiple designations. The impossibility of misunderstanding by Respondent is also confirmed by the evolving nature of Quadrangle itself. The slightest familiarity with this DRI reveals that, in the course of 15 years, Quadrangle, launched as a relatively large office/research park without residential uses, had become a much more mixed-use project, or, perhaps more accurately, two projects--an office park/hotel complex in the south and a high- density residential development in the north. For these reasons, as to the second issue, Petitioner has shown that its request for additional Multifamily Residential units is not precluded by any acreage limitation anywhere in any of the NOPCs or the failure of Petitioner to increase the acreage listed in the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart contained in the September 1997 NOPC. Multifamily Residential on Tract 7 is Compatible with Adjacent and Nearby Residential Land Uses To the north of Knights Krossing is a single-family and multifamily residential development known as Hunter's Reserve. (Tr., 394.) Farther west on McCulloch Road are Riverwalk, on the north of the road, and Riversbend, on the south of the road. Both of these single-family residential developments are east of Rouse Road. Between Riversbend and Knights Krossing is Riverchase, formerly known as University Pines. (Pet. Ex. 47.) Riverwalk and Riverchase are predominantly owner-occupied developments. (Tr., p. 470.) Riverchase is a J-shaped parcel extending from McCulloch Road to the lake that separates Tract 7 from Tract 5. (Tr., p. 161 and Pet. Ex. 47.) The eastern half of the north boundary of Tract 7 abuts the south boundary of Riverchase. The western half of the north boundary of Tract 7 abuts undeveloped land outside of Quadrangle. Unlike Tracts 1, 4A, and 4B, which front on McCulloch Road, Tracts 7 and 5 lack such frontage. Although interior access across Tract 4B could permit residents of Tract 5 access to McCulloch Road, the lake on the east boundary of Tract 7 would prevent direct access for residents of Tract 7, who likely will access their property by way of an interior road that runs to Rouse Road, about 1200 feet north of University Boulevard. (Pet. Exs. 2C, 16, and 47.) The compatibility issue in this case involves the proximity of Tract 7 to nearby residential areas. Tract 7 will be medium density residential, as defined in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan (Resp. Ex. 24, Policy 1.1.11), and the nearby residential areas are mostly single-family residential, although not at exceptionally low densities. The added compatibility issue in this case is the expectation that, given its proximity to the University of Central Florida, Tract 7 will accommodate a large number of college students. The most serious problems are crime and fear of crime. During 1999, Knights Krossing generated 842 service calls. Over the same period of time, for example, Riversbend generated only 33 service calls. (Pet. Ex. 47 and Resp. Ex. 41.) However, the great disparity in these numbers is deceptive. The first three phases of Knights Krossing comprise 2624 bedrooms. (Pet. Ex. 20, p. 21.) Assuming no vacancy rate and only one person per bedroom, Knights Krossing would accommodate about 2500 persons. Riversbend has about 80 single- family homes. (Pet. Ex. 47.) Assuming three to four persons per home, Riversbend accommodates about 250-300 residents. Thus, adjusted for approximate population, Knights Krossing generated about two-and-one-half to three times the service calls than did Riversbend. Closer examination of the Knights Krossing service calls reduces the apparent disparity even further. Sixty-one of the 842 service calls are commercial in nature; for example, 26 service calls are for commercial alarms. These figures reflect the small amount of commercial/retail uses on Tract 1 and have no bearing on an exclusively residential development, such as that proposed for Tract 7. (Resp. Ex. 41, p. 2.) Of the remaining 781 service calls, 234 are for residential alarms, which are a separate category from residential burglary. (Resp. Ex. 41, p. 2.) Although serious nuisances to law enforcement due to the fact that they require responses, residential alarms, in themselves, do not represent a crime; presumably, alarms activated by an actual intruder, rather than a careless or intoxicated college student, would generate an entry under residential burglary, not residential alarms. To get a better idea of seriously disruptive, potentially criminal activity at Knights Krossing, it is therefore necessary to reduce the service calls by another 234 calls. The remaining 547 service calls at Knights Krossing compare more favorably to the service calls at Riversbend, whose data are not broken down, but, if like Riverwalk or Hunter's Reserve, represent only potentially serious matters. (Resp. Ex. 41, p. 1.) Knights Krossing generates one service call per four- and-one-half residents, and Riversbend generates one service call per seven-and-one-half to nine residents. Thus, the rate of serious service calls is not more than double at Knights Krossing than it is at Riversbend and possibly only fifty percent greater. Additionally, the nature of the service calls at Knights Krossing, as well as at nearby residential areas, reveals that the crime at Knights Krossing has not spilled over into surrounding areas. Only one nearby resident testified at the hearing. A resident of Riversbend (Tr. pp. 446-47), she reported that college students had used the playground reserved for residents of Riversbend, but she could not say if they were residents of Knights Krossing. (Tr., pp. 458-59.) Likewise, she could not link to Knights Krossing residents other disruptive behavior by young people, such as racing cars in the detention pond (Tr., p. 457), or menacingly following neighbors in their cars (Tr. p. 458). This resident admitted that she had never called the police herself due to disruptive behavior (Tr., p. 495) and that, on the two occasions that she was bothered by noise through a closed window, at least one of the times was due to the activities of a neighbor in her development. (Tr., p. 499.) Certain characteristics of Knights Krossing tend toward incompatibility with nearby residential areas. Of the 748 units available at Knights Krossing, 492 of them, or two-thirds, are four-bedroom units. (Pet. Ex. 20, p. 20.) Knights Krossing also offers individual, per-bedroom leases. (Tr., pp. 362 and 368.) Knights Krossing experiences considerable tenant turnover. (Tr., pp. 427-28.) However, Petitioner has attempted to eliminate these characteristics in its development proposal for Tract 7. As offered at the hearing, Petitioner has committed itself, and its successors and assigns, to develop no more bedrooms than were previously approved in an earlier proposal for Tract 7 by the Spanos Corporation; not to lease units by individual bedrooms or permit the subleasing or partial assignment of leases so as to achieve the same effect; to provide a single point of access to and from the development; to erect a landscaped fence or landscaped masonry wall around the perimeter of the development except on the borders of lakes; to erect lighting of not more than two foot-candles over all common areas and on poles of not more than 25 feet in height; to include in all leases a strict prohibition against loud noises after 10:00 p.m.; and to incorporate other substantive covenants and restrictions incorporated in a specific agreement among Petitioner, Spanos Corporation, and the Riverchase homeowners association (formerly known as the University Pines Property Owners Association, Inc., dated December 22, 1998. (Pet. Ex. 43.) Spanos Corporation had entered into a since-expired (Tr., p. 328) contract with Petitioner to purchase Tract 7 to build 420 Multifamily Residential units. The three-party agreement contains numerous substantive provisions governing the development of Tract 7. These provisions include a 100-foot natural buffer between Riverchase and Tract 7 with no improvement except a wrought-iron fence, additional wrought-iron fencing along other parts of the boundary of Tract 7, specific details concerning an eight-foot tall masonry wall, a front gate at the entrance to the development constructed on Tract 7, and the use of best efforts to direct street lighting in Tract 7 away from Riverchase homes. (Pet. Ex. 19.) Additionally, the agreement provides for only 804 bedrooms in the 420 units with no four- bedroom units and only 60 three-bedroom units. (Pet. Ex. 19.) In addition to Petitioner's efforts to harmonize the multifamily development with nearby residential developments, the compatibility determination is facilitated by the recognition of the intensification of land uses in the area surrounding Quadrangle. This area has experienced considerable development from 1994 to 1997. (Pet. Exs. 2A, 2B, and 2C and Tr., p. 90.) Agricultural tracts have been converted to other uses in response to the demands placed on this area by, among other things, its close proximity to the University of Central Florida. At the same time, it is undisputed that the proposed development of 420 units on Tract 7 would not adversely affect water and sewer services (Stip., Para. 28), stormwater management (Stip. Paras. 29 and 31), recreational facilities (Stip., Para. 29), schools (Stip., Para. 30), or traffic (Stip., Para. 33). Additionally, compatibility is facilitated by the design standards contained in Respondent's PD regulations. (Tr., pp. 187-89 and 372-74.) For these reasons, as to the third issue, Petitioner has shown that 420 Multifamily Residential units on Tract 7 would be compatible with all nearby residential development, provided the amended DO incorporates the provisions set forth in paragraphs 76 and 77 of this recommended order. Various provisions of the Respondent's 1990-2010 Comprehensive Policy Plan (Comprehensive Plan) apply to this case. (Resp. Ex. 42; all citations to provisions of the Comprehensive Plan are to this exhibit.) Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 1.1.12.1 authorizes specific land use designations, in addition to those generally used by the Comprehensive Plan, through PD review, which shall "ensure adjacent land use compatibility " FLUE Policy 1.1.14 describes the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the "proposed long-range general use of property for a designated target year." The Zoning Map indicates the "specific type of land use that the property is currently suited for based on existing conditions." FLUE Objective 1.6 is: to "alleviate the pressure of urban sprawl, reinforce a more efficient pattern of urban development, . . . reduce excessive travel demands," Respondent may reclassify lands as Traditional Neighborhood Development. FLUE Objective 3.1 is to promote "the physical and functional integration of a mixture of land uses." FLUE Policy 3.1.1 provides: "Continuous stretches of similar types and density of units shall be avoided. A diverse mix of land uses, housing types, and densities shall be promoted." Addressing PDs, FLUE Policy 3.1.20 provides: "A proposed change to an approved PD which would increase the land use intensity within the PD without a corresponding decrease in some other portion of the PD and result in greater off-site impacts, shall be reviewed to determine consistency with the comprehensive plan and whether a plan amendment is necessary." FLUE Policy 3.1.21 adds that the FLUM shall be amended to reflect PDs approved since the last FLUM amendment. FLUE Policy 3.2.25 provides that land use changes must be compatible with the existing development and development trend in an area. FLUE Policy 3.8.5 states that a proposed PD amendment shall be determined to be inconsistent with the FLUM if the amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies ensuring land use compatibility and adequate public facilities or if the amendment results in an increase in the intensity of an existing approved land use, with additional offsite impacts, without a corresponding decrease in another approved land use. FLUE Objective 4.1 is for the enforcement of the FLUM and implementation of the PD regulations to "ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses " The development of 420 Multifamily Residential units on Tract 7 is not inconsistent with any provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Davis proposal were approved, the 135 additional Multifamily Residential units would be offset by a reduction of 40,500 square feet of Office, pursuant to the well- established exchange ratio. Additionally, as long as the previously described compatibility conditions are incorporated into the DO amendment, the addition of multifamily residential, in such close proximity to the employment and educational services provided by the University of Central Florida, heightens the mixture of uses that may lessen the burden placed on area roadways. For these reasons, as to the fourth issue, Petitioner has shown that an DO amendment authorizing the development of 420 Multifamily Residential units on Tract 7 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, provided the amended DO incorporates the provisions set forth in paragraphs 76 and 77 of this recommended order.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order approving Petitioner's request for a development order amendment allocating another 135 Multifamily Residential units to the Quadrangle DRI, subject to the limitation of these units to Tract 7, a maximum development of 420 such units on Tract 7, the reduction of 40,500 square feet of Office, applicable design standards, the applicable per-tract density restriction of 18 units per acre, the conditions stated in paragraphs 76 and 77 of this recommended order, and the approval of the current Davis proposal for Tract 5. It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for additional Multifamily Residential units, in excess of 135, for the Quadrangle DRI. It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order approving Petitioner's request for a development order amendment acknowledging the allocation of 420 of the already-approved 1250 Multifamily Residential units to Tract 7, subject to applicable design standards, the applicable per-tract density restriction of 18 units per acre, the conditions stated in paragraphs 76 and 77 of this recommended order, and the denial of the current Davis proposal for Tract 5. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carol Licko, General Counsel Office of the Governor Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Timothy A. Smith Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802-0231 William D. Palmer Palmer & Palmer, P.A. 3117-B Edgewater Drive Orlando, Florida 32804
The Issue Whether Escambia County Ordinance No. 2017-65 (Ordinance) adopted on November 30, 2017, amending the Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial (HC/LI) zoning district in the Escambia County Land Development Code (LDC) is consistent with the 2030 Escambia County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Whether Remedial Ordinance No. 2018-30 (Remedial Ordinance) adopted on August 2, 2018, alleviates any inconsistency in the Ordinance such that the HC/LI zoning district regulation is consistent with the Comp Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner lives and owns property in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida, in proximity to parcels of land impacted by the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance. As such, the Petitioner would be subject to an increase in noise and traffic resulting from the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance, as well as an adverse change in the character of her rural neighborhood. The County is a non-charter county and political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the affected local government and is subject to the requirements of chapter 163. DEO is the state land planning agency and has the duty to review and investigate petitions submitted under section 163.3213, challenging land development regulations adopted by local governments. The Ordinance was enacted to amend Part III of the County's LDC to address consistency of parcels zoned HC/LI with the MU-S FLU Category. The preamble to the Ordinance indicates a previous consolidation of zoning districts implemented on April 16, 2015, "did not eliminate all occurrences of zoning districts that appear to allow uses, density, or other intensities of use not authorized by the prevailing purposes and associated provisions of applicable future land use categories." The County's Board of County Commissioners (Board) found that "there are occurrences of HC/LI zoning within the MU-S future land use category," and "it is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the public to address any inconsistency created by HC/LI zoning within the MU-S future land use category." After the DEO's determination of partial inconsistency, the County adopted the Remedial Ordinance, which makes no reference to the April 15, 2015, consolidation of zoning districts in the preamble. In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amends the Ordinance to delete certain confusing references to parcels and their previous zoning as of April 15, 2015. Thus, the Remedial Ordinance is much clearer than the Ordinance in addressing the prior inconsistency created by HC/LI zoning within the MU-S FLU category. Mixed-Use Suburban Future Land Use Category The MU-S FLU is described in FLU Policy 1.3.1 of the Comp Plan as "[i]ntended for a mix of residential and non- residential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses." The MU-S FLU lists the range of allowable uses as "[r]esidential, retail sales & services, professional office, recreational facilities, public and civic, limited agriculture." The MU-S FLU prescribes standards, such as a residential maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) and a non-residential maximum intensity floor area ration (FAR) of one. The MU-S FLU also describes the mix of land uses that the County intends to achieve for new development in relation to location, i.e., the distance from arterial roadways or transit corridors. Within one-quarter mile of arterial roadways or transit corridors: residential percentages of 8 to 25 percent; public, recreational and institutional percentages of 5 to 20 percent; non-residential uses such as retail service at 30 to 50 percent; and office at 25 to 50 percent. Beyond one-quarter mile of arterial roadways or transit corridors: residential percentages of 70 to 85 percent; public, recreational and institutional percentages of 10 to 25 percent; and non- residential percentages of 5 to 10 percent. The mix of land uses described by the Comp Plan MU-S FLU category can be implemented by multiple zoning districts in the LDC. Certain zoning districts within MU-S further the residential intentions of the FLU category and other zoning districts further the non-residential intentions of the MU-S FLU category. However, all zoning districts within MU-S contain some element of residential use. The Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance The Remedial Ordinance amended the purpose subsection (a) of section 3-2.11 of the County LDC by adding language that directly limited the "variety and intensity of non- residential uses within the HC/LI [zoning] district" by "the applicable FLU." This means that although various non- residential uses are permitted in the HC/LI zoning district, the FLU category in the Comp Plan determines the "variety and intensity" of those non-residential uses. The Ordinance had amended subsection (h) of section 3-1.3 of the County LDC to clarify that "[o]ne or more districts may implement the range of allowed uses of each FLU, but only at densities and intensities of use consistent with the established purposes and standards of the category." This clarification is consistent with FLU Policy 1.1.4 in the Comp Plan, which states that "[w]ithin a given future land use category, there will be one or more implementing zoning districts." The Remedial Ordinance amended the permitted uses in subsection (b) of section 3-2.11 of the County LDC by deleting the confusing reference to parcel sizes and their previous zoning as of April 15, 2015. In paragraph (6) of subsection 3-2.11(b), the Remedial Ordinance made clear that the listed "industrial and related uses" are not permitted "within MU-S." In general, the other permitted uses mirror the range of allowable uses in the MU-S FLU category. The Remedial Ordinance amended the conditional uses in subsection (c) of section 3-2.11 to make clear that the listed industrial and related conditional uses are not permitted within MU-S. The Ordinance added MU-S to the site and building requirements in subsection (d) of section 3-2.11 to require a maximum FAR of 1.0. The Remedial Ordinance also imposed a maximum structure height for "any parcel previously zoned GBD [Gateway Business District] and within the MU-S" of 50 feet, which is lower than the maximum of 150 feet for HC/LI zoning not within MU-S. The Remedial Ordinance amended the location criteria in subsection (e) of section 3-2.11 to limit "[a]ll new non- residential uses proposed within the HC/LI district" to parcels previously zoned GBD and within the MU-S FLU category that are located along and directly in front of "U.S. Highway 29 or State Road 95A." In addition, another location criterion limits new non-residential uses along arterial streets to within one-quarter mile of their intersection with an arterial street. The provisions of the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance are consistent with the County Comp Plan. Petitioner's Objections The Petitioner contended that the HC/LI zoning regulation allows intensities and scales of commercial uses that are inconsistent with the character of a predominantly residential FLU like MU-S. The Petitioner based her contention on the Comp Plan definition of "suburban area" and argued that the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance permitted uses, densities, and intensities that were not "suburban in nature." "Suburban area" is defined in the Comp Plan as "[a] predominantly low-density residential area located immediately outside of an urban area or a city and associated with it physically and socioeconomically." By contrast, "mixed-use" is defined in the Comp Plan as "any use that includes both residential and non-residential uses." See ch. 3, § 3.04, Escambia Cnty. Comp Plan. Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, the MU-S FLU category's primary focus is on a mix of uses in a suburban area. See Findings of Fact Nos. 6-8, above. Indeed, the FLU element of the Comp Plan expresses a purpose and intent to encourage mixed- use development. Also, the Petitioner's focus on the differences between the MU-S and Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) FLU categories in the Comp Plan was misplaced. The premise that the HC/LI zoning district implements the MU-U FLU category better than it implements the MU-S FLU category was not the issue to be determined in this proceeding. Rather, it was whether the Ordinance, as amended by the Remedial Ordinance, amending the HC/LI zoning district in the LDC is consistent with the Comp Plan. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether comprehensive plan future land use map amendment (FLUMA) 07-L25, adopted by Marion County Ordinance 07-31 on November 20, 2007, which changed the FLUM designation on 378 acres of Urban Reserve and on 17.83 acres of Rural Land to Medium Density Residential, is "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The parcel that is the subject of the FLUMA at issue (the Property) is approximately 395.83 acres in size. The existing FLUM designation for 378 acres of the Property is Urban Reserve, and the remaining 17.3 acres are designated as Rural Land. Both designations allow a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. The FLUMA would change the designation of the entire parcel to Medium Density Residential (MDR). MDR generally allows up to four dwelling units per acre. However, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 12.5.k, which also was adopted as part of County Ordinance 07-31, limits the maximum density on the Property to two dwelling units per acre. FLUE Policy 12.5.k also requires: that development on the Property "be served by central potable water and central sanitary sewer services available concurrent with development" and be a Planned Unit Development "to address site design, buffering, and access issues"; and that NW 90th Avenue be reconstructed from U.S. Highway 27 north to the north-eastern corner of the Property and that all traffic facility improvements needed at the NW 90th Avenue/U.S. 27 intersection, including signalization if approved by the Florida Department of Transportation, be constructed prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the Property. Finally, with respect to the 17.3 acres formerly designated as Rural Land, FLUE Policy 12.5.k defers compliance with the County's Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program until application for assignment of a zoning classification for the land. Petitioners' Challenge Intervenors own the Property. Petitioners own property nearby in Marion County. Intervenors and Petitioners commented on the proposed FLUMA between transmittal to DCA and adoption by the County. Petitioners contend: The FLUMA is not consistent with the stormwater drainage, retention, and management policies contained in Policies 1.1.a. and 1.1.d. of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Comprehensive Plan. MDR is not suitable or compatible with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity, as required by FLUE Policy 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of County Commissioners failed to evaluate the FLUMA's impact on “the need for the change” as provided in FLUE Policy 12.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The FLUMA fails to take into account its impact on “water quality and quantity, the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands, and the potential for flooding,” as required by Section 187.201(15)(b)6., Florida Statutes. The FLUMA is not consistent with Transportation Policy 1.0 of the Comprehensive Plan, which states: "Marion County shall create and maintain transportation facilities that operate in a safe and efficient manner within an established level of service." The FLUMA is not consistent with the State's Comprehensive Plan in that it does not "ensure that new development is compatible with existing local and regional water supplies," as required by Section 187.201(7)(b)5., Florida Statutes. The FLUMA does not direct development away from areas without sediment cover that is adequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer and does not prohibit non-residential uses within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other karst feature, in violation of FLUE Policy 4.2 of the Comprehensive Plan. The FLUMA does not comply with Section 187.201(7), Florida Statutes, concerning the protection of surface and ground water quality in the State. Recharge Sub-Element Policy 1.1.a. and d. Policy 1.1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element of the Infrastructure Element of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan provides in part: The County’s land development regulations shall implement the following guidelines for stormwater management consistent with accepted engineering practices by October 1, 2007: Stormwater retention/detention basin depth will be consistent with the water management district's storm water requirements for Karst Sensitive Areas so that sufficient filtration of bacteria and other pollutants will occur. Avoidance of basin collapse due to excessive hydrostatic pressure in Karst Sensitive Areas shall be given special consideration. * * * d. Require the use of swales and drainage easements, particularly for single family residential development in Karst Sensitive Areas. These are requirements for land development regulations (LDRs); they do not apply to comprehensive plan amendments. In any event, the evidence did not prove that the site is unsuitable for the density allowed under the adopted FLUMA due to karst features. The admissible evidence presented by Petitioners regarding stormwater management in karst topography generally related to flooding problems on the property contiguous to the Property, and to a karst feature referred to as the “63rd Street Sinkhole,” which is located in the general vicinity of the Property. Fay Baird, an expert hydrologist called by Petitioners, testified that the 63rd Street Sinkhole allows stormwater run- off to enter the upper aquifer. Ms. Baird testified generally of the problems and concerns regarding development and stormwater management systems in karst topography. She testified that the Property should be properly inventoried, that specific karst features should be identified, and that any stormwater system designed or developed should take into account karst features to protect against groundwater contamination and flooding. She testified that she had not been on the Property, had not seen or reviewed core borings or other data to determine the depth and nature of the sub-surface, and was not in a position to provide opinions as to whether or not a particular stormwater management system would or could adequately protect against her concerns. Intervenors’ expert, Richard Busche, testified that a stormwater management plan like the one recommended by Ms. Baird was being developed. Compatibility under FLUE Policy 12.3 FLUE Policy 12.3 provides in pertinent part: Before approval of a future land use amendment, the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed future land use is suitable, and the County will review, and make a determination that the proposed land use is compatible with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity . . . . Petitioners argued that the proposed MDR development of the Property is incompatible with surrounding agricultural uses. Actually, the Property is surrounded by a mixture of agricultural and residential uses, including residential subdivisions, a golf course, and scattered large-lot residential and equestrian uses. The properties immediately to the south and east of the Property are developed residential properties and are designated MDR. Before the FLUMA, most of the Property was designated Urban Reserve under the County's Comprehensive Plan. Such land "provides for expansion of an Urban Area in a timely manner." FLUE Policies 1.24.B and 2.18. "For an Urban Reserve Area to be designated an Urban Area, it must be compact and contiguous to an existing Urban Area, and central water and sewer must be provided concurrent with development within the expanded area." FLUE Policy 2.18. The Property is compact and is contiguous to existing Urban Area designated MDR. This indicates that the County already has planned for timely conversion of the Urban Reserve land on the Property to urban uses, including MDR. It also means that the County already has determined that at least certain urban uses, including MDR, are compatible with adjacent agricultural uses. The Property is in the receiving area under the County's Farmland Preservation Policy and TDR Program in FLUE Objectives 13.0 and 13.01 and the policies under those objectives. This means that the County already has determined that residential density can be transferred to the Property from the Farmland Preservation sending areas to increase residential density up to one dwelling unit per acre. See FLUE Policy 13.6. This would constitute Low Density Residential, which is an urban use under the County's Comprehensive Plan. See FLUE Policy 1.24.A. By establishing the Farmland Preservation Policy and TDR Programs, the County already has determined that Low Density Residential is compatible with adjacent Rural Land. In addition, Low Density Residential clearly is compatible with MDR. Although not raised in the Petition, Petitioners argued that the Urban Reserve and Farmland Preservation eastern boundary was improperly moved west to NW 90th Avenue. However, that change was made prior to the adoption of Ordinance 07-31 and the FLUMA at issue in this case and is not a proper subject of this proceeding. Demonstration of Need under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3 FLUE Policy 13.2 provides: The Transfer of Development Rights program shall be the required method for increasing density within receiving areas, unless, through the normal Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle, an applicant can both justify and demonstrate a need for a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment. FLUE Policy 12.3 provides: Before approval of a future land use amendment, . . . the County . . . shall evaluate its impact on: The need for the change; The availability of facilities and services; The future land use balance; and The prevention of urban sprawl as defined by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence proved that the County interprets FLUE Policy 12.3 to require need and future land use balance to be assessed within the planning districts it has established. There is no need for additional MDR in the County's Planning District 5, where the Property is located. To accommodate the projected population increase in Planning District 5 by 2010, which is the planning horizon for the County’s Comprehensive Plan, an additional 644 dwelling units are needed. There are 1,893 vacant acres of MDR available in Planning District 5. At four units per acre allowed in MDR, the County has an available supply of 7,572 MDR dwelling units in Planning District 5. In the absence of a need in Planning District 5, the County relied on a need demonstration prepared for the Intervenors by Fishkind and Associates.6 Besides being a County-wide analysis instead of a planning district analysis, the Fishkind analysis assumed a planning horizon of 2015, rather than the 2010 horizon established in the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the Fishkind analysis applied an allocation factor to the total projected need for residential use, most of which already is supplied, resulting in a projection of residential far in excess of the incremental need for additional residential land by 2015, much less by 2010. The result of the Fishkind approach was to allocate enough land for residential use to meet the County-wide projected incremental need for additional residential land use for approximately 45 years, which is five times the calculated incremental need for 2015. Even assuming that a County-wide demonstration of need complied with Marion County's Comprehensive Plan, this is much too high an allocation ratio to use to meet the incremental need projected for a 2015 plan, much less for a 2010 plan. The expert for Intervenors, Stanley Geberer, defended the Fishkind analysis in part by stating that it was comparable to demonstrations of need accepted by DCA in other cases. However, there was no evidence that the facts of those other cases were comparable to the facts of this case. Mr. Geberer also asserted that holding the County to its 2010 planning horizon would make it impossible for the County to plan for the future. However, nothing prevents the County from revising its Comprehensive Plan to plan comprehensively for a longer timeframe. There was no evidence of any other circumstances that would demonstrate a need for the FLUMA at issue in this case. State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(15)(b)6. Petitioners did not prove that the FLUMA fails to take into account its impact on "water quality and quantity, the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands, and the potential for flooding." To the contrary, the evidence was that those items were taken into account as part of the FLUMA. (However, as to the FLUMA's impact on the availability of land to meet demands, see "Demonstration of Need under FLUE Policies 13.2 and 12.3," supra.) Transportation Element Objective 1.0 Transportation Element Objective 1.0 provides: Marion County shall create and maintain transportation facilities that operate in an efficient and safe manner within established levels of service. Petitioners presented no expert testimony or admissible evidence that the FLUMA will change established levels of service or result in transportation facilities operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. Intervenors presented the testimony of Jonathan Thigpen, an expert traffic engineer, who prepared and submitted to the County a Traffic Impact Study and testified that the FLUMA would not change established levels of service or result in transportation facilities operating in an unsafe or inefficient manner. The ultimate need for transportation improvement, such as turn lanes and traffic lights to mitigate the impacts of development under the FLUMA, will be determined at later stages of development. Petitioners suggested that the FLUMA will result in delays caused by additional traffic, frustrate drivers waiting to turn east on U.S. 27, and induce large numbers of them to seek an alternative route to the north through agricultural areas, some of which have inadequate slag roads. However, Petitioners failed to prove that this result is likely. State Comprehensive Plan Policy 187.201(7)(b)5 Petitioners presented no evidence that the designation of MDR on the Property is incompatible with existing local and regional water supplies. The evidence was that adequate local and regional water supplies exist. Even if they did not exist, the consequence would be less development than the maximum allowed by the FLUMA. FLUE Policy 4.2 FLUE Policy 4.2 provides in pertinent part: In order to minimize the adverse impacts of development on recharge quality and quantity in high recharge Karst sensitive and springs protection areas, design standards for all development shall be required and defined in the LDRs to address, at a minimum, the following: * * * f. Directing development away from areas with sediment cover that is inadequate to protect the Floridian [sic] Aquifer. * * * h. Prohibiting nonresidential uses within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other Karst feature. This policy sets forth requirements for the content of LDRs, not FLUMAs. Petitioners presented no evidence that sediment cover on the Property is inadequate to protect the Floridan Aquifer or that any non-residential uses would be constructed within 200 feet of a sinkhole, solution channel, or other karst feature under the FLUMA. Marion County has adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan to protect springs and karst features.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department determine the FLUMA at issue in this case to be not "in compliance" and take further action as required by Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2009.
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.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this proceeding is whether a future land use map (“FLUM”) amendment, adopted by Hillsborough County on October 27, 1994, as part of its Comprehensive Plan update for the planning time frame through 2015 (variously referred to as the “Comprehensive Plan” or "CPU-2015"), that changed the future land use category on a 253 acre parcel1 in Northwest Hillsborough County ("the Geraci Parcel") from Regional Commercial ("RC") to Community Mixed Use-12 ("CMU-12") complies with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: PARTIES Petitioners Nick and Peter Geraci are the fee simple owners of a parcel of land comprising approximately 450 acres located on the northeast corner of the intersection of North Dale Mabry Highway and Van Dyke Road, two hundred fifty-three (253) acres of which are at issue in this proceeding. Advance Leasing is a Florida corporation that was a contract vendee for a portion of the Geracis’ property intended for development as a “super regional” or “regional scale” mall, and was the applicant in the amended applications for DRI approval of that mall. Hillsborough County’s motion to dismiss Advance Leasing as a party for failure to establish standing as an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was granted at the final hearing. Advance Leasing failed to establish that it was an entity that either owned or operated a business within Hillsborough County or owned property in Hillsborough County as of October 27, 1994. Respondent DCA is the state land planning agency, with responsibility to review plan amendments under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187 and 163.3189, Florida Statutes, and to determine compliance with the relevant provisions. Respondent Hillsborough County is a local government with responsibility to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan and any required amendments thereto pursuant to Sections 163.3167, 163.3171 and 163.3174, Florida Statutes. The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners makes the final, legislative decision on all Comprehensive Plan amendments in Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County Charter Section 9.09 specifies that a single local planning agency, created by special law, "shall have responsibility for Comprehensive Planning and related activities[.]" The Hillsborough County Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, as amended by Chapter 97-351, Laws of Florida, designates the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission”) as Hillsborough County's local planning agency. The Planning Commission is charged with preparing Comprehensive Plans and making recommendations to the public bodies for Hillsborough County and the incorporated municipalities within Hillsborough County. The role of the Planning Commission is advisory and its recommendations are not binding upon Hillsborough County. Intervenors Sierra Club and Dr. Richard and Bonnie Hoffman have established their standing to participate in this proceeding as "affected persons" pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Sierra Club represents numerous members who reside in Hillsborough County, and also operates a business within the boundaries of Hillsborough County by way of its local affiliate. The Hoffmans own property within Hillsborough County. Both Sierra Club and the Hoffmans participated in the local government proceedings in accordance with Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order finding the portion of CPU-2015 challenged by the Petition to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1998.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether City of Miami Ordinance 12911, which amends the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), is a small-scale development amendment, as defined by Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) whether Ordinance 12911 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (Statutes refer to the 2007 codification.)
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following facts are determined: The Property Subject to the FLUM Amendment TRG-MH Venture, LTD. (TRG-MH), is a Florida limited partnership formed for the purpose of purchasing and developing a parcel of property in the southeast corner of a larger, 40- acre parcel owned by Mercy Hospital, Inc. (Mercy). TRG-MH and Mercy have executed a purchase and sale agreement for this corner parcel, which is located at approximately 3663 South Bayshore Drive in the Coconut Grove area of Miami, Florida (the Site). TRG-MH hired an architectural firm, Arquitectonica, to design on the Site a proposed residential development named 300 Grove Bay Residences (the Project). The Site, which currently serves as a paved parking lot for Mercy Hospital employees, measures 6.72 acres. The Site is abutted on the north, northwest, and northeast by the rest of the 40-acre parcel owned by Mercy and used for its hospital, professional offices, and patient and visitor parking. The tallest of these buildings is 146 feet. To the north of Mercy's property and medical complex is another 30-plus acre parcel owned by the Catholic Diocese of Miami and used for La Salle High School and a religious facility, Ermita de la Caridad. Abutting the northern boundary of the La Salle High School property is Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. To the west of the Site are a small convent, an administration building, and a modest-sized assisted living facility. To the west of these buildings is South Bayshore Drive, which is a four-lane road. Single-family residential neighborhoods are west of South Bayshore Drive. The Site is abutted on the southwest, south, southeast and east by Biscayne Bay. Grove Isle, a three-building, 18- story condominium/hotel/marina complex, is located on a small, man-made island (Fair Isle) in the Bay to the south of the Site. It is located approximately 1,300 feet from the Site and is separated from the Site by Bay water. Grove Isle has a future land use designation of Medium Density Multifamily Residential (M/D Residential) and is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-3). However, Grove Isle is a legal nonconformity because it exceeds the densities allowed in M/D Residential and R-3. To the southwest of the Site, but separated from the Site by Bay water, are single-family and medium-density dwellings, including several multifamily structures. Petitioners Bloch and Steen reside in this neighborhood. No property zoned single-family residential (R-1) abuts the Site. Currently a paved parking lot, the Site has no archeological, environmental, or historical significance. Miami-Dade County had designated all of the City as an "Urban Infill Area." This designation is made in the County's Comprehensive Plan and is implemented in Policy LU-1.1.11 of the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The Parties The Vizcayans, Inc. (The Vizcayans), is a not-for- profit Florida corporation of volunteer members and a paid staff consisting of: an executive director, a membership director, and a controller. The purpose of the organization is to support the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens (Vizcaya), a publicly-owned and operated museum, through contributions and fundraising events. The Vizcayans' office at 3251 South Miami Avenue is located on the grounds of Vizcaya. The Vizcayans submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM Amendment and appeared in person and through lawyers at the City Commission hearings. The Respondent and Intervenors stipulated that The Vizcayans have standing as affected persons under Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to challenge the small-scale development amendment in this proceeding based on allegations that The Vizcayans operate a business in the City. Miami-Dade County owns Vizcaya. By contract, The Vizcayans provides funds annually to Miami-Dade County for use in maintaining Vizcaya's properties and conducting educational programs. Any funds in excess of those owed to the County under the contract are used to pay staff and host fundraisers or are invested for future use. Vizcaya is governed by the County through the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, which is an agency of Miami-Dade County. Jason Bloch and Constance Steen reside in the City and own properties to the southwest of the Site. Glencoe is a not- for-profit corporation of homeowners in the Glencoe neighborhood to the southwest of the Site. Mr. Bloch formed the corporation during the pendency of the application proceedings for the primary purpose of opposing the proposed development of the Site. Bloch, Steen, and Glencoe submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. Grove Isle is a not-for-profit Florida corporation of condominium owners. Grove Isle submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. The City and Intervenors stipulated to Grove Isle's standing in these proceedings. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City adopted its Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, including its FLUM, in 1989. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM have been amended from time to time as allowed by law. TRG-MH is a joint venture limited partnership. Its direct and indirect participants include Ocean Land Equities, Ltd., and The Related Group. TRG-MH contracted to purchase the Site from Mercy and applied to the City for the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. TRG-MH also submitted applications for a change of zoning and MUSP on the Site. The zoning and MUSP applications, and the resulting City ordinance and resolution arising from their approval, are not at issue in this proceeding. Mercy is a not-for-profit Florida corporation that owns and operates Mercy Hospital. Mercy has contracted to sell the Site to TRG-MH. The FLUM Amendment In June 2007, TRG-MH applied to the City for a small- scale development amendment to change the Site's land use designation on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities (M/I) to High Density Multifamily Residential (H/D). TRG-MH submitted its application concurrently with its applications for a zoning change from G/I to R-4 and for a MUSP. According to the FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH was seeking a map amendment for a 6.723-acre parcel of real property. With its FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH submitted a survey prepared and certified by surveyors Fortin, Leavy & Skiles. The survey depicted: the Site, as a parcel with a "net lot area" of 6.723 acres; a Proposed Road, measuring 1.39 acres, that wrapped around the Site on its west and north sides (the Perimeter Road); and a Private Road, also known as Tract "C" or Halissee Street, measuring .95 acres, which accesses the Site and Perimeter Road from South Bayshore Drive. Accompanying the survey was a legal description for the Site, which included a description for the proposed new Perimeter Road abutting the Site. The legal description covered an area comprising 8.11 acres. Also accompanying the application was a traffic analysis showing the impact to existing road networks of traffic resulting from the proposed MUSP application, which sought to build 300 residential units on property currently having no existing residential units. TRG-MH's applications were reviewed by the City's Planning Department and its Planning Advisory Board (PAB). The City's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use designation change. The PAB's 3-3 tie vote operated as to deny the request for a change of the land use designation recommendation. On April 26, 2007, the City Commission voted to approve the FLUM amendment application and, with modifications, the accompanying zoning and MUSP applications. (The City Commission approved the zoning change and MUSP subject to the condition that the size and scale of the Project be reduced by 25 percent across the board. Thus, for example, the height of the tallest of the three condominium buildings was reduced from approximately 411 feet to 310 feet.) The FLUM change was adopted by Ordinance 12911, which the Mayor signed on May 7, 2007. Ordinance 12911 amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation "for the property located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated." Exhibit A to the ordinance was the legal description included on the Fortin, Leavy, Skiles survey. The section of the MCNP entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various future land use categories in the Plan. It describes the Major Institutional future land use category as follows: Major Institutional Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities: Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, and major transportation facilities and public utilities. Residential facilities ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) at 21 (June 2006). The same section describes the H/D Residential, in pertinent part, as follows: Areas designated as "High Density Multifamily Residential" allow residential structures to a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. MCNP at 20 (June 2006). (By way of comparison, M/D Residential is described similarly except that the maximum density is 65 dwelling units per acre.) According to the MCNP, the FLUM land use designations "are arranged following the 'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion, whereby subsequent categories are inclusive of those listed previously, except as otherwise noted." Ordinance 12911 was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required for text changes and large- scale FLUM changes to a comprehensive plan. On June 4 and 6, 2007, Petitioners filed their petitions challenging the FLUM Amendment. Generally, the Petitioners alleged that the FLUM Amendment did not qualify for treatment as a "small-scale" development amendment; was internally inconsistent with other provisions of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; was not supported by adequate data and analysis; and was not "in compliance" with Florida's Growth Management Act and its implementing regulations. Scale of the FLUM Amendment A small-scale development amendment may be adopted if the "proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." § 163.3187(1)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. According to the survey and architectural plans on file with the City, the "net lot area" of the Site measures 6.72 acres. The City Zoning Code defines "net lot area" as "[t]he total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights-of- way or other required dedications." § 2502, City Zoning Code. In determining how large (in square feet of floor area) the planned Project could be, the architects were permitted, under the City's zoning regulations, to multiply the "floor area ratio" (FAR) for the High Density Multifamily Residential zoning classification by an area larger than the "net lot area." See § 401, City Zoning Code. The Zoning Code allows the maximum square footage to be calculated using the Site's "gross lot area." Id. The City Zoning Code defines "gross lot area," in pertinent part, as "[t]he net area of the lot, as defined herein, plus half of adjoining street rights-of-way and seventy (70) feet of any other public open space such as parks, lakes, rivers, bays, public transit right-of-way and the like." § 2502, City Zoning Code. If the "gross lot area" to be used to calculate the maximum square footage involves properties under different ownership, either the owners must apply jointly for a MUSP, or they must enter a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title. Properties joined by a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title need not have the same land use designation or zoning classification. If a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title is required, it need not be submitted to the City until building permits are sought. At present, no covenant-in-lieu of unity of title has been prepared or executed for the Site. The "gross lot area" used to calculate the Project's maximum square footage of floor area measured 11.44 acres. Thus, the Petitioners argued that the FLUM Amendment "involved a use" of more than 10 acres. But the application requested a land use designation change on only 6.72 acres of land. Because High-Density Multifamily Residential use will not be made of the proposed Perimeter Road, the access road known as Halissee Street, or the proposed Bay Walk, a land use designation change was not required for that acreage. Indeed, according to the amended FLUM, there is no land use designation applied to Halissee or to the northern part of the Perimeter Road. Moreover, use of Halissee Street, the Perimeter Road, and the Bay Walk is not exclusive to the 6.72 acres but will remain shared with Mercy Hospital, its patients and employees, as well as with the public. The Petitioners attempted to prove that a marina was planned to serve the development, which would involve a total use of more than ten acres for residential purposes. Even if a marina was initially contemplated, the application on file with the City does not include one, and there are no approved plans for a marina to be incorporated into the proposed residential development. No marina is required to be developed in connection with the 300 Grove Bay project. Moreover, there was unrebutted evidence that it is highly unlikely that a marina would ever be permitted under the statutes now regulating Biscayne Bay. There is no evidentiary support for including any part of Biscayne Bay in the acreage subject to the small-scale FLUM Amendment because of a possible marina so as to support the Petitioners' claim that Ordinance 12911 should not have been processed as a small-scale amendment. Suitability and Compatibility of FLUM Amendment The Site is a parking lot. It is not environmentally sensitive and has no significant natural or archeological resources that would make it unsuitable for High Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Major Institutional accommodates the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the Mercy Hospital complex, which are compatible with and actually part of Coconut Grove. However, as pointed out by the City and the Intervenors, Major Institutional also allows future land uses that could be less compatible with the surrounding land uses, including the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the residential neighborhoods of Coconut Grove. While a lower density residential future land use would be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding uses, the issue in this case is the density allowed by H/D Residential--up to 150 residential units per acre, which Petitioners contend is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and inconsistent with previous efforts to protect Vizcaya and Coconut Grove from the intrusion of high- density residential development. The Petitioners also contend that the FLUM Amendment is not suitable on the bayfront. Suitability on the Bayfront The Petitioners contend that H/D Residential is not suitable on the bayfront for reasons related mostly to aesthetics and views. While it certainly would be possible and reasonable for a community to decide not to allow dense and intense development on significant water bodies, it was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the City has done so, or that H/D Residential is unsuitable on the Site for that reason. 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report The City's 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("2005 EAR") focused on two citywide issues relevant here: (1) the preservation and enhancement of historic and similar resources; and (2) neighborhood integrity and the need to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development. Vizcaya Museum Gardens Industrialist James Deering built Vizcaya in 1916 as a winter home. The land Deering purchased in the early 1900s was developed into a 180-acre estate that included his Mediterranean-style home, Italianate gardens, farms, orchards, and lagoons. The mansion and gardens were designed by three well-known architects and designers and constructed using local materials. When Deering died nine years later in 1925, Vizcaya was left to his heirs, who eventually sold the south gardens and western agricultural fields to the Catholic Diocese. The southern acreage (which included the Site) was later developed into a church (Ermita de la Caridad), a school (La Salle), and medical and hospital facilities (Mercy). The Diocese sold the western acreage, which was eventually developed into single- family-home subdivisions. In the 1950s, the Deering heirs sold the remaining property, consisting of the mansion, gardens, and farm buildings, to Dade County. In 1952, Dade County opened Vizcaya to the public. Since then, the County has operated Vizcaya as a museum, which has welcomed thousands of visitors annually and is a popular site for tourists, social functions, and photo shoots. The Vizcaya mansion and gardens have historical, architectural, and botanical significance. The mansion is an "architectural masterpiece" and an "outstanding example of Italian Renaissance Revival architecture." Vizcaya has been on the National Register of Historical Places since 1977; it was designated as a City Heritage Conservation District in 1984; and, in 1994, it was designated a National Historical Landmark-- one of only three in Miami-Dade County. The southernmost part of Vizcaya's gardens is approximately 1,600 feet from the FLUM Amendment Site, and the mansion is approximately 2,300 feet from the Site. For the specific purpose of objecting to the 300 Grove Bay project, The Vizcayans commissioned the Vizcaya Viewshed Impact Assessment, which is referred to as the "balloon" study, and the Vizcaya View Corridor Study. According to the balloon study, the 300 Grove Bay condominiums would be visible from the balcony on the south side of the mansion. Although the balloon study was based on the original Project building heights and not re-done using the reduced heights in the zoning and MUSP approvals, the Petitioners' witnesses said that the Project would still be visible through the existing landscape, even at the reduced height. The Petitioners' witnesses opined that the development of 300 Grove Bay would "overpower and overshadow" the gardens on the south side of the mansion. No federal, state, or local statutes, rules or ordinances, including those relevant to this proceeding, protect the view corridors of Vizcaya's gardens. Coconut Grove The area known as Coconut Grove was settled in the late 1800s and was considered "off the beaten path" from the City which was incorporated in 1896. Coconut Grove was incorporated as a separate municipality in 1919, but in 1925 it was annexed to the City, as were five other municipalities. Petitioners' witnesses observed that Coconut Grove is the only one of these towns that has continued to retain a unique and recognizable character. Vizcaya and Mercy Hospital, including the parking lot site, are located in the northern area of Coconut Grove. Coconut Grove is primarily, but not entirely, a residential community. Coconut Grove has an active "downtown" business, commercial, and hotel district. The Petitioners maintained that the northern area of Coconut Grove is primarily single-family residential. However, it also includes a non- conforming high-density development (Grove Isle), medium-density residential, Mercy Hospital and its professional buildings, an assisted living facility, a school, a church, and governmental office buildings, as well as two museums (Vizcaya and the Museum of Science). A Coconut Grove Planning Study was commissioned and printed in 1974, but the City never adopted it; therefore, it has no official status. The Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District In 2005, the City adopted by ordinance the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3). See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. According to the Code, a Neighborhood Conservation District is an "umbrella land use designation overlay," which allows for the tailoring of a master plan or of design guidelines for any area that meets certain criteria. See § 800, City Zoning Code. The intent of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District is to "[p]reserve the historic, heavily landscaped character of Coconut Grove's residential areas and enhance and protect Coconut Grove's natural features such as tree canopy and green space." § 803.1, City Zoning Code. NCD-3 does not specify the High-Density, Multifamily Residential (R-4) zoning classification. But that does not mean that NCD-3 does not allow R-4. NCD-3 is enabling legislation that imposes greater restrictions within a geographic "overlay" for the zoning classifications addressed in Section 803.3. So far, NCD-3 has not addressed G/I and R-4 but only Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial Districts. See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. For that reason, the ordinance does not apply to the Site. The "Grovenor Ordinance" The so-called Grovenor Ordinance was the City's response in July 2004 to the construction of a high-density residential project on property in Coconut Grove zoned "G/I Government and Institutional." The Grovenor Ordinance amended subsection of Section 401 of the City's Zoning Code to provide in pertinent part: G/I Government and Institutional Intent and Scale: The government/institutional category allows the development of facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious, or educational activities, major transportation facilities, public utilities, and public and private cemeteries. Uses ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, subject to the same limiting conditions. Intensity: For residential uses: As for the least intense abutting zoning district. . . . * * * Permitted Principal Uses: Governmental and institutional uses as described in the City of Miami Comprehensive Development Plan designation of "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities", however for accessory non-governmental or institutional uses-only such uses as may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense abutting zoning district . . . . § 401, City Zoning Code. The Grovenor Ordinance applies to property that is zoned G/I. The City's and Intervenors' witnesses testified that it applies only if G/I-zoned property ceases to be used for governmental or institutional purposes and is used instead for residential purposes. However, from the language of the ordinance itself, it is beyond fair debate that it also applies to G/I-zoned property that is used both for government or institutional uses and for ancillary residential uses. Clearly, without a FLUM change to a higher-density residential zoning category, in Coconut Grove the residential use on the Site would be restricted to the zoning classification of the "least intense abutting zoning district." Since it pertains to zoning, the Grovenor Ordinance does not directly apply to the issue of whether a FLUM amendment is "in compliance." However, it has some bearing on the proper interpretation and application of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP's future land use designations, which is important to the issues for determination in this case. The Pyramid Concept The City and the Intervenors rely heavily on their interpretation of the MCNP's pyramid concept of cumulative future land use designations to support the FLUM Amendment in this case. According to them, the FLUM Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses because high-density multi-family residential use already is a permitted use as a matter of right for land designated "Major Institutional." Similarly, they maintain that, under the "pyramid" concept, high-density multi- family residential use is permitted as a matter of right in all of the commercially designated land in Coconut Grove. But it is beyond fair debate that their interpretation of the "pyramid concept" is incorrect. As indicated, the "'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion" applies "except as otherwise noted." In the Major Institutional future land use category, it is noted that residential facilities with densities equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" (i.e., up to 150 units per acre) are permitted only if "ancillary" to the listed major institutional uses. Similarly, in the General Commercial future land use category, it is noted that high-density residential uses "are allowed by Special Exception only, upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents." If the "pyramid concept" authorized high- density multi-family residential use as a matter of right on land designated either Major Institutional or General Commercial, there would be no reason to limit those uses by notation. Under the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, free-standing high-density multi-family residential use of up to 150 units per acre is not already permitted as of right in either the Major Institutional or the General Commercial land use categories. Compatibility Notwithstanding the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that High Density Multi Family Residential future land use on the Site is incompatible with the surrounding uses or is inappropriate. The lower density residential and other less intense future land uses in the MCNP are buffered from the Site by Biscayne Bay and by Medium Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Vizcaya is buffered from the Site by Mercy Hospital and related medical facilities and by La Salle High School. The compatibility of a specific density of residential development on the Site with less dense residential use in Coconut Grove and with Vizcaya, including issues regarding building height and intrusion into Vizcaya's view corridors, can be addressed through zoning and MUSP proceedings. Data and Analysis Data and analysis is another matter. Because of their incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the City and the Intervenors took the position that the FLUM Amendment constitutes "down-planning" and that the City was not required to perform the same level of analysis as it would have if the amendment sought a designation that permitted uses of greater impact, density, and/or intensity. The experts disagreed on whether "down-planning" is a concept in land use planning that can eliminate or minimize the requirement for data and analysis. In any event, the FLUM Amendment in this case could not be characterized as "down- planning." See Findings 57-59, supra. The MCNP's pyramid concept does not dispense with the need for data and analysis, and the data and analysis in this case was minimal and inadequate. The primary data and analysis in this case was the "Analysis for Land Use Change Request" (Analysis) that resulted from the City staff's review. After identifying the proposed land use designation and the uses permitted on it the Analysis recommended "Approval" of the FLUM Amendment and made four findings in support of "the position that the existing land use pattern in this neighborhood should be changed. These findings are as follows: It is found that the subject property is part of the Mercy Hospital and do [sic] not front South Miami Avenue. It is found that the "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation & Utilities" category allows 150 residential units per acre and the requested "High Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow a maximum density of 150 residential units per acre. It is found that the requested change to "High-Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow greater flexibility in developing the property at the above described location and therefore should be changed as part of the MUSP. It is found that MCNP Goal LU-1 maintains a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods, and (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts. Id. (Emphasis in original.) As to the City’s third finding, a particular developer's flexibility is irrelevant to the determination of whether the land use change is consistent with the MCNP. To the extent that flexibility in general could be relevant to the inquiry, the finding was incorrect. While allowing a free- standing high-density residential project that would not otherwise be possible, the FLUM Amendment eliminates all of the non-residential uses permitted within the "Major Institutional" category. The second finding was based on the City's incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP, which led the City to wrongly equate a primary use with an ancillary use and to simply assume no population increase would result from the FLUM Amendment, and that the FLUM Amendment would result in "down-planning." Attached to the City's Analysis was a separate "Concurrency Management Analysis," which addressed in summary form the data and analysis generated by the applicant and by the City's staff to address the "impact of [the] proposed amendment to land use map within a transportation corridor." The "Concurrency Management Analysis" also was predicated on the assumption that the FLUM change to HD Residential would not increase population. Essentially, it assumed without any data or analysis that infrastructure was available for 1,008 people living on the Site, even though the Site is being used as a parking lot at this time. This data and analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. As to transportation, there was additional evidence of a traffic analysis performed by the City in support of the Project’s MUSP. This MUSP traffic analysis utilized a proper starting point of zero population on the Site at this time. It then projected the impact of the addition of 300 units. This was more than the 225 units ultimately approved in the MUSP but did not analyze the much larger potential increases in traffic that would be allowed under the FLUM Amendment, which is not limited to 300 units. There also was no data or analysis to show that limiting the analysis to 300 units was reasonable. It also only looked two years into the future. The MUSP traffic analysis also did not address the 2005 EAR finding that Bayshore Drive will be at level of service F by year 2025, without even any development on the Site. In short, the MUSP traffic analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. The City and Intervenor took the position that the designation of the entire City as an urban infill area meant that every parcel is appropriate for high-density multi-family residential development. This is not correct. It is still necessary to look at comprehensive plan to determine which areas are appropriate for that kind of future land use and to have data and analysis to support it. See Payne et al. v. City of Miami et al., 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885, *10-13 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2007) (on motion for rehearing). For these reasons, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment were inadequate. Inconsistency with City's Comprehensive Plan The Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with any MCNP goals, objectives, or policies. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners did not prove that the FLUM Amendment at issue is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order that the FLUM Amendment adopted by City of Miami Ordinance 12911 is not "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jason Gonzalez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney City of Miami Miami Riverside Center, Suite 945 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Patrick J. Goggins, Esquire Patrick J. Goggins, P.A. Sun Trust Building, Suite 850 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2811 John Charles Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A. 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6616 H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Stephen J. Darmody, Esquire Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP Miami Center - Suite 2400 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-4339 Lewis W. Fishman, Esquire Lewis W. Fishman, P.A. Two Datran Center, Suite 1121 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7848 John K. Shubin, Esquire Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 Southwest First Street, Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130-1610
The Issue The issue is whether two map changes on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Taylor County (County) by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 on December 15, 2009, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The Department is the state planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving amendments to comprehensive plans adopted by local governments. The County is a local government that administers a Plan. It adopted the two plan amendments that are the subject of this proceeding. It is considered a "rural" county with a current population of around 20,000 residents. Dr. Hutchins owns property in the County. Although his initial pleading alleges, and his Proposed Recommended Order states, that he "submitted oral comments regarding the subject amendments at transmittal and prior to adoption of the amendment," no evidence was presented at hearing that Dr. Hutchins did so during the adoption process. Ms. Redding and Mr. Wood are siblings and along with three other members of the Wood family jointly own property in the County. Like Dr. Hutchins, no evidence was presented at the hearing that either Intervenor submitted written or oral comments to the County during the adoption process. History Preceding the Amendments The process for adopting the County's first Plan, including the FLUM, began around 1988. For the purpose of drafting a FLUM, a Planning Board (Board) was created consisting of seven individuals, all of whom were volunteers with no formal planning experience. However, they received advice and assistance from two outside consultants, who also advised the County concerning the appropriate text to be used in the new Plan. Four members of the Board, including its former Chairman, testified at the final hearing. Over the next two years, the Board conducted meetings, spoke with numerous property owners, and collected information in order to assign each parcel an appropriate land use category. The collective efforts of the Board culminated in a large, hand- colored FLUM (consisting of numerous sections of aerial maps patched together) that was affixed to the wall of what is now the courtroom on the second floor in the County Courthouse. Testimony by former members of the Board established that the Hutchins parcel (then owned by Colin and Lucille Kelly) and the Bird Island parcel (owned by Wood, Redding, and other family members) were assigned a classification of Mixed Use-Urban Development. Because the County does not have a zoning code, the properties were never assigned a zoning classification consistent with that land use category. This classification was based upon the fact that at least two different businesses were being conducted on each parcel at the time, and the owners requested that they be given that classification. In the case of the Hutchins (then Kelly) property, it was being used to conduct a commercial fishing operation as well as a small construction company (with dump trucks, bulldozers, and front end loaders) that had a contract with Proctor & Gamble (now known as Buckeye Technologies, Inc.) to maintain roads. An office for the construction company was located in a separate mobile home placed on the property. Mr. Bird was a commercial fisherman and operated a wholesale fish business on Bird Island. Also, both he and his mother had separate homes on the property, another structure was used to store fish nets, and docking facilities for other commercial fisherman were maintained. Many of these structures were blown away during the so-called Storm of the Century on March 13, 1993, and never replaced. Except for property within the small communities of Keaton Beach, Dekle Beach, Denzel Beach, and Steinhatchee, and a few other small parcels, such as Dark Island, Cedar Island, and Intervenors' property, all of the remaining land along the coastline was placed in either Conservation or Agriculture. An unusual feature of the County is that it has one of the longest coastlines in the State (58 miles), stretching on the Gulf of Mexico from Jefferson County to Dixie County. Because around 88 percent of the coastline is owned by the State, very little waterfront land is left for development. In fact, Dr. Hutchins pointed out that except for his property and Bird Island, no other vacant, upland Gulf-front property within the County is in private ownership at this time. The FLUM, with the foregoing classifications, was adopted by the County by Ordinance No. 90-4 on June 19, 1990. Before it was submitted to the Department for its review, the County was advised by the Department that it would not accept the large, hand-colored FLUM in that format. Rather, the Department required that the map be reduced in size and digitized. To comply with this request, the original FLUM was dismantled into smaller sections and hand-carried to a firm in Crystal River that had the capability of reducing the large map into digital form. The original FLUM was then returned to the County Courthouse. When the larger map was reduced in size and converted to a digital format, it was not parcel-specific and failed to pick up the Hutchins parcel and Bird Island. Instead, except for larger tracts of land, especially in the small communities noted in Finding of Fact 8, the entire coastline was shown as being Conservation or Agriculture. This error was not detected by County officials or the affected property owners since they continued to rely upon the designations shown on the large, hand-colored FLUM in the Courthouse. The Department reviewed the FLUM, as digitized, assumed that the Hutchins and Bird Island property were Agriculture and Conservation, and found those parts of the FLUM to be in compliance. This agency action occurred on or about October 1, 1990. Thus, the Department never undertook a compliance review for either parcel with the intended higher density/intensity land use. In 1995, the room in which the original FLUM was mounted was taken over by another occupant of the Courthouse, and the original FLUM was moved to a different floor. During or after the moving process, it was lost or accidentally destroyed and its whereabouts have been unknown since that time. In 1993, Dr. Hutchins purchased his property from Colin and Lucille Kelly. Based on a conversation with a County employee, he purchased the property with the understanding that it was classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development. Although he had no specific plans to develop the property at that time, and still has none, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use category was the major inducement for him to purchase the property. In 2005, Dr. Hutchins was approached by an investor who wished to develop the property at a later time. When the investor contacted the County to confirm its land use designation, Dr. Hutchins learned for the first time that the digitized map approved by the Department reflected the property carried an Agriculture/Rural Residential land use. Because of this, the agreement with the potential investor was never consummated. In a similar vein, Mr. Wood, who served on the Board that assigned land use designations to property on the original FLUM, and knew that the Board had designated his property as Mixed Use-Urban Development, placed the Bird Island property on the market in 2005 representing that it was classified in that category. A prospective purchaser checked with the County to verify its land use and learned that it was Conservation. Mr. Wood was unaware of this error until that time. Because of this, the sale was never consummated. After 2005, the County and Department held numerous meetings in an attempt to resolve this dispute. The Department refused to allow the FLUM to be changed to reflect the original land use designations. This led to the County adopting the two challenged amendments to correct what it characterizes as a "scrivener's error." Besides the two parcels that are in dispute here, on an undisclosed date, two other parcels (in the interior part of the County) were discovered by the County to have the wrong land use category as a result of the digitizing process. Both should have been placed in the Industrial land use category, and after a review, the Department had no objection to those errors being corrected by an amendment. The Plan Amendments On December 15, 2009, the County adopted Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17, also known as CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3. The first amendment changed the land use on the 14-acre Hutchins parcel from Agriculture/Rural Residential to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The present land use allows one dwelling unit per 5 acres while the new land use designation allows up to 12 dwelling units per acre and a 60 percent impervious surface ratio for nonresidential development. See Department Exhibit 1, Future Land Use Policy I.3.2. Thus, up to 126 residential units and 96,476 square feet of non-residential development could be built on the Hutchins site. The second amendment changed the land use on the 3.36-acre Bird Island parcel from Agriculture-2 and Conservation to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The former land use allows one dwelling unit per 40 acres while the new land use would permit the same density/intensity as the Hutchins parcel. The new category would allow up to 30 residential units and 21,954 square feet of non-residential development. The amendments were transmitted by the County to the Department for its review in early April 2009. On June 5, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. The Department lodged objections to both amendments generally on the grounds the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; the amendments authorize an improper increase in density within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) without proper mitigation; the amendments failed to discourage urban sprawl; and they are internally inconsistent with existing provisions within the Plan. The ORC recommended that the County not adopt the amendments. Besides the Department, DEP and the Regional Planning Council also provided written comments on the amendments. By letter dated May 8, 2009, DEP generally noted that it had concerns regarding development adjacent to the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve (the Preserve) where the parcels are located, and that careful planning strategies should be used for any development on the land. See Department Exhibit 4. The Regional Planning Council issued a staff report on February 25, 2010, generally concluding that the amendments were consistent with the applicable Strategic Regional Policy Plan goals and objectives. See Department Exhibit 15; County Exhibit 1. The County did not respond in writing to the ORC. On December 15, 2009, it adopted the amendments without change. On March 10, 2010, the Department published its Notice of Intent to find the amendments not in compliance in the Taco Times. On March 16, 2010, the Department filed its Petition with DOAH raising the same grounds that are in its Notice of Intent. The Property The Hutchins parcel is located in the southwest part of the County, a few miles south of Keaton Beach, with around 500 to 600 feet fronting on the Gulf of Mexico. The 14 upland acres that are the subject of this case are a sub-site of a larger 25-acre parcel owned by Dr. Hutchins, with the remaining 11 acres being adjoining wetlands on the north and south sides. Dr. Hutchins has built a home on pilings on his property along with a smaller ancillary structure. Photographs indicate that except for trees, the remainder of the upland property is vacant. Bird Island also lies on the Gulf of Mexico just northwest of the Hutchins parcel and is surrounded by water on three sides. Photographs reflect one residence and a dock still on the property. The two parcels are separated by "marsh grass and a little water." Both parcels of property are easily accessible to, and just west of, County Road 361, a paved two- lane highway that begins south of the subject properties and runs adjacent to, or near, the coastline, eventually turning northeast and terminating on U.S. Highway 19 south of Perry. Both properties abut portions of the Gulf of Mexico that have been designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The waters are a part of the Preserve, which was established in 1985 and is managed by DEP. The Preserve has exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. The two parcels are located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). That is to say, they are in "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In order to increase density within the CHHA, the County must meet certain criteria set forth in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department's Objections As summarized in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department contends that the two plan amendments are not in compliance because the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; there is an improper increase in density within the CHHA without proper mitigation; and the amendments fail to discourage urban sprawl. Although the Notice of Intent also raised the issue of whether the amendments are internally inconsistent with other provisions in the County's existing Plan, the Proposed Recommended Order does not address any specific internal inconsistencies, and the evidence focuses on the first three concerns. Therefore, the undersigned has assumed that those objections have been withdrawn or abandoned. Environmental Suitability With the exception of an area in the middle part of the County's coastline (where the Fenholloway River flows into the Gulf), the Preserve extends along the County's entire coastline, including the area in which the two parcels are located. The Preserve, designated as an OFW, contains various types of seagrasses, whose function is to provide habitat for a number of species, improve water quality, and reduce currents or wave energy in the event of a storm. It is undisputed that the seagrass beds near the amendment sites are high-quality, healthy, and of high environmental value. Coastal marshes are prevalent in the area of the County where the amendment sites are located. They serve many functions, including cleaning water flowing into The Preserve, functioning as a habitat for a number of species, and acting as a coastal barrier against storm surge during large storm events. Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, requires that local governments protect and conserve natural resources through the conservation element of the local plan. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. A Department rule also requires local governments to limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon water quality and living marine resources. See Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1. High-density development (up to 12 units per acre) on the parcels clearly has the potential to negatively impact coastal marshes and seagrasses adjacent to and near the subject sites. Although Dr. Hutchins indicated that he would develop his property only to the extent allowed by DEP so that the marshes and seagrasses would be safeguarded, the Department's practice for many years has been to assume that the property will be developed at its maximum allowable density and intensity. See, e.g., Sheridan v. Lee Cty, et al., Case No. 90- 7791 (DOAH Jan. 27, 1992; DCA June 28, 1993; Admin. Comm. Feb. 15, 1994)(compliance determination must be made based on maximum impacts authorized by the amendment terms, not speculation of a lesser impact). Mr. Wood's development intentions are not known. In any event, the two parcels potentially authorize 156 residential units and 113,430 square feet of non-residential uses adjacent to an OFW. Even so, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use designation may still be permissible if specific conditions limiting the density/intensity on the parcels are incorporated into the Plan by asterisk or text language in conjunction with a new amendment. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this planning practice has been used in other cases. Without any limitations, though, the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the maximum allowable density/intensity contravenes the cited statute and rules. CHHA Both parcels are located within the CHHA of the County. Section 163.3178(2)(h), Florida Statutes, requires that the County establish mitigation criteria for plan amendments located in the CHHA. Probably because of its small size in terms of population, and the lack of development (or ability to do so) along the coastline, the County has no goals, objectives, or policies addressing criteria for mitigation. Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. requires that a plan "direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas." Also, Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)7. requires that a plan "maintain or reduce evacuation times." Prior to 2006, the Department would allow a local government to comply with the foregoing rules by allowing density increases in the CHHA if the local government decreased a similar type of density elsewhere. This practice was known as "offsets." In 2006, however, the Legislature amended the statute to include criteria for compliance with the two rules. Due to the change in the law, the Department no longer engages in the practice of offsets for land use changes in the CHHA. Instead, it requires a local government that proposes to increase density within the CHHA to meet the requirements of Section 163.3178(9)(a)1.-3., Florida Statutes. Under the statute, if the County can demonstrate a 16-hour out-of-county evacuation time for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and a 12-hour evacuation time to shelter within the County for a category 5 storm event, an increase in density within the CHHA may be allowed. See § 163.3178(9)(a)1. and 2., Fla. Stat. Alternatively, the County may use one of the mitigation measures described in Section 163.3178(9)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Except for Coastal Element Objective IX-7 of the Plan, which provides that the County maintain a hurricane evacuation time of 9 hours for a category 1 storm, see County Exhibit 7, no data and analysis, such as a hurricane evacuation study for a category 5 storm event, was presented to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Dr. Hutchins' submission during the mediation process of an evacuation plan for a category 3 storm does not satisfy this criterion. Typically, a local government will have an adopted plan for a category 5 storm, as well as an evacuation model. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the mitigation measures in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes, have not been satisfied. At hearing, the County and Dr. Hutchins contended that offsets should still be used in this case to satisfy the mitigation requirements. They point out that the County has recently purchased property (totaling 51.7 acres) that is designated Mixed Use-Urban Development and more than compensates for any potential increase of residents needing to evacuate if the two amendments are found to be in compliance. As noted above, however, the practice of offsets was discontinued in 2006 with the passage of the new law. Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, there was no legal requirement that the Department notify every affected local government and property owner that it was discontinuing that practice to comply with the new law.2 Urban Sprawl Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1.-13. identifies thirteen "primary" indicators of urban sprawl. The Department contends that eight indicators are "tripped" or "triggered" by the new amendments and collectively they indicate that the proliferation of urban sprawl is not discouraged. No evidence was presented regarding five indicators. According to the rule, "[t]he presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d). Indicator 1 is tripped if the amendments allow uses in excess of demonstrated need. In this case no need analysis for additional land in the Mixed Use-Urban Development category was submitted by the County. The absence of a study is sufficient to trigger this indicator. Indicator 2 is tripped if the amendments allow "significant" amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas. The only true existing "urban" area in the County, as that term is commonly understood, is the City of Perry. Other residential and some commercial development (but to a much lesser degree) is found mainly in a few small communities on the coastline such as Steinhatchee, an unincorporated community perhaps 15 miles south of the subject parcels with probably around 1,500 residents, and Keaton Beach and Dekle Beach, both having no more than a few hundred residents each. (Official recognition has been taken of the population data.) Keaton Beach is around 2 or 3 miles north of the subject property and has condominiums and other limited residential/commercial development. In addition, Dark Island is located a short distance north of Bird Island and is classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, which authorizes the higher density/intensity development. Given this lack of "urban areas" in the County, virtually any development outside of Perry could arguably be considered "urban development . . . in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. Notwithstanding this unique (and perhaps unfair) situation, it is fair to characterize the potential addition of 12 units per acre as urban development and a total of around 150 residential units with associated commercial development as "substantial" when considering the County's size and existing development. Therefore, the second indicator has been triggered. Indicator 3 is triggered if the amendments allow urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development." Because urban development will occur in a rural, isolated area, this indicator is triggered. Indicator 4 is triggered if there is premature development of rural land that fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources. The evidence supports a finding that this indicator is triggered. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of existing and future public services and facilities. The evidence shows that the area is not currently served by central sewer and is not near any fire or police stations. While no public facilities are planned for that area in the five year capital improvement schedule, at a meeting in March 2010 the Taylor County Coastal Water & Sewer District indicated that a request for partial federal funding to extend central sewer services to Fish Creek, which lies beyond and to the south of the subject parcels, would be placed on the April agenda. See County Exhibit 7. Whether a request was actually made at that meeting is not of record. In any event, Coastal Element Policy IX.6.5 provides that where central sewer is not available in an area classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, septic tanks may be used within the CHHA. See Department Exhibit 1. As to fire and law enforcement support, there is insufficient evidence to establish that these services cannot be provided in an efficient manner. Given these circumstances, there is less than a preponderance of the evidence to support a finding that indicators 6 through 8 are triggered. Indicator 9 is triggered if the plan amendments fail to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that this indicator is triggered. Collectively, the presence of four indicators is sufficient to support a finding that the County has failed to discourage urban sprawl. E. Scrivener's Error The County and Intervenors rely heavily upon the fact that the plan amendments are in compliance because the amendments simply correct an error that occurred when, at the Department's direction in 1990, the original FLUM was reduced in size and digitized. While at first blush this argument is appealing, it assumes that the Department would have approved the new land use classifications in 1990 when it performed a compliance review of the original FLUM. But this never occurred, and the new amendments give the Department its first opportunity to determine if the new land uses are in compliance. It is undisputed that on an undisclosed date the Department approved an amendment based on the same type of error. While the record is somewhat confusing, it appears that in that case, the two properties were Industrial, they were not located in the CHHA, and on-going business concerns were operating on the properties. Intervenor Hutchins also cited several instances where mapping errors were allowed to be corrected by subsequent plan amendments. Where final agency action in those matters is of record, however, it shows that approval was given only after a compliance review was made by the Department.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that Plan Amendments CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3 adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of December, 2010.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the City of Edgewater’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O-10, and revised in part by the remedial amendments in Ordinance Number 2010-O-01 (“Plan Amendments”), are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments and to determine whether amendments are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The City is a municipality in Volusia County and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Hammock Creek is a Delaware limited liability company registered with the State of Florida. It owns the property that is the subject of the Plan Amendments. Through its representatives, Hammock Creek submitted comments to the Edgewater City Council at the transmittal and adoption hearings for the Plan Amendments. Petitioner Richard Burgess resides in the City, owns real property in the City, and operates a business in the City. At the public hearings on the original amendment package adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O-10, Petitioner made comments on behalf of Edgewater Citizens Alliance for Responsible Development, Inc. (ECARD), as its vice-president. ECARD was an intervenor in this proceeding, but voluntarily dismissed its petition before the final hearing. Petitioner submitted written comments on his own behalf at the adoption hearing for the remedial amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-O-01. The Plan Amendments The Plan Amendments create a new land use category, the Restoration Sustainable Community Development District (“Restoration SCD”), which is described in a new Restoration SCD Sub-Element of the FLUE: The Restoration SCD is the result of a conscious planning approach based on the most current New Urbanist research and advanced practices. The compact development pattern is designed to and shall provide for a diverse community with distinct place types and multiple experiences that are appealing to residents, employees, and visitors. It shall provide for walkability, a broad range of inclusive household demographics, the ability to connect the community directly to a natural experience, transit ready design, and a high level of environmental stewardship and planning. * * * In order to facilitate this vision, the City shall recognize that density is important to the restoration SCD outcome, but no more important than the mixing of uses, the development of a diverse population through the provision of housing choice and employment centers, the connection of streets and the design of structures and spaces on a human scale. The Restoration SCD land use category applies to 5,187 acres of land on the west side of Interstate 95 that are owned by Hammock Creek. The Restoration SCD site is not currently being used, but in the past was used for silviculture. The Restoration SCD site was annexed into the City in 2005, but is being assigned a future land use designation for the first time. The Volusia County land use categories for the property are Environmental Systems Corridor, which allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 25 acres, and Forestry Resource, which allows a maximum residential density of one unit per 20 acres, or up to one unit per five acres with clustering. The Restoration SCD Sub-Element includes the Restoration SCD Conservation/Development Areas Map, which divides the site into three areas: Conservation, SCD Conservation/Restoration, and SCD Community Development. The SCD Community Development area is also referred to as the “Build Envelope” because it is the only area where development can occur. The Build Envelope is approximately 25 percent of the total land area. At least 50 percent of the Restoration SCD site is required to be permanently protected open space. The SCD District is integrally related to a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) proposed for the lands that are the subject of the Plan Amendments. The Resolution SCD includes several of the development controls listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(j) which discourage urban sprawl, including: open space requirements; clustering; the establishment of minimum development density and intensity; phasing of urban land use types, densities, and intensities; traditional neighborhood development form; buffering; planned unit development requirements; restriction of the expansion of the urban area; and jobs-to-housing balance requirements. Edgewater is a relatively old Florida City that was developed with strip commercial along the highway and other development forms that were typical before the enactment of Chapter 163 and the requirement for comprehensive planning. The Restoration SCD introduces modern development principles and forms. Within each element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, there are data and analysis summaries. There is also a separate section entitled “Population Projections.” The Plan Amendments revise or add information to some of these data and analysis summaries. The Plan Amendments also include some “housekeeping” changes that delete obsolete portions of the Comprehensive Plan and extend several planning horizons in the plan from 2010 to 2020. Mixed Uses Petitioner contends that the Restoration SCD lacks adequate policies to implement the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mixed uses, or other objective measurement, and the density or intensity of each use as required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c). Restoration SCD is the future land use designation for the entire site. Policy 3.1.1 describes seven subcategories of uses within Restoration SCD: Residential, Mixed-Use Town Center, Work Place, Transit-Ready Corridor, Utility Infrastructure Site, Schools, and Open Space. Various policies of the Restoration SCD Sub-Element establish minimum and maximum percentages for the subcategories of uses. Table I-4 in the Plan Amendments shows the various land uses, their densities and intensities, and their acreages. The Restoration SCD land use designation has an overall residential density cap of 8,500 residential units and a non-residential intensity cap of 3,300,000 square feet. Policy 7.1.1 ensures a continuing balance of residential and non-residential development by tying the number of residential building permits that can be issued to the square footage of non-residential development that has been constructed. For example, residential units cannot exceed 1,500 until 180,000 square feet of non-residential uses have been constructed. Format Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendments are not consistent with the format requirements of Rule 9J-5.005(1) because the sources, dates, and other information associated with tables, figures, and other materials included in the Plan Amendments are not identified. Exhibit A to the new Restoration SCD Sub-Element does not show a source, preparation date or name of the preparer. FLUE Table I-3 shows a source and name of the preparer, but not a preparation date. FLUE Table I-4 shows a source, a preparation date, and name of the preparer. Within the Population Projections section of the Comprehensive Plan, Table P-1 shows a source, but not a preparation date or name of the preparer. Table P-2, Figures P-1 and P-2, and Tables P-3 through P-5 do not show sources, preparation dates, or names of the preparers. Tables P-6 and P-7 show sources and names of the preparers, but no preparation dates. Table P-9 does not show a source, preparation date, or name of the preparer. Within the Housing Element, Tables III-13 through III- 15 and Tables III-17 through III-20 show sources and names of the preparers, but no preparation dates. The tables and figures that Petitioner objects to are included in the Comprehensive Plan as supporting data and analysis. They are not parts of goals, objectives, or policies. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e) requires that maps include major natural and man-made geographic features and city and county boundaries. The Resolution SCD Conservation/Development Areas Map does not show geographic features or government boundaries. There are other maps in the FLUE that show natural and man-made geographic features and city and county boundaries. Policies 1.1.1 and 3.1.1 refer to Map “H”, which is part of the DRI Development Order. Petitioner objects to the omission of Map “H” from the Comprehensive Plan. The Director of the Department’s Division of Community Planning stated that it is not the practice of the Department to treat a format error or omission as requiring a determination that a plan amendment is not in compliance. Adoption by Reference Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendments adopt regulations and other materials by reference, but not in accordance with Rule 9J-5.005(2)(g), which requires that the reference “identify the title and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted.” Petitioner asserts that the following provisions include inadequate adoptions by reference: Policy 1.1.1, Policy 3.1.1, Objective 4.1, Policy 4.1.3, Policy 4.1.7, Policy 4.1.11, Goal 5, Policy 6.1.1, Policy 8.1.4, Policy 9.1.1, Policy 10.1.1, Policy 11.1.1, Policy 11.1.4, and Policy 12.1.6. Policies 1.1.1 and 3.1.1, Objective 4.1, and Policies 4.1, 4.1.3, 4.1.7, and 4.1.11 refer to state, regional, and federal laws or regulatory programs, but they do not purport to adopt these laws and programs by reference. The purpose of these provisions is not for the City to apply or have any role in the regulatory process or decision-making associated with the referenced laws and programs. The wording of these provisions is consistent with the City’s assertion that its intent is merely to provide notice of related permitting programs with which the developer will have to comply. Goal 5 refers to New Urbanism and other land use design principles as described in the literature of the Congress of New Urbanism, the Urban Land Institute and similar organizations, but the goal does not purport to adopt this literature by reference. The goal states that design policies will be adopted by the City in the future. No specific design principles are adopted, by reference or otherwise, in Goal 5. Policy 6.1.1 refers to affordable housing and defines the term as a percentage of Volusia County’s Average Median Income. The policy does not purport to adopt any materials by reference. Policies 8.1.4 and 11.1.1 refer to design principles which are to be adopted in the future. The policy does not purport to adopt this literature by reference. No specific design principles are adopted, by reference or otherwise, in Policies 8.1.4 or 11.1.1. Policy 9.1.1 addresses school concurrency and refers to a Capacity Enhancement Agreement (“CEA”) entered into by the City, the developer, and the Volusia County School Board to ensure that schools are timely planned and constructed to serve the student population. The policy does not purport to adopt the CEA by reference. Petitioner did not show that the CEA is not self-executing. Policy 10.1.1 refers to “green” development practices that meet the certification programs of the United States Green Building Coalition or the Florida Green Building Code, which will be incorporated into the DRI Development Order. The policy does not purport to adopt these certification programs by reference. No specific green design practices are adopted, by reference or otherwise, in Policy 10.1.1. Policy 11.1.4 refers to vehicle trips as calculated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. This is the standard manual used by all traffic engineers. The policy does not purport to adopt the manual by reference. Planning Timeframes Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendments cause the Comprehensive Plan to be internally inconsistent because there are different planning horizons in the Plan. The Plan Amendments extend several planning horizons to 2020, but the planning horizon in the Recreation and Open Space Element remains 2010, the water supply work plan has a planning horizon of 2018, and the Public School Facilities Element has a planning horizon of 2025. Petitioner did not identify an adverse effect created by the different planning horizons. The City is currently preparing its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)-based amendments. The EAR process is statutorily mandated, periodic review and update of the entire Comprehensive Plan. It is the logical process for reviewing and revising planning horizons in the plan. Conservation Element and Housing Element Data Petitioner contends that the support documentation that is included as part of the Conservation Element is not the best available data. However, Petitioner did not produce better data, except for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s more recent listed species rules, or show how better data do not support the Plan Amendments. Similarly, Petitioner contends that some of the support documentation that is included as part of the Housing Element is not the best available data. Petitioner did not produce better data or show how better data do not support the Plan Amendments. Need Petitioner contends that the best available data do not show a need for the residential and nonresidential land uses allowed by the Plan Amendments. The Population Projections section in the Comprehensive shows a projected City population of 34,481 by 2020. The Department determined that the 2020 population forecast was reasonable. It is not the practice of the Department to require local governments to update their population projections every time an amendment is adopted. The 2020 population projection is derived from forecasts of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research BEBR. BEBR forecasts county populations, from which city population projections must be extrapolated. BEBR frequently under-forecasts population growth for cities. BEBR forecasts do not account for localized factors that can change the attractiveness of a particular area to prospective new residents and, therefore, stimulate population growth. Applying an “allocation factor,” the Department determined that the number of residential units allowed by the Plan Amendments was reasonably in line with the 2020 forecast. An allocation factor is a multiplier applied to account for factors that prevent the full or efficient use of densities allowed by a FLUM. In addition, population projections are not the sole consideration in determining the need for a plan amendment. In the case of the Restoration SCD, higher densities and intensities are necessary as a part of the intended development form. Higher densities and intensities are also necessary to achieve the objectives of Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, including the encouragement of transit-oriented and energy-efficient communities. A need analysis for non-residential land uses in the Resolution SCD was not conducted by the City because the non- residential uses are intended to serve and be integrated with the residential uses, and are required to be developed in pace with the residential development. The Department found this approach acceptable.
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 that the amendments to the City of Edgewater’s Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-O- 10 and revised by Ordinance Number 2010-O-01, are “in compliance.” DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Brevard County's 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments B.12, B.13, and B.14 (the Plan Amendments) are "in compliance."
Findings Of Fact General Besides the introduction of the Plan Amendments themselves and a few other documents, Petitioners case-in-chief consisted of examination of Susan Poplin, a Planning Manager for DCA, as an adverse witness, and the testimony of Petitioner, Charles F. Moehle. Most of Poplin's testimony was directly contrary to the positions Petitioners were seeking to prove. Moehle's testimony consisted primarily of conclusions and statements disagreeing with the Plan Amendments. Petitioners provided no data or analysis in support of Moehle's statements and conclusions. Often, Moehle's testimony did not identify specific errors allegedly made by the County. Much of Moehle's presentation was disjointed and difficult to understand. Petitioners also challenged several items which should have been challenged following prior amendments to the County's Plan. For example, Poplin testified that all of the wetland provisions in the challenged Conservation Element B.12 amendments were part of a prior plan amendment and were not changed by the Plan Amendments. See Findings of Fact 7-8, infra. Standing Petitioners' allegations of standing are in paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition for Formal Review: EFFECT ON PETITIONERS' SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS Petitioner, MODERN owns property in Brevard County, the value of which will be reduced by THE AMENDMENT. Additionally, petitioners MODERN and MOEHLE own property in Brevard County and pay property taxes in Brevard County. Additionally, THE AMENDMENT will cause property tax receipt's of Brevard County to decline because of the reduction in value caused to MODERN'S, MOEHLE'S, and other similarly situated property in the county. Additionally, THE AMENDMENT will cause MODERN'S and MOEHLE'S property taxes to increase due to the additional government employees required to implement and enforce THE AMENDMENT and due to the fact that the property taxes imposed upon property which are not effected [sic] by THE AMENDMENT will necessarily increase in order to offset the loss of property tax revenue from private property which is devalued as a result of THE AMENDMENT. MOEHLE and MODERN have appeared before the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners at public meetings and hearings as well as communicating (verbally and in writing) with their growth Management/Planning & Zoning Departments concerning these matters for several years. In an attempt to prove Petitioners' standing, Moehle testified that he has been a resident of Brevard County since 1958. He also testified that he is President of and owns a substantial interest in Petitioner, Modern, Inc. He testified that both he himself and Modern own real property in Brevard County, and that, as such, both are taxpayers. Moehle also testified that he is "affected by these regulations." He gave no specifics as to how he is affected. He also did not testify that Modern was affected. Before concluding his brief testimony on standing, Moehle asked the ALJ if he had to "ramble on some more" about standing and was asked whether he submitted "oral or written comments, comments, recommendations or objections to the County between the time of the transmittal hearing for the Plan amendment and the adoption of the Plan amendment." Moehle answered: I submitted during the whole period of this - I attended a number of hearings that I knew about during this whole process and I would say that, yes, I did, but not all hearings. Some were questionable - some of my problems or some of the meetings that the action was taken on. So they do have my comments, they've had my comments from me on various issues complete back before and including the Settlement Agreement. The evidence was that all hearings and meetings relating to the "Settlement Agreement" to which Moehle referred in his testimony occurred prior to the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments at issue in this case on November 30, 1999. The referenced "Settlement Agreement" was the Stipulated Settlement Agreement entered into in May 1997 to resolve DOAH Case No. 96-2174GM. The County amended its Comprehensive Plan to implement the Stipulated Settlement Agreement on August 24, 1999, by Ordinance 99-48. By Ordinance 99-52, adopted October 7, 1999, the remedial amendments were clarified to include the correct Forested Wetlands Location Map. Ordinance 99-49 and 99-52 both state that the plan amendments adopted by them "shall become effective once the state planning agency issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 163.3184(9), or until the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 163.3184(10)." The stated "Justification" for Policy 5.2 of the B.12 Plan Amendments at issue in this case was: "The above language was part of a stipulated settlement agreement between DCA and the County. This agreement became effective after the transmittal of the 99B Plan Amendments." Apparently for that reason, the B.12 Plan Amendments at issue in this case, specifically under Objective 5 and Policies 5.1 and 5.2, underlined the wetland provisions previously adopted by Ordinance 99-48. This underlining may give the misimpression that these wetlands provisions were being amended through adoption of Ordinance 2000-33. To the contrary, those amendments already had been adopted, and all hearings on those amendments already had occurred prior to transmittal of the Plan Amendments at issue in this case. Other than testifying that he attended hearings and made submittals "before and including the Settlement Agreement," Moehle did not specify when he attended, or what if anything he said or submitted. Nor did he offer any testimony or evidence that he appeared on behalf of Modern. No minutes or other evidence were produced for the record showing his appearance or comments, recommendations or objections. To the contrary, Petitioners' evidence indicates that Moehle was not one of the individuals who offered public comment at either the transmittal hearing on November 30, 1999; the Land Use Citizens Resource Group meeting on November 4, 1999; or the Local Planning Agency Adoption Meeting on May 15, 2000. Paragraph 6 of the Amended Petition, also alleged: that the value of property owned by Modern will be reduced; that the Plan Amendments will cause property tax receipts to decline because of a reduction in the value caused to Petitioners' property; and 3) that the Plan Amendments will cause Petitioners' property taxes to increase due to additional government employees required to implement and enforce the Plan Amendments and due to an increase in taxes for properties not directly affected by the Plan Amendments. None of these allegations were supported by record evidence. Notice Petitioners' allegation of improper notice is contained in paragraph 7.I. of the Amended Petition: Petitioners allege that THE AMENDMENT is subject to the notice requirements of Florida Statute subsections 163.3161(18), 163.3181, 163.3184(15), 125.66(2), and or 125.66(4) and that Respondent COUNTY has failed to comply with said statutes. (Several other paragraphs of the Amended Petition also allege inadequate notice. See Findings of Fact 19, 28, 44, 50, 54, 63, 65, and 76, infra.) Petitioners filed copies of the applicable advertisements. Moehle testified that the type was "wrong" and the size was "wrong" - the exact nature of the alleged error was not stated. But review of the advertisements for the transmittal and adoption hearings reveals that both are two columns wide, and the headline appears to be in a very large, bold type. Other than Moehle's general complaint about the type being "wrong," there was no testimony or other evidence that the type is not 18-point. Other aspects of the advertisements do not appear to be challenged by Petitioners. The advertisements themselves show that the transmittal hearing was held on November 30, 1999 (a Tuesday) and that the advertisement was run on November 22, 1999, eight days prior to the day of the hearing. They also show that the adoption hearing was on May 16, 2000 (a Tuesday). The advertisement for the adoption hearing was run on May 10, 2000, six days prior to the meeting. The proof of publication shows that the advertisements were not in a portion of the newspaper where legal notices or classified ads appear and that the Florida Today is a newspaper of general circulation. The evidence also included advertisements for local planning agency hearings and meetings relating to the Plan Amendments other than the transmittal and adoption hearings. These other advertisements appear to have been published in legal ad sections, and the type is smaller than that used for the transmittal and adoption hearings. It appears that Moehle was referring to these advertisements when he said the type and size was "wrong." Species and Wetlands Preservation Versus Promoting Infill Development Paragraph 7.IV. of the Amended Petition alleges: The challenged provisions of the THE AMENDMENT, as set forth herein below, violate the legislative intent and spirit of Fl. Stat. Ch. 163, Part II because they place species and wetland preservations over the stated policy goal of promoting infill and development in areas which have concurrency and infrastructure available. The challenged provisions promote leap frog development by making the development of parcels of private property which have concurrency and appropriate infrastructure but also have any quantity of listed species habitat or wetlands unusable. Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3177(10)(h), 163.3177(11). No evidence was offered supporting the claim that species and wetland preservation were "placed over" the goal of promoting infill. Nor was there any evidence provided by Petitioners to show that leapfrog development or urban sprawl was caused by protecting wetlands. To the contrary, Poplin's testimony discussed urban sprawl and leapfrog development in terms of impacts to services and facilities. She clearly stated: "[T]here are no set priorities. We look at each individual local government on a case by case basis. . . . So . . . [it] depends on the context in which its based [sic] in the plan." Poplin also testified that the County had levels of service in place for facilities and services pursuant to Rule 9J-5.0055(1)(a), and that the County's Plan and the subject Plan Amendments have level of service standards which meet the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.0055(2). Poplin also testified that the County had a Capital Improvements Element which was in compliance with Rule 9J- 5.0055(1)(b). She also testified that there was coordination of the various comprehensive plan elements as required by Section 163.3177. Thus, she concluded, the conservation and capital improvements (infrastructure) elements interacted properly. There was no evidence to the contrary. Section 163.3177(10)(h) states that it is the intent of the Legislature to provide public services concurrently with development. Section 163.3177(11) discusses the legislative intent to have innovative planning to address urbanization, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, land use efficiencies in urban areas and conversion of rural land uses. No evidence of any kind was presented regarding these provisions. Certainly, no data and analysis showing failure to meet these statutory provisions were presented by Petitioners. Listed Species Definition Paragraph 8.I.A.2 of the Amendment Petition states: Listed Species definition - pg 11. This change should not be made because the updated Glossary of the Comprehensive Plan was not made available timely for public review and public comments per the hearing and notice requirements of Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3161(18), 163.3181, 163.3184(15), 125.66(2) and or 125.66(4). Prior to the Plan Amendments, the Conservation Element had a Directive entitled "Wildlife." The "Wildlife" directive stated in part: "Development projects should avoid adverse impacts to species listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern." The directive also included a definition of the term "listed species": "those species which are listed as either endangered, threatened or as species of special concern." The Plan Amendments deleted these provisions. The stated Justification for deleting the first provision was: "Objective 9 embodies the intent of this directive." The stated Justification for deleting second provision was: "'Listed species' have been defined in the updated Glossary of the Comprehensive Plan." As in several other places in the Amended Petition, Petitioners complain about lack of notice and an opportunity for a hearing as to the updated Glossary. Actually, it appears that the Glossary was not updated along with the Plan Amendments. For that reason, there were no Glossary changes to be noticed. Although the Glossary was not updated to provide the definition of the phrase "listed species," as indicated in the Justification for deleting it from the Directives, the phrase is commonly used to refer to species are listed as threatened or endangered under various state and federal regulations. Rule 9J-5.013(1)(a)5. requires identification and analysis of natural resources including "species listed by federal, state, or local government agencies as endangered, threatened or species of special concern." Species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened (50 C.F.R., Section 17.11) fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with the Endangered Species act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. Section 1531, et. seq.). Listed and unlisted bird species, other than waterfowl and game birds, are also federally protected by the Migratory Bird Act (16 U.S.C. Section 703 et. seq.). The bald eagle has additional federal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. Section 668- 668d). Marine animals (including whales, dolphins, and the West Indian Manatee) are also protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Section 1361 et. seq.) In addition, 24 species of vertebrates are listed by the State as endangered, threatened or species of special concern and are under the jurisdiction of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Chapter 39, Florida Administrative Code. Both snook and Atlantic sturgeon receive further state protection under Chapter 46, Florida Administrative Code. The Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act, 1977, also protects species listed as endangered, threatened or species of special concern under Chapter 372, Florida Statutes (2000). Chapter 372, Florida Statutes (2000), provides additional protection for the American alligator as defined in the Alligators/Crocodilla Protection Act. Sea turtles and the West Indian manatee are further protected by the State through the Marine Turtles Protection Act (Chapter 327, Florida Statutes (2000)) and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act (Chapter 327, Florida Statutes (2000)). Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the phrase "listed species" cannot be understood without a specific definition within the comprehensive plan. Conservation Element Policy 8.5, Protection Of Vegetative Communities Paragraph 8.I.B. of the Amended Petition states: Policy 8.5 - pg 41. This change should not be made because the justification is not correct. These referenced lists were not made available to the public at the relevant public hearing for review and comment in violation of the requirements of Fl. Stat. Section 163.3184. The modification goes beyond the stated intent to merely improve readability and clarify the existing policy in that it actually modifies existing policy. . . . (The last clause was stricken. See Preliminary Statement.) Again, there were no changes to the Glossary to be noticed for hearing. Before the Plan Amendments, Policy 8.9 of the Conservation Element provided that the County would develop a program for the protection of vegetative communities from inappropriate development by 1992. The former provision was replaced with Policy 8.5, which revises the action date to 2002 and states that the County shall protect vegetative communities from inappropriate development. G1 and G2 vegetative communities, as contained in the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, were added to S1 and S2 communities (which were already in the Plan) for consideration for protection. Poplin testified that the G1 and G2 categories were defined by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and were synonymous with the S1 and S2 categories which were already defined in the Plan. The adopted "Justification" for new Policy 8.5 itself indicates that the addition of the G1 and G2 categories "did not add additional vegetative communities that may be considered for protection." In other words, nothing actually changed as to the vegetation (or types of vegetation); only the nomenclature or titles of categories changed. Conservation Element, Objective 9 and Policy 9 Species of Special Concern, Crucial/Critical Habitat Paragraph 8.I.C.,D., and E. of the Amended Petition states: Objective 9 and Policy 9, including sub- sections A, B, C, D, E, of 9.2 (species of special concern, crucial/critical habitat) - pg 43. Species of special concern should not be added. It was discussed at a properly advertised public hearing and its addition was rejected. It was added back at a subsequent and not properly noticed workshop meeting and did not allow proper public input. It is unjustifiably onerous to the regulated public as added, in violation of Fl. Stat. 120.52(8)(g). Crucial habitat should not be allowed to [be] substituted for critical habitat because the new glossary of definitions was not completed timely to allow public review and comment. The resource maps to be used are not identified or indicated that they have been created beyond "draft" status or had proper notice, public review or comment. The reduction from 5 acres to 1 acre in 9.2.C was improperly added at a workshop subsequent to the properly noticed public hearing at which this item was disposed of with public hearing and comment and leaving the size of 5 acres. The provision that the "acquisition of land by the Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program shall be voluntary, and shall not include the use of eminent domain" should not be removed in Policy 9.4 (pg. 45). These new provisions do not meet the requirements of Fl. Stat. Sections 120.58(8) and 120.525, Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3161(18), Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3181, Fl. Stat. Sections 163.3184(15), Fl. Stat. Sections 125.66(2), and or Fl. Stat. Sections 125.66(4). (The identified sentence and references were stricken. See Preliminary Statement.) Again, there were no changes to the Glossary to be noticed for hearing. As to "crucial habitat," amended Policy 9.2 of the Conservation Element requires that an ordinance be developed by 2002 requiring a "crucial habitat" review at the pre-application stage of certain projects. Previously, the plan required development of an ordinance in 2004 requiring a "critical habitat" review in those situations. Apparently, "critical habitat" was defined in the pre-amendment Glossary. (Neither the Glossary nor the rest of the County's Comprehensive Plan prior to the Plan Amendments was put in evidence.) No regulations regarding "crucial habitat" were in effect as of final hearing. A definition of the term "crucial habitat" might well be desirable. (Apparently, an amendment to the Glossary to include such a definition is being considered by someone--it is not clear from the evidence by whom.) But it is possible to use dictionary definitions of "crucial" and "habitat" to derive a useful meaning of the term "crucial habitat" used in Policy 9.2 of the Conservation Element. Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the term "crucial habitat" cannot be adequately understood without a specific definition in the comprehensive plan. "Species of special concern" is a phrase used by Rule 9J-5.013(1)(a)5. in describing natural resources to be identified and analyzed in a local government's conservation element. The "resource maps" mentioned in paragraph 8.I.C., D., and E. of the Amended Petition are not new to the County's Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the Plan Amendments, Policy 10.2.A. stated that the County's Office of Natural Resources Management must "develop resource maps showing potential areas for critical wildlife habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species." Amended Policy 9.2.A. requires that Office to "use resource maps which show potential areas of crucial wildlife habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species and species of special concern." While the descriptions of these maps were changed by the amendment, the general manner in which they are identified is the same. It was not proven beyond fair debate that the amendments cannot be adequately understood without identification in a more specific manner or reference to maps already completed. Petitioners' next complaint in paragraph 8.I.C., D., and E. of the Amended Petition was that the threshold for required crucial habitat review in Policy 9.2.C. of the Conservation Element should not have been changed from five-acre projects to one-acre projects. Petitioners' primary argument was that the County discussed this change at a workshop. The only evidence in support of this argument was Moehle's testimony: "[T]he changes that show up in here were rejected in those previous hearings so the public has the impression well, that item is done and settled. Then all of a sudden at a workshop it shows up when nobody - they are not necessarily -- you can't obtain the advance agenda for that and you find a notice in the paper from time to time." In fact, the workshops were noticed in the newspapers. In addition, the transmittal and adoption hearings were noticed. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. As for Petitioners' request for reinstatement of the language regarding voluntary acquisition of environmentally endangered lands, former Policy 10.4 addressed development of an acquisition program; amended Policy 9.4 addresses a continuation of that program. The Justification explains that the amendments were "intended to reflect the achievement of this policy as a result of the EELs [Environmentally Endangered Lands] Program." There was no evidence to support the argument that removal of the voluntary acquisition language in any way changes the EELs Program or creates a compliance issue. Conservation Element Policy 9.13, Species of Special Concern Paragraph 8.I.G. of the Amended Petition stated: Policy 9.13 - species of special concern, habitat rarity, pg 48. This change is inconsistent with the same Florida Statutes and for the same reasons as I.C, I.D, I.E (A, B, C, E, E) and I.F above. Policy 9.13 contains a requirement to develop model management plans for species of special concern dependent on habitat rarity and loss rates. The amendment to former Policy 10.13 merely changes the target date (from 1990 to 2002) and adds "species of special concern" to the other resources sought to be addressed by the model management plans. The provision does not establish new regulations. It merely calls for future action in the development of model management plans. Again, there was no evidence to support the argument that these changes created a compliance issue. See Findings of Fact 32-33, supra. Scrub Habitat Map Paragraph 8.I.H. of the Amended Petition stated: Appendix - List of Maps, pg 52. The Scrub Habitat Map should not be included because it is part of the Scrub Habitat Study done in Brevard County which was not adopted/accepted as a final map by the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. The map is a "draft" map done over 5 years ago, not finalized, and not accurate. Objections at public meetings, with Brevard County Staff, and with the outside consultants preparing the map have never been addressed on the map. Among the inaccuracies are hundreds (maybe thousands) of acres on government lands. The map is wholly deficient and incorrect to become an official map representing the scrub habitat of Brevard County. It doesn't come close to accurately depicting the scrub situation of Brevard County. The map is not supported by competent substantial evidence, has not been officially adopted by the County Commission, the requisite public notices have not been held. Any policy or regulation based upon the map would be equally erroneous and would result in unnecessary regulatory costs, and would be arbitrary or capricious and would be based upon inadequate standards. At final hearing, Moehle testified: "The scrub habitat map as included in the amendments does not include the best available information which information has been available for a number of years." But the Scrub Jay Habitat map Petitioners sought to use to prove this contention (Petitioners' Exhibit 6) was not admitted into evidence because it was not authenticated. The Scrub Habitat Map apparently added to the Appendix of Conservation Element maps through the B.12 Plan Amendments does not appear to map scrub on federal lands. (At least, no scrub is indicated in the extensive federal lands on the map.) But there was no competent evidence as to the significance of the failure to map scrub habitat on federal lands. (Nor did Petitioners cite to any authority for the proposition that excluding federal lands outside the County's jurisdiction is a violation of Chapter 163 or Rule 9J-5.) While Petitioners never clearly articulated their concerns about the Scrub Habitat Map, it appeared that they might have had concerns about the impact of the map on protection of scrub jays. Specifically, Petitioners seem to contend that some scrub jays will not be protected as a result of the map's omission of scrub on federal lands. But, in that regard, amended Conservation Element Policy 9.2. in the B.12 Plan Amendments provides for the development of an ordinance by 2002 that would provide, among other things, that if any endangered or threatened species or species of special concern are found on a project site, or there is evidence that such a species is onsite, the relevant state and federal agency permits would have to be obtained and documented prior to issuance of a building or construction permit. Once adopted, these regulations would protect scrub jays wherever the birds exist. Another apparent concern was that the Scrub Habitat Map allegedly was over 5 years old. Meanwhile, other maps allegedly have been or are in the process of being developed. But Petitioners' evidence was insufficient to prove beyond fair debate that the Scrub Habitat Map was not the best available data at the time of adoption of the Plan Amendments. Land Use Element, Administrative Policies Paragraph 8.II. of the Amended Petition states: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1999B.13 The Administrative Policies 1 thru 8 (pg iv) which have been proposed for inclusion in the future Land Use Element by the County Attorney and added by a April 29, 2000 workshop were not timely provided for public review and comment by a properly noticed hearing in violation of the notice requirements of Florida Statutes subsections 163.3161(18), 163.3181, 163.3184(15), 125.66(2) and 125.66(4). They are over- broad, too general in nature, vague, and fail to establish adequate standards for county staff decisions, and vest unbridled discretion in the county staff in violation of Florida Statute 120.54(8). Detailed examples of this include: In Administrative Policy 1 - Brevard County zoning officials, planners and the director of planning and zoning should not be arbitrarily, capriciously, and without adequate defined standards be recognized as expert witnesses. Standards with detailed qualifications should be developed and included for each category of expert before this provision is considered for adoption. In Policy 2 (page iv) county staff recommendation should not automatically be considered expert testimony without qualifications. Page 1 under DIRECTIVES. The Future Land Use paragraph should not be deleted until sufficient emphasis has been placed in the requirement to ensure that sufficient land uses are available to support the anticipated population. It has not been at this time, in violation of Florida Statutes subsections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(3)(a), 163.3177(6)(a) and 163.3177(6)(f). As to 8.II.A., the evidence indicated that the advertisements were published in the time frames required and according to the standards set out by statute. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. Furthermore, Petitioners failed to establish that the Administrative Policies 1-8 were unavailable at the public hearing or that the Board of County Commissioners was not authorized to consider those policies. The language of the last sentence of paragraph 8.II. should have been stricken with similar provisions at the beginning of the final hearing because of its reliance on Section 120.54(8), which addresses rulemaking activities and not the compliance requirements of Chapter 163. There was no competent, substantial evidence to support any of the other allegations in paragraph 8.II.A. As to 8.II.A.(iii), there was only Moehle's statement regarding the lack of land availability while he was questioning Poplin. Poplin testified that the County should provide an adequate amount of different land uses to accommodate a variety of people and activities. She also testified that the County had provided more than enough residential land to accommodate projected populations. Poplin noted that the County's EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) included or referenced several sources indicating that the County has more than enough land to meet their residential and non-residential needs through the planning time frame. In fact, she testified that land allocated for residential use is over 170 percent of the land necessary for the County's projected population. In explaining the "right-sizing" undertaken in the Plan Amendment, Poplin testified that two major changes have occurred since the adoption of the original County Plan. First, the County sold a substantial amount of land to the water management district; this land is now designated as Conservation. Secondly, some developments have been built to less than their full potential. Poplin testified: "My understanding of the County's actions is that this right sizing is to recognize areas that have developed and maybe have developed at lower densities. So by revising the densities on the map, they're recognizing this." Finally, Poplin testified that the future land use map (FLUM) and the policies proposed in the subject Plan Amendment are consistent with previous actions, previous development patterns, and previous purchases that have occurred within the County. As for Section 163.3177(2), cited by Petitioners at the end of paragraph 8.II.A.(iii) of the Amended Petition, the statute requires coordination of the land use elements. Poplin testified that the County has adequate facilities and services to provide for the land use plan proposed in its FLUM. Section 163.3177(6)(f) requires a housing element. There was no evidence that these elements do not exist in the County's comprehensive plan. Land Use Element Policy 1.1, Residential Land Use Designations Almost all of Paragraph 8.II.B. of the Amended Petition was stricken. See Preliminary Statement. Only the title and last sentence remained: Residential Land Use Designations, Policy 1.1 (reduced densities - pg 14). Property owners (including PETITIONERS) whose land use/zoning classification is no longer in compliance with the comprehensive plan amendment have not been notified as required by Florida Statutes subsection 125.66. Petitioners themselves provided evidence establishing that the statutory notice was properly given. See Findings of Fact 12- 14, supra. Land Use Element Policy 1.2, Public Facilities and Services The last sentence of Paragraph 8.II.C. of the Amended Petition was stricken. See Preliminary Statement. The remaining allegation was: Public Facilities and Services Requirements, Policy 1.2 (page 15). In subsection E, the prohibition by use of the words "shall not" are too harsh, restrictive, and confiscatory and should be replaced "shall not be required at the expense of the County." But the language of Criterion F under Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 1.2 already states what Petitioners seek. Simply stated, Petitioners want the policy to state that private parties were not prohibited from building additional public facilities. The second sentence of the policy states: "This criterion is not intended to preclude acceptance of dedicated facilities and services by the county through . . . other means through which the recipients pay for the service or facility." Finally, the language of Criterion F under Policy 1.2 existed elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan prior to the Plan Amendments; it is not new. The Plan Amendments simply changed the location of the language in the Plan. Land Use Policies 1.31 and 1.4 Paragraph 8.II.D. of the Amended Petition stated: Residential 30, Policy 1.31 and Residential 15, Policy 1.4 (pgs. 16, 18). In subsections 1.31.A.1.3 and 1.4.A. respectively, the limitation of this designation to east of Interstate 95 is arbitrary, capricious and is not supported by substantial evidence. It imposes excessive regulatory costs upon regulated property owners. It is confiscatory and fails to recognize the vested rights of property owners. There are areas west of Interstate 95 just as suitable and qualifying as areas east of Interstate 95. This policy fails to recognize existing or new infrastructure which services areas west of I-95 and is therefore inconsistent with other policies. New policy 1.4 is similar and related and also limits densities west of Interstate 95 under all circumstances. This change and any other related restrictions to all areas west of I-95 should be eliminated. FLUE Policies 1.3 (the proper number, not 1.31) and 1.4 deal with residential densities. Pertinent to Petitioners' complaint, Residential 30, allowing up to 30 units per acre, is located east of Interstate 95; generally, maximum residential density west of Interstate 95 is 15 units per acre in Residential 15, except where "adjacent to existing or designated residential densities of an equal or higher density allowance." Petitioners presented no evidence in opposition to these residential densities or designations or the data and analysis supporting them. To the contrary, Poplin testified that there was adequate data and analysis to support the changes. See Finding of Fact 47, supra. The other issues raised, such as excessive regulatory costs, relate to Section 120.52, Florida Statutes (2000), standards and are not at issue in the proceeding. Land Use Policy 2.8, Community Commercial Designation Paragraph 8.II.E. of the Amended Petition stated: Locational and Development Criteria for Community Commercial Uses, Policy 2.8 (pg 38). Subsection B regarding community commercial complexes should not be limited to 40 acres at an intersection for properties that have existing land use or zoning designations compatible to the new Community Commercial designation. The same is true for the limitations of subsections, C, D, and E. These new limitations are confiscatory, fail to recognize existing land use and zoning and vested rights of property owners, are arbitrary, capricious, are not supported by competent substantial evidence, enlarge existing regulations without justification. They impose additional regulatory costs on regulated property owners when the goal of Florida Statutes Chapter 163 could be met by less restrictive and costly regulatory alternatives. Other provisions of Policy 2.8, Table 2.2, Policy 2.9, Policy 2.10 that exceed the present regulation of properties having existing land use or zoning designations or actual use should not be allowed for the same reasons. Additionally, many of these amendments were added at a April 29, 2000 workshop without complying with applicable public notice requirements. Public review and input as to these elements was therefore lacking. The plain language of Criterion B under FLUE Policy 2.8 demonstrates that the restrictions have been relaxed, not increased. Previously, Criterion C under Policy 2.8 stated: "Sites for community commercial complexes should not exceed 20 acres." The letter designation of the criterion was changed, and the criterion was amended to read: "Community commercial complexes should not exceed 40 acres at an intersection." The Justification for the change states: "Site size has been enlarged to 40 acres maximum at an intersection. Previously, this criterion could be interpreted to permit a maximum of 80 acres at an intersection (20 acres at each corner). Forty acres has been chosen as this is the DRI threshold for commercial development." On its face, the purpose of amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8 was twofold: to enlarge the site size restriction from 20 to 40 acres; and to clarify that the restriction (now 40 acres) was meant to apply to all community commercial regardless whether they are located at intersections; locating a project on different sides of the street at an intersection was not supposed to double, triple, or even quadruple the maximum site size. Petitioners' position that amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8 shrinks maximum allowable the site size is based on Moehle's assumption that 80-acre projects were permitted at intersections under prior to amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8. But there was no competent, substantial evidence to support Moehle's assumption. Petitioners also seem to contend that the phrase "at an intersection" is imprecise, leading to uncertainty that undermines the required residential allocation analysis. But it is at least fairly debatable that no more precise definition is necessary. Contrary to Moehle's speculation, it is not reasonable to construe the phrase "at an intersection" to also mean "at an indeterminate distance away from an intersection." Petitioners also took the position that "folding" previous land use classifications into Community Commercial greatly expanded the practical effect of the acreage limitation in amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8. Petitioners' evidence did not explain their position in any detail or specificity. It is possible that they had reference to Criterion D under Policy 4.5 prior to the Plan Amendment, which allowed "regional commercial centers to incorporate up to 100 acres." If so, under the B.13 Plan Amendments, amended Policy 2.12 addresses regional commercial centers by requiring their location in a new Development of Regional Impact (DRI) future land use designation. The Justification for this change was: "With the proposed establishment of a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) land use category, regional uses will no longer be permitted in a commercial future land use designation. Review in accordance with Chapter 380, F.S. standards is intended to simplify readability and maintain consistency with state statutes." Reading amended Criterion B under Policy 2.8 together with amended Policy 2.12, commercial complexes larger than 40 acres are not prohibited under the Plan Amendment; they just have to be developed in a DRI land use category under Chapter 380 DRI standards. The reasonableness of these amendments is at least fairly debatable. Meanwhile, Poplin specifically testified that the data and analysis provided by the County were adequate to support the residential and nonresidential changes, including Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial changes. No contrary evidence was provided. Policies 2.9 and 2.10 allow minimal extensions of commercial boundaries. No evidence was presented addressing these items. The clear evidence was contrary to Petitioners' claim of notice violations. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. Transitional Commercial Activities Paragraph 8.II.F. of the Amended Petition states: Transitional Commercial Activities - Community Commercial - General Tourist Commercial (TU-1) - Highway Transient Tourist (TU-2). Existing properties with Mixed Use Land Use Designations and General Tourist Commercial (TU-1) and Highway Transient Tourist (TU-2) zoning classifications have not been protected with their existing regulation constraint in the transformation into the new Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial Regulations as has been asserted by the COUNTY in the revised objective and policies in the provisions covering these classifications as asserted by the COUNTY. Either proposed changes should conform or the changes should not be made. The same objections and changes are made for the new confiscatory provisions of the COUNTY for existing Industrial Land Use Designations and Zoning classifications under Industrial Land Uses (Objective 3, Policy 3, pg 55). The same objections and challenges are made for new confiscatory provisions of Agricultural Land Uses (pg 67) for existing Land Use Designations and densities of lands including reductions of densities to 1 unit per 5 acres by changes from a residential classification (including existing recorded subdivision plats). Many new items of the above were made at the April 29, 2000 workshop and proper public notices, review, and comment was not available. Petitioners failed to demonstrate any impact on actual development as a result of these future land use designation changes. No defect in notice was established by the evidence. Rather, the evidence indicated that all advertising requirements were met. See Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. Finally, Poplin testified that the majority of land uses remained the same based on existing uses, and that all changes were supported by data and analysis. Future Land Use Maps Update Paragraph 8.III.A. of the Amended Petition states: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1999 B.14. The Future Land Use Maps Update Report - The Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps are not consistent with the existing FLUM and RDG maps. There are corrections and amplifications needed before they are acceptable. The COUNTY did not either have available or make available to the public for review and comment the map(s) as transmitted to DCA at any properly noticed Public Hearing. It was asserted by the COUNTY that no Land Use Designations, Zoning, or Density Allocation changes, were being made to property owners. That is not true. Some specific examples are Sections 3 & 15, located within Township 22 South, Range 34 East, which were changed from Residential to Agriculture Use (density from 1 unit per acre to 1 unit per 5 acres) and Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14 within Township 22 South, Range 34 East, from density of 1 unit per acre to 1 acre per 2.5 acres. The FLUM Report explains that the FLUM series was converted from graphic format to computerized geographic information system (GIS) format; as a result, the Residential Density Guidelines (RDG) map series could be combined with the FLUM series. Petitioners failed to establish any facts demonstrating that the new GIS FLUM series was not available or discussed at properly noticed public hearings. As to notice, see Findings of Fact 12-14, supra. There was no evidence of errors on the GIS maps. Petitioners complained that the GIS maps are unusable because they are too hard to read, especially because they were black and white. But actually the FLUM series is in color. There was no competent, substantial evidence that the color maps were too hard to read or unusable. Petitioners generally complained about residential density reductions but failed to present any competent, substantial evidence as to what supposedly was wrong with those reductions. Petitioners seem to believe that they should be able to obtain all information regarding their property from the Comprehensive Plan. There is no regulation cited by Petitioners requiring that the maps be of sufficient detail to enable someone to determine all possible uses of property based solely on a review of the maps. As a practical matter, additional site-specific information is nearly always necessary. In addition, GIS maps are computerized maps which are merely referenced by the Plan. The GIS system must ultimately be consulted regarding site-specific information. Poplin testified that the GIS updating of the FLUM and RDG map series was done primarily to streamline and consolidate the two previously separate maps. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, Poplin testified that the conversion from two graphic maps to the GIS maps was a very positive change. Mixed Use District Conversion Paragraph 8.III.B. of the Amended Petition stated: Under the MIXED USE DISTRICT CONVERSION (pg 1) - Mixed Use District (MUD) land use designation and zoning classification of General Tourist Commercial (TU-1) or Highway Tourist Commercial (TU-2) existing classifications were not listed as being reclassified (to be designated as Community Commercial). Petitioners base this contention solely on the FLUM Update in the B.14 Plan Amendments. Petitioners' contention ignores FLUE Policy 2.7 in the B.13 Plan Amendments, one of the operative policies relating to the conversion from MUD. Policy 2.7 states which uses are allowed under the Community Commercial designation. Subparagraph "c" lists "Tourist Commercial uses" as being a use under Community Commercial. In their response to the motion for involuntary dismissal, Petitioners finally acknowledged Policy 2.7 but still maintain that it cannot be determined whether TU-1 and TU-2 zoning will be classified as Community Commercial or as Neighborhood Commercial. In making this argument, Petitioners ignore FLUE Policy 2.5, another operative policy in the B.13 section of the Plan Amendment, relating to the conversion from MUD. Policy 2.5 lists "[d]evelopment activities which may be considered within Neighborhood Commercial" and omits any "tourist commercial" development activities. Based on the evidence, it seems clear that both TU-1 and TU-2 zoning will be classified as Community Commercial, and not as Neighborhood Commercial. Petitioners' allegations that they were omitted from the MUD conversion are incorrect. More About the Glossary Paragraph 8.I.V. of the Amended Petition stated: Glossary, Definitions, Thresholds, Maps relating to Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1999 B.12, 1999 B.13 and 1999 B.14. Revised Glossary. A new Glossary and definitions was never completed and made available to the public before any properly noticed Public Hearing to properly allow public review, input, comment, etc. Incomplete or inaccurate data on thresholds and maps relating to Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1999 B.12, 1999 B.13 and 1999 B.14 were also not available. As previously found, the Glossary was not amended, and it would be inappropriate to advertise the Glossary for changes. There is no requirement that a glossary be included in a comprehensive plan. When a glossary is included, not every word in a comprehensive plan must be included. Forested Wetlands Location Map At final hearing, Petitioners asserted that the Forested Wetlands Location Map referred to and incorporated by reference in Policy 5.2.F.3. of the Conservation Element was not the best available data. This issue was not raised in the Amended Petition, and consideration of the merits of the assertion has been waived. In addition, as previously found, the language of Policy 5.2.F.3. was adopted prior to the Plan Amendments at issue in this case. See Finding of Fact 8, supra. On the merits of the argument, three forested wetlands maps were offered into evidence (as Petitioners' Exhibits 2, 3, and 4.) Only Petitioners' Exhibit 2 was admitted into evidence. Petitioners' Exhibit 2 reflects the Forested Wetlands Location Map incorporated by reference as part of the County's comprehensive plan. Without Petitioners' Exhibits 3 or 4 being in evidence, or any other evidence on the issue, Moehle's testimony was insufficient to prove beyond fair debate that the Forested Wetlands Location Map incorporated by reference as part of the County's comprehensive plan was not the best available data at the time of incorporation.
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 dismissing the Amended Petition and finding that Brevard County's Plan Amendments B.12, B.13, and B.14 are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2001, 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 21st day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Eden Bentley, Esquire Brevard County Attorney's Office 2725 St. Johns Street Viera, Florida 32940 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Charles F. Moehle Modern, Inc. Post Office Box 321417 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32932 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
