The Issue The issues are whether the City of Jacksonville's (City's) Ordinance No. 2008-628-E adopted on September 9, 2008, which remediates Ordinance No. 2007-383-E, is in compliance, and whether Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, renders this proceeding moot, as alleged by Petitioner, Dunn Creek, LLC (Dunn or Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Petitioner is the owner of a vacant 89.52-acre parcel of property in Council District 11, which is located in the northern reaches of the City. More specifically, the property lies around four or five miles east of the airport and Interstate 95, just south of Starratt Road between Dunn Creek Road and Saddlewood Parkway, and within a "couple of miles of Main Street," a major north-south State roadway. Dunn submitted oral and written comments to the City during the plan amendment process. As such, it is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. The City is a local government that is subject to the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. It adopted the amendments being challenged by Dunn. Except for the challenged plan amendment, the City's current Plan is in compliance. Intervenor Britt owns property and resides within the City. The parties have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish that she is an affected person and therefore has standing to participate in this matter. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, including the City. Background On May 14, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2007- 383-E, which amended the FLUM by changing the land use category on Dunn's property from LDR to RPI, which would allow an increase in the density and intensity of use on the property. (The LDR land use allows up to seven dwelling units per acre, while RPI is a mixed-use category that allows up to twenty dwelling units per acre if built to the maximum development potential.) On July 9, 2007, the Department issued its Notice and Statement of Intent finding that the Ordinance was not in compliance on the ground the map change was not supported by adequate data and analysis to demonstrate that the City would achieve and maintain the adopted LOS standards for the roadways within its jurisdiction. The Department further determined that the traffic study submitted by the City was not based on the maximum development allowed under the RPI category. On August 1, 2007, the Department initiated this case by filing a Petition, which tracked the objections described in its Notice and Statement of Intent. The City, Dunn, Department, and Britt later entered into settlement discussions. As part of the settlement discussions, Dunn submitted a revised traffic study and coordinated with other applicants for map changes to perform cumulative traffic impact studies. The parties eventually entered into a proposed settlement agreement which would limit development of the property to 672 condominiums/townhomes and 128,000 square feet of non-residential uses through an asterisk to the Plan. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 25. Also, the proposed settlement agreement noted that the data and analysis confirmed that certain future road improvements in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Plan would offset the traffic impacts of the new RPI land use. These were improvements to the East-West Connector (U.S. Highway 17 to New Berlin Road) and Starratt Road. Id. Finally, Dunn agreed to pay $4.3 million in "fair share money" to the City to offset the proportionate share of the development's traffic impacts. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The proportionate share agreement was intended to match the trip count anticipated from the RPI development. On September 3, 2008, the proposed settlement agreement and remedial amendment were presented to the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee (Committee) for approval as Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 2008-628, respectively.3 At that meeting, the Committee heard comments from several members of the public who opposed the amendment, a Dunn attorney, and the City's Director of Planning and Development, William B. Killingsworth. The City Council member who represents District 11 and is a member of the Committee also spoke in opposition to the proposal. Based primarily upon data in a new traffic study prepared on August 28, 2008, by a member of Mr. Killingsworth's staff, and the opposition of the District 11 Council member, the Committee voted unanimously to revise the proposed settlement agreement and remedial amendment by changing the land use designation on the property back to LDR, its original classification. The revised settlement agreement was approved by Ordinance No. 2008- 627-E, while the remedial amendment changing the land use was approved by Ordinance No. 2008-628-E. The two Ordinances were then forwarded to the full City Council, which approved them on September 9, 2008. The revised settlement agreement was later executed by the City, Department, and Britt, but not by Dunn, and is known as the Sixteenth Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The essence of the revised agreement was that by changing the land use back to its original designation, the potential adverse impacts to transportation facilities would be resolved. Id. The remedial amendment package was transmitted by the City to the Department for its review. On December 18, 2008, the Department issued a Cumulative Notice of Intent to Find Ordinance Nos. 2007-383-E and 2008-628-E in compliance. On January 8, 2009, Dunn filed a Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene pursuant to Section 163.3184(16)(f)1., Florida Statutes. Because Dunn objected to the revised settlement agreement and challenged the remedial amendment, the parties were realigned, as reflected in the style of this case. On June 1, 2009, Senate Bill 360, engrossed as Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, became effective. That legislation amends Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, in several respects. Among other things, it designates the City as a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA).4 See § 163.3180(5), Fla. Stat. The new law also provides that plan amendments for land uses of a local government with a TCEA are deemed to meet the LOS standards for transportation. See § 163.3177(3)(f), Fla. Stat. Therefore, after a TCEA becomes effective, the Department no longer has the authority to review FLUM amendments in the TCEA for compliance with state-mandated transportation concurrency requirements. However, Senate Bill 360 contains a savings clause, which provides that "this subsection does not affect any contract or agreement entered into or development order rendered before the creation of the [TCEA] except as provided in s. 380.06(29)(e)." See § 163.3180(5)(f), Fla. Stat. The City, Department, and Britt contend that this provision "saves" the Sixteenth Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement executed by them in November 2008, and that the Department still retains jurisdiction to consider the remedial amendment. Conversely, Dunn contends that the savings clause does not apply to the revised agreement, that the Department no longer has jurisdiction to review the challenged amendment, that the remedial amendment was not authorized, and that because the remedial amendment never became effective, the Department's Petition should be dismissed as moot. Objections to the Remedial Amendment Besides the contention that the proceeding is moot, Dunn raises three issues in its challenge to the amendment. First, it contends that the amendment is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis related to traffic impacts and therefore is not in compliance. Second, Dunn contends that the amendment does not address the concerns raised in the Department's original Notice and Statement of Intent regarding the City's achieving and maintaining the adopted LOS of affected roadways. See § 163.3184(16)(f)2., Fla. Stat. Third, Dunn contends that due to procedural errors in the amendment adoption process, it was unduly prejudiced. Data and analysis Because almost all of the unresolved FLUM amendments in this case involved "traffic issues," on September 4, 2007, a Department employee, Melissa Hall, sent an email to counsel for a number of applicants, including Dunn, describing "what the department would be looking for in terms of traffic analysis." See Petitioner's Exhibit 12, p. 1. The email required those applicants to submit revised traffic studies. Id. Among other things, the applicants were advised that the revised traffic impact analysis for each amendment had to use "a professionally acceptable traffic impact methodology." Id. Dunn followed the requirements of the email in preparing its revised traffic study. At the time Ordinance No. 2007-383-E was adopted, based on total background traffic, which includes existing traffic plus reserve trips for approved but not-yet-built developments, eight road segments in the study area already failed to meet LOS standards. (LOS E is the adopted passing standard on those roadways.) The study area includes affected roadways within a two-mile radius of the boundaries of the proposed project site where project traffic consumes more than one percent of the service volume. If the Dunn project is built, six segments impacted by the development will continue to fail. According to the City's expert, as a general rule, an applicant for a land use amendment is not required to bring a failing segment back up to its adopted LOS. Rather, it is only required to pay its proportionate share of the improvements for bringing it up to compliance. The unique aspect of this case is that the City has simply reclassified the property back to what it was, LDR, when Ordinance No. 2007-383-E was adopted. At that time, the Plan was in compliance. In response to Dunn's contention that Ordinance No. 2008-628-E is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, the City, joined by the Department and Britt, first contends that, given the unique circumstances presented here, no data and analysis were required. Alternatively, it contends that there are sufficient relevant and appropriate data and analysis to support maintaining the LDR land use designation. The data and analysis include the traffic study prepared by Dunn's consultant in October 2007, the additional traffic analysis performed by the City staff just before the Committee meeting, and the testimony provided at the Committee meeting on September 3, 2008. At hearing, the City first pointed out that the RPI designation was never determined to be in compliance, Ordinance No. 2007-383-E never became effective, and the property has remained LDR throughout this proceeding. See § 163.3189(2)(a), Fla. Stat. ("[p]lan amendments shall not become effective until the [Department] issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9), or until the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance"). Therefore, the City takes the position that Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E did not need to be supported by data and analysis because the LDR category was the land use designation on the property at the time of the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-628-E. In the same vein, it argues that the remedial amendment is the equivalent of a repeal of the prior ordinance (2007-383-E), which would not require any data and analysis support. While at first blush these arguments appear to be plausible, the City could not cite any provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-55 that relieves a local government from the requirement that a plan amendment be supported by data and analysis. The City also argues that even if Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E is deemed to be a change in the land use (from LDR to LDR), the net impact of the change would be zero. This argument is based on the accepted testimony of Mr. Killingsworth, who stated that the City, Department, and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) agreed upon a methodology which entitled the City to give "credit" for uses permitted under the existing land use category.6 Under that methodology, the City subtracts the number of trips that the existing land use (LDR) generates from the additional trips generated by the proposed land use (LDR). Therefore, the net transportation impact of a change from LDR to LDR, in effect, would be zero. The methodology is described in Petitioner's Exhibit 15, a memorandum authored by Mr. Killingsworth and sent on October 4, 2007, to Dunn and other parties seeking map changes in this case. The memorandum stated that the methodology described therein was "developed in coordination [with] FDOT District 2" and "is the suggested methodology for use in determining traffic impacts of proposed land uses for the City." See Petitioner's Exhibit 15, p. 1. Mr. Killingsworth could not cite any provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5 allowing for such a credit for traffic generated by a prior permitted land use in the data and analysis required for a FLUM amendment. At the same time, however, Petitioner could not cite any rule or statute that prohibits the Department from allowing this type of methodology when deemed to be appropriate. Even though it differed from the methodology described in Ms. Hall's earlier email by allowing credit for the existing land use, it was nonetheless "a professionally acceptable traffic impact methodology" approved by the Department and FDOT and could be used as data and analysis to support a change back to the property's original land use classification. Therefore, it constitutes relevant and appropriate data and analysis to demonstrate that the net traffic impact of the change in land use from LDR to LDR is zero. The City further argues that if it was required to provide other data and analysis, the traffic impacts of the new ordinance are offset by the two roadway improvements negotiated with the Department in the proposed settlement agreement for Ordinance No. 2008-627. See Finding 7, supra. Based upon the City staff's analysis, which is found in City Exhibit 3, the LDR land use generates less trips than the RPI land use. (This study was prepared a few days before the Committee meeting in response to an inquiry from a Committee member.) More specifically, page 3 of that exhibit reflects that there are 169 less afternoon peak hour trips for LDR than RPI with the development cap of 672 dwelling units and 128,000 square feet of non-residential uses. It is fair to infer, then, that if the proposed mitigation in the original settlement agreement offsets the impacts of the more intense RPI land use, the mitigation also offsets the impacts of the less intense LDR land use. City Exhibit 3 is a comparative calculation of the difference in vehicle trips generated by development of the property under the LDR category approved by Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E and the development of the property under the RPI category approved by Ordinance No. 2007-383-E. Dunn points out, however, that the exhibit does not show how the trips generated are distributed on affected roadways or how those trips, as they may be distributed, affect LOS of any roadways. Despite the fact that the data in Exhibit 3 are limited to trip generation data, and establish no facts relating to the LOS of affected roadways, they support a finding that more trips will be generated under the RPI designation than the existing LDR designation. Also, they provide further support for a finding that if the proposed road improvements offset the impacts of the RPI use, the mitigation will offset the impacts, if any, of the original LDR use. For data and analysis relating to the LOS of affected roadways, the City, joined by the Department and Britt, rely upon a traffic study performed by Dunn's traffic consultant, King Engineering Associates, Inc. (King). That firm prepared a transportation analysis dated November 19, 2007, for the purpose of supporting a mixed-use development on the property under the RPI category. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8. This study, however, does not apply to development of the property under the LDR category because it was based upon a mixed-use project which would allow for credit based upon the internal capture of some trips. (In other words, a portion of the new trips will be internal to the site, that is, trips between the residential and commercial land uses on the property.) Because of this, any reference to the King study and proposed mitigation therein was deleted from the revised settlement agreement. In this respect, the study does not support the amendment. The King study addresses impacted roadway segments, existing and background traffic, proposed traffic generated by the development, and LOS for the impacted roadways, as suggested by Ms. Hall in her email. Dunn's traffic engineer established that in the impacted study area, six out of eight roadway links will continue to fall below adopted LOS standards based upon existing traffic and that generated by the RPI development (segments 174, 372, 373, 374, 377, and 543). See Table 4, Petitioner's Exhibit 8. The study also identifies proposed roadway improvements in the vicinity of the project site that are intended to help cure or mitigate the failing standards. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8, p. 12. These improvements are listed in the CIE and will cost around $85 million. A "fair share" agreement has also been executed by the City and Dunn, which requires Dunn to pay more than $4.3 million to offset impacts of the RPI development. Those monies would be applied to improvements in Sector 6.1 (the North Planning District), which includes Starratt Road and the East-West Connector. The agreement notes that this contribution would offset the proportionate share of traffic impacts of the proposed RPI development. Notably, the City has already funded both the widening of Starratt Road and the improvements to the East-West Connector, U.S. Highway 17 to Berlin Road, through the Better Jacksonville Plan. Therefore, even if the Dunn fair share agreement is not implemented, the two improvements will still be made. According to Dunn's engineer, the completion of the four projects listed on page 12 of his traffic study, which are labeled as "mitigation," will not restore or cure any of the LOS failures that now exist on the six impacted segments in Table 4 of the study. However, two of the failing segments (373 and 543) may be "helped" by the projects listed on that page. Dunn's engineer also analyzed City Exhibit 3 and concluded that if the Dunn property is developed as LDR, rather than RPI, there would be potentially one less roadway segment (374) impacted by development, while five other segments would continue to fail. When the proposed mitigation in the King study is factored in, he opined that the East-West Connector may help two other failing segments. He further opined that if LDR development on the property occurs, probably three of the six impacted segments will continue to fail adopted LOS standards. Even so, the improvements identified in the CIE, including those already funded by the Better Jacksonville Plan, should offset the proportionate share of traffic impacts associated with any future LDR development.7 The foregoing data and analysis establish that the LDR land use category generates less traffic impacts than the originally-proposed RPI use; that a change from LDR to LDR should have zero effect in terms of traffic impacts; that even if there are impacts caused by a change back to LDR, the proposed mitigation in the CIE will offset the proportionate share of the impacts associated with any LDR use; that while it differed from other studies, a professionally acceptable traffic impact analysis was used by the City to support the remedial amendment; and that the proposed road improvements are fully funded without having to implement the fair share agreement. Finally, in adopting the amendment, the City has reacted to the data and analysis in an appropriate manner. Does the Remedial Amendment Resolve All Issues? Dunn also asserts that the amendment does not resolve the issues raised by the Department in its Notice and Statement of Intent dated July 9, 2007. Under Section 163.3184(16)(f)2., Florida Statutes, an affected party may assert that a compliance agreement does not resolve all issues raised by the Department in its original notice of intent. The statute allows an affected party to then address those unresolved issues in the realigned proceeding. In this case, Petitioner asserts that the Department's original objection that the change in land use would result in a lowering of the LOS in the study area was not addressed by the remedial amendment. In its Notice and Statement of Intent to find the amendment not in compliance, the Department cited the following rules and statutes as being contravened: Sections 163.3164(32) and 163.3177(3)(b),(6)(a), (8), and (10), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and (c), 9J-5.006(2)(a), (3)(b)1. and 3., 9J-5.016(4)(a)1. and 2., and 9J-5.019(3)(a) through (h) and (4)(b)2. Although these sources of authority were cited in a single generic notice of intent as a basis for objecting to all seventeen map changes, it is assumed that they have equal application to this proceeding. The cited statutes relate to funding of transportation projects and concurrency issues, while the rules relate to data and analysis requirements, concurrency issues, the capital improvement element, and required transportation analyses, all subjects addressed by Dunn at the final hearing. Assuming arguendo that the remedial amendment does not address all of the issues raised in the original notice of intent, Dunn was given the opportunity to fully litigate those matters in the realigned proceeding. Procedural Irregularities Rule 9J-5.004 requires that the City "adopt procedures to provide for and encourage public participation in the planning process." See also § 163.3181(1), Fla. Stat. ("it is the intent of the Legislature that the public participate in the comprehensive planning process to the fullest extent possible"). Dunn does not contend that the City failed to adopt the required procedures. Rather, it contends that the City did not follow those procedures during the adoption of the remedial amendment. More specifically, prior to the Committee meeting, Dunn says it spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of the millions that [it] had spent previously, working for fourteen months in conjunction with the City and [Department]" so that the parties could resolve the Department's objections. Dunn argues that it was unduly prejudiced by the last-minute revisions made by the Committee and City Council, and that it did not have an adequate opportunity to respond. Dunn points out that a City Planning Commission meeting was conducted before the Committee meeting, and that body unanimously recommended that Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 628 be approved. It further points out that when the Committee met on September 3, 2008, the proposed revisions to the settlement agreement, the accompanying remedial amendment, and the new traffic data were not discussed until after the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. (The transcript of that meeting reflects, however, that after the new revisions and traffic study were raised, Dunn's counsel was briefly questioned about Dunn's traffic study and the density/intensity of the project. Also, according to Mr. Coe, a copy of the City's newly-prepared traffic study was given to a Dunn representative just before the Committee meeting.) For both public meetings, the City's published notices indicated that the purpose of the meetings was to consider the proposed revised settlement agreement and remedial amendment allowing a cap on the development of the RPI property through the use of an asterisk, as reflected in Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 2008-628. See Petitioner's Exhibits 16 and 17. Dunn contends that it had insufficient time between the Committee meeting on September 3, 2008, and the final City Council meeting on September 9, 2008, in which to review and evaluate the new traffic information and respond to the comments of the Committee member who supported the revisions. It also points out that, like other members of the public, Dunn's attorney was only given three minutes to present comments in opposition to the revised agreement at the City Council meeting on September 9, 2009. Notwithstanding any procedural errors that may have occurred during the City's adoption process, Dunn received notice and attended both the Committee and City Council meetings, it presented written and oral objections to the revised plan amendment prior to and at the City Council meeting on September 9, 2008, and it was given the opportunity to file a petition to challenge the City's decision and present evidence on the revisions at the hearing in this case. Savings Clause in Senate Bill 360 In support of its position that the matter is now moot, and that the savings clause in Senate Bill 360 does not "save" the revised settlement agreement executed by the City, Department, and Britt, on November 10, 2008, Dunn submitted extrinsic evidence to show the Legislature's intent in crafting a savings clause, which include four separate analyses by the Legislative staff (Appendices A-D); an article authored by the Bill's Senate sponsor (Senator Bennett) and published in the St. Petersburg Times on May 23, 2009 (Appendix E); a similar article authored by the same Senator and published in the Sarasota Harold-Tribune on June 11, 2009 (Appendix F); a seven-page letter from Secretary Pelham to Senator Bennett and Representative Murzin dated July 23, 2009, concerning the new law and a two and one-half page summary of the bill prepared by the Department (Appendix G); a power point presentation for the Senate Community Affairs Committee on October 6, 2009 (Appendix H); and an article published in the October 2009 edition of The Florida Bar Journal (Appendix I). The Florida Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact contained in Appendix A was prepared on February 17, 2009, and does not reference the relevant savings clause. A second Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact contained in Appendix B and prepared on March 19, 2009, merely acknowledges that the legislation includes a savings clause but provides no further explication. See App. B, p. 9. Appendix C is the Florida House of Representatives 2009 Session Summary prepared in May 2009, while Appendix D is a Summary of Passed Legislation prepared by the House of Representatives Economic Development and Community Affairs Policy Council on an undisclosed date. Neither document addresses the issue of what types of agreements were intended to be saved. Appendices E through I are guest newspaper columns, correspondence, a power point presentation, and an article in a professional journal. None are authoritative sources of legislative intent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-628-E, which remediates Ordinance No. 2007- 383-E, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2009, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, William Burke, is the developer of the Countryside Retirement Resort, a proposed development of regional impact, (DRI), located in DeSoto County, Florida. Sunrise Farms, a Florida general partnership, is the owner in fee simple of the site, but is not a party in this matter. Respondent, DeSoto County Board of County Commissioners, is a local government with jurisdiction over the proposed project site. It is responsible for the administration of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, land development regulations, and zoning code. On August, 15, 1990, after a duly-noticed public hearing, the Board of Commissioners of DeSoto County denied Burke's Application for Development Approval and Request for Rezoning. On April 23, 1991, the Board of Commissioners of DeSoto County, pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1989), and the rules promulgated thereunder, adopted its current comprehensive plan. Intervenor, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency with the power and duty to enforce and administer Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. The Department is also authorized to appeal DRI development orders issued by local governments pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, and has demonstrated a substantial interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Intervenors, M. Lewis Hall, Jr., M. Lewis Hall, III, Don T. Hall, Frank D. Hall and Steven V. Hall, are landowners near the subject site, and are substantially effected persons. The proposed site of the project is located on Highway 31, approximately ten miles from the City of Arcadia, at the SW 1/4 and W 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 39 South, Range 25 East, DeSoto County Florida The project has been named Countryside Retirement Resort (Countryside), and is a proposed PUD intended as an Adult Residential Community which is designed to contain, at build-out, a maximum of 1440 park model residential homesites and 60 transient RV spaces on approximately 239.71 acres. The 1440 permanent park model resort homes are to be offered as a "turn-key" package to insure architectural control and adherence to project design. Park model homes are prefab, factory-built units, which are not susceptible to being moved again. The units in each phase will have a single bedroom, and the estimated price for all phases is $55,000, including the lot and lot preparation. Gross density for the project is 6.0 and 6.25 units per acre, based upon 1440 (park model homes) and 1500 (including 60 RV spaces) units, respectively. The development is privately funded and includes all streets, utility systems, public safety services, community buildings, recreational facilities, and general community amenities. The project area is currently zoned A-5 or improved pasture agricultural, with one dwelling unit per five acres permitted. To the north, the property is zoned A-10, citrus grove agricultural. To the south, the property is zoned improved pasture-agricultural, A-5. The Petitioner proposes to dedicate the 40 feet along the South side of the property to DeSoto County for street purposes. Adjacent to the public dedication will be a 40 foot project buffer for fencing, landscaping, and stormwater containment. The main entrance is to be located at State Road 31, approximately 1,000 feet North of Pine Island Street. Turn lanes are to be provided to minimize any potential detriment to the flow of traffic on the state roadway. As requested by County staff, forty feet of additional right-of-way has been set aside for the future widening of Pine Island Street. In addition to the 40 foot right-of-way for Pine Island Street (approximately 3.66 acres), access and improvements at all intersecting streets will be made. The additional traffic, sewer and potable water impacts will be provided for by the developer. A secondary access from Pine Island Street runs east from SR 31 approximately two miles, and dead ends at the Hall Ranch. The adjoining 40 foot buffer strip features, in addition to security fencing, a perimeter drainage swale and earthen mounds with landscaping that will screen the community from the public roadway. The buffer strip is not intended for future road purposes. The 40 foot buffer will be placed around the perimeter of the site. The buffer will consist of earthen berms and landscaping to protect the community from the outside, and the outside from the community, to make it as self-supporting and self-contained as possible. A 6.5 acre tract in the southwestern corner of the site has been reserved to provide for the commercial institutional needs of the residential community. Anticipated commercial uses include a general store (providing food, hardware, and dry goods), personal service shops, professional office space, and a motel (58 units) with a restaurant. Institutional uses include an arts and crafts building, a volunteer fire station equipped with a "quick response" vehicle, and office space for use by the sheriff's office, a second floor residence apartment for the community manager, the project's water treatment plant, and a helipad for emergency medical services. A general utility area, including maintenance building, the wastewater treatment plant, and a dry storage area for boats and RV's will be located in the Southeast corner of the property, buffered from adjoining properties and from the internal community. The project will also feature an 18 hole executive golf course with a pro shop and aquatic driving range, a multi-use clubhouse, four lighted tennis courts, six neighborhood swimming pools, and a series of mini-parks. The Petitioner's intent is to design the resort to function as a relatively self-contained and readily identifiable neighborhood of the County. The project calls for an on-site sewage treatment plant with tertiary filtration attached to the plant. At build-out, the plans call for the plant to treat approximately 315,000 gallons of sewage per day. A total of 8.99 acres of both man-made and natural wetlands were identified on the site. The project complies with applicable regulations with respect to preservation of wetlands. Approximately 27.75 acres of wetlands are to be created, and approximately 22.95 acres of proposed lakes will exist at completion. The project conforms with applicable regulations with respect to water use. The project's drinking and irrigation water will be served from on-site wells. An on-site water treatment plant will also be built. Adequate provisions are made for hurricane shelters and evacuations measures. The project conforms with applicable regulations with respect to air emissions. The project conforms with applicable regulations with respect to vegetation and wildlife. The entire site is cleared of natural vegetation and managed as improved pasture. The project site as well as adjoining land is not unique agricultural land. The project will not significantly deplete the agricultural community adjacent to the project or in the general neighborhood. Estimates from 1982 indicate that 236,722 total acres of pasture exist in DeSoto County. Removal of the project site from cattle production represents a total of .097% of the total pasture acreage in the County. Approximately 96% (230 acres) of the existing site is improved pasture land for cattle grazing while 6.9 acres or less than 3% of the project's site covers wet prairie. No natural wildlife corridors exist between the subject parcel and any surrounding natural lands. There are no significant historical or archeological sites or corridors considered likely to be present within the project area. Approval of the project would add to the tax revenue base of DeSoto County. The DeSoto County landfill is designed to meet the needs of the County until the year 2000 based on its projected increase of population. The proposed project at buildout, prior to the year 2000, falls below the projected increases of population. The projected increase in population by the year 2000 ranges from 4300 to 5800 with the proposed project generating a theoretical maximum increase in population of 3,000 persons if all units were occupied on a year round basis. The landfill will have adequate capacity to meet the demand from the project. No unusual or industrial or hazardous wastes will originate on-site. A 1.75 acre site has been reserved for the sewage treatment plant in the Southeast corner of the subject property. Sludge is scheduled to be disposed of by a licensed hauler. A tertiary wastewater treatment plant is to be provided in all phases of development. The wastewater is to be filtered and highly disinfected to provide treatment effluent for irrigation purposes. The plant will be situated on approximately 3/4 of an acre including surrounding open space and buffer areas. The utility site is of sufficient size to provide treatment of waste water for the entire development. All on-site facilities (collection treatment) are to be operated and maintained by the homeowner's association in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation operating permits. On-site treatment and disposal facilities are being proposed that will be capable of serving the entire development. The proposed drainage system for the project is consistent with applicable regulations. The water supply system proposed for the development complies with applicable regulations. Florida Power and Light Company has sufficient capacity to provide electrical service to the project. While the project will contribute property taxes to the educational system, the development will not have a negative impact on the DeSoto County District School System, since this project will be an adult community, and no school-age children are contemplated. 94.18 acres, or almost 40% of the development site, are to be devoted to recreation uses and open space. A helipad will be constructed to enhance MedVac emergency services to the project and the surrounding area. DeSoto Memorial Hospital is licensed for 82 beds, and provides emergency services. DeSoto Memorial Hospital is a community not-for-profit facility, serving the DeSoto County area and located in Arcadia, Florida. Health Care and medical services are available at the Hospital and the Arcadia area to meet the needs of the Countryside residents. The county operated ambulance (EMS and ALS certified) offers 15 to 20 minute response time from its headquarters station on State Road 70, a distance of 7 miles, via SR 31. Fire protection services for the project are to be provided by the public safety department of DeSoto County. The nearest fire station is located at State Road 70 and Airport Road about seven miles north of the property. Under normal traffic conditions, response time is estimated to be approximately 10 to 12 minutes. The county's fire protection services are to be enhanced by the construction of an auxiliary fire station on-site. The Petitioner proposes to develop a volunteer fire department from among the residents of the project with emphasis on fire, emergency medical, quick response fire truck and a building for sheltering in the event of a disaster or potential emergency (portable electric, water, restrooms, kitchen and proper square footage to accommodate the residents of the development) would serve as a benefit to the County on SR 31. On April 23, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners for DeSoto County adopted Ordinance 91-03, a new comprehensive plan for the County. Included are goals, objectives and policies in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan. The Future Land Use Element, Goal L. Objective L2 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, provides that: Development orders and/or permits for future development and redevelopment activities shall be issued only if public facilities necessary to meet level of service standards, adopted as part of the Capital Improvements Element of this Plan, are available concurrent with the impacts of development. The Future Land Use Element, Policy L2.5 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, provides that: No local development order or permit will be issued unless the County determines that the appropriate level of service standards can be met for: drainage; potable water; recreation and open space; solid waste disposal; traffic circulation; and waste water treatment. Traffic Circulation Element, Goal T of the DeSoto Comprehensive Plan, provides that the goal of the traffic element of the Plan will be to "provide for a safe, efficient and economical traffic circulation system." To implement Goal T, Objective T1 provides that, "DeSoto County shall provide a safe and efficient transportation system, and shall establish minimum criteria and standards to ensure the effective functioning of all public roadways within its jurisdiction." The proposed development site accesses State Road 31, a north/south, two-lane minor arterial roadway connecting the City of Arcadia with the City of Fort Myers. SR 31 is currently at a Level of Service (LOS) of B, or better. The DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, Policy T1.1, has established a peak season/peak hour level of service standard of D or better for SR 31. The Five- Year Schedule of Capital Improvements in the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan does not provide for the improvement of SR 31. The average daily traffic maximum volumes established by the Department of Transportation for a LOS D on a minor arterial, such as State Road 31, is 15,000 trips per day. Four separate traffic studies were performed regarding the potential impacts of the proposed development on State Road 31. The first two studies were performed by Mr. Gordon Meyers of Ink Engineering, Inc., the third by Mr. Richard Doyle of Tampa Bay Engineering, Inc., and the fourth by Ms. Nanette Hall of Florida Transportation Engineering, Inc. The study area included segments of SR 31 and the intersection of SR 31 and SR 70, as well as, SR 31 and SR 760-A. SR 70 runs east-west and expands from a two lane roadway to a four lane major arterial at the intersection of SR 70 and SR 31. CR 760-A is a two-lane rural major collector extending westerly from SR 31, just north of the G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, to US 17, which provides access to the Punta Gorda area and Interstate 75. The Department of Transportation has three traffic counting stations on State Road 31 from which reliable traffic data has been collected since 1984. The location of these traffic counting stations are as follows: Station #26, is located just south of the intersection between State Road 31 and State Road 70; Station #4, is located approximately halfway between the site of the proposed development and State Road 70, north of the intersection between State Road 31 and County Road 760A; Station #31, is located south of the intersection between State Road 31 and County Road 760A, and north of the proposed site of the proposed development. All four studies made projections as to the anticipated increase in traffic volume at these stations should the proposed development be approved. The four traffic studies obtained the following projections for the anticipated traffic volumes and corresponding LOS's that would exist at the traffic counting stations upon build out of the proposed development summarized in the table below: LOCATION FIRST STUDY SECOND STUDY THIRD STUDY FOURTH STUDY (MEYER) (MEYER) (DOYLE) (HALL) Station #31 12,474/LOS D 7,610/LOS C 12,474/LOS D 13,466/LOS D Station #4 13,557/LOS D 9,250/LOS C 10,080/LOS D 15,384/LOS E Station #26 15,172/LOS E 9,380/LOS C 10,341/LOS D 17,111/LOS E Of the four traffic studies performed, the projections of the fourth (Hall) study were the most reliable. It was the only study to use historic data available on State Road 31 in the Calculation of a growth rate for background traffic volume, and did not suffer from the methodological flaws that existed in the other studies. The fourth (Hall) traffic study indicated that the proposed development at build out would cause large sections of State Road 31 to exceed its level of service established by the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, and reduce the level of service below D. The fourth (Hall) study also projected the traffic impacts of the proposed development if developed in two phases, the results (expressed in average daily traffic and peak hour/peak season impacts) of which are summarized in the table below: LOCATION PEAK HOUR/PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC PHASE I PHASE II PHASE I PHASE II Station #31 892/LOS C 1,394/LOS D 9,062/LOS C 13,466/LOS D Station #4 1,033/LOS D 1,544/LOS E 10,732/LOS D 15,384/LOS E Station #26 1,183/LOS D 10,341/LOS D 12,397/LOS D 17,111/LOS E Countryside has never requested phased approval for the project. The fourth (Hall) traffic study indicated that even if approval were given for "Phase I" alone, a major portion of the LOS D capacity of the roadway (approximately 80% to 85% of the capacity) would be used up, reducing the possibilities for further development of those sections of State Road 31 between the proposed development and State Road 70. The proposed development will not meet the appropriate level of service for traffic circulation. Land Use Element Policy L6.8 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan provides that: Residential development in a Rural/Agricultural area shall not exceed a maximum density of one dwelling unit per ten gross acres. In a Rural/Agricultural area, the lowest order of commercial goods and services which serve the daily needs of nearby residents may be permitted only on arterial or collector roadways. Commercial areas in a Rural/ Agricultural area shall be appropriately buffered, shall not exceed 3 acres in size, shall not exceed impervious surface lot coverage of 70 per cent, and shall be no less than 2 miles from other commercial development in a Rural/Agricultural area or in other future land use categories. Industrial uses within a Rural/Agricultural area may be permitted only when such activity is related to the extraction or processing of minerals; or when related to agriculture; or is of a scale and nature that would not be acceptable in Town Center. Other industrial uses, such a power plants or manufactured or processing facilities may be permitted, and shall have access to a collector or arterial roadway, shall meet all local regulations, and shall be appropriately buffered from surrounding land uses, including agricultural uses. Within a Rural/Agricultural area, the approval of residential development shall acknowledge that the protection of agricultural lands is a primary function of a Rural/Agricultural area, and that land management activities associated with agricultural uses may be incompatible with residential development. However, such management activities are considered to be an essential element of the protection of successful operations on agricultural lands and the continuation of such activities shall take precedence. Future Land Use Element, Goal L. - Objective L3 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, provides that "DeSoto County shall promote compatible future land use patterns." The current DeSoto County Comprehensive Plant, Future Land and Use Element, Objective L6, provides: Objective L6: As a part of this plan, DeSoto County's Future Land Use Map series shall be applied only in conjunction with the policies of this element and other elements of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, and shall generally illustrate and coordinate the appropriate distribution of residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, preservation, public and utility facility land uses to effectively manage the projected population growth of the County. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Plan's policies are used to effectively manage the projected population growth of the County. The Countryside project is not depicted, in terms of an appropriate land use category, on the FLUM. The Future Land Use Map indicates that the project site is located in an R/A (Rural/Agricultural) land use designation with a maximum allowable density of one residential unit per ten acres. The density of the proposed project is in excess of six dwelling units per acre. The 1991 DeSoto Comprehensive Plan, data and analysis section, indicates that there are 2,765 approved, unconstructed recreational vehicle (RV) sites in nine undeveloped, but approved RV parks, covering 448 acres. The Plan indicates that these approved RV sites will meet the anticipate need through the year 2000. The 1991 Plan estimates that 427 seasonal residents (usually retirees), will be added to the seasonal population of the County between 1990- 2000. Based on two persons per dwelling unit and six dwelling units per acre, only 214 units of new RV residential development will be needed between 1990 and 2000. The existing approved, but unconstructed RV sites, exceed the projected need almost thirteen times. The proposed DRI would add an additional 1500 units, resulting in 4,051 more units than the projected need. Policy L3.3 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan provides that: Land uses which are potentially incompatible either due to type of use or intensity of use, shall be buffered from one another through the provision of open space, landscaping, berms, alternative site design or other suitable means. Land development regulations shall establish criteria for appropriate buffering between adjacent land uses. Policy L3.4 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan provides that, "where the application of such measures as identified in Policy L3.3 cannot mitigate the incompatibility between proposed and existing land uses, the proposed land use shall be disapproved." The proposed development is not functionally related to the surrounding agricultural activities and numerous incompatibilities between the land uses shall arise as adjacent landowners conduct agricultural activities such as application of pesticides and fertilizers and other activities which produce smells, sprays, dust, noises and other externalities incompatible with residential use. The incompatibility of this project with existing land uses cannot be eliminated under the proposed buffers of berms, landscaping, and fencing proposed in the ADA. To implement Goal L. Objective L4 of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, Policy L4.1 provides that: The DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan and implementing land development regulations, to be adopted by August 1, 1991, shall include provisions that permit or require a variety of land development techniques that discourage sprawl while protecting natural resources including: Establishment of mixed use future land use categories in the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan to provide residential, commercial and employment opportunities in close proximity; Clustering of development to protect natural resources, open space and agricultural uses, provide for access management to arterial or collector roadways, provide for appropriate buffering, and make efficient use of public facilities and services; Establishment of guidelines or incentives to encourage infill development in the Town Center, Mixed Use Corridor and Suburban Residential areas, which may include . . . There is a clear intent in the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan to discourage urban sprawl. "Urban sprawl" is defined in the plan as "scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental, agricultural and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following ways: 1) leapfrog development; 2) ribbon or strip development; and 3) large expanses of low-density, single-dimensional development." The proposed development is an example of the leapfrog development type of urban sprawl. It provides for residential development far beyond the projected needs of the surrounding area. It is located far from the nearest urban centers and is surrounded by rural land uses. The proposed development would create an urban level of density and intensity of use within a rural area. It is not a well balanced mixed use development. It is not compatible with, nor functionally related to, the surrounding uses, and is designed to be cutoff and separated from those uses. The proposed development cannot be considered a "rural village." It does not support surrounding agricultural activities, but is, in fact, incompatible with surrounding land uses. Because of its location and lack of multiple uses, this development will encourage lengthy commuting, contrary to the policies of the state comprehensive plan to continue to reduce per capita energy consumption, Section 187.201(12), Florida Statutes. The proposed project is not an efficient development because of its location away from existing facilities and services, shopping and employment, contrary to the policies of the state comprehensive plan to encourage efficient development and direct development toward areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce, Section 187.201(21), Florida Statutes. The State Comprehensive Plan, Section 18, "Public Facilities," provides that Florida shall protect the substantial investments in existing public facilities. This project conflicts with this policy, as investments in existing public facilities are best protected by directing growth to nearby locations to efficiently use those facilities, Section 187.201(18), Florida Statutes. The proposed project also conflicts with the state comprehensive plan policy related to governmental efficiency, which encourages the replacement of small scale economically inefficient local public facilities with more economical regional facilities. The project proposes to establish small facilities, rather than efficiently utilize larger facilities, Section 187.201(21), Florida Statutes. Section 380.08(3), Florida Statutes provides: (3) If any governmental agency denies a development permit under this chapter, it shall specify its reasons in writing and indicate in writing any changes in the development proposal that would make it eligible to receive the permit. The Board of Commissioners, in issuing its denial of the Countryside Retirement Resort specified its reasons for denial and identified changes which would make it eligible for approval as follows: The proposed development known as "Countryside Retirement Resort" is not consistent with the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan, nor the DeSoto County Land Use Regulations. The proposed development does not make adequate provision for public facilities needed to accommodate the impact of the proposed development. There are no known changes that would make the proposed development eligible to receive approval due to the inappropriateness of the requested zoning. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(a), provides that among factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change would be contrary, and would have an adverse effect on the Comprehensive Plan." The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(b), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "the existing land use pattern." The existing land use pattern in the area is agricultural. The proposed development would create a medium density residential enclave within the existing land use pattern of agricultural use. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(c), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts." The proposed development would be an isolated district of high intensity residential land use surrounded by agricultural and low intensity residential land uses. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(d), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "the population such as schools, utilities, street, etc." The existing allowable density in this area of DeSoto County is 1 unit per 10 acres. The proposed development would increase this to 6 units per acre. Response time for police, fire, and rescue services would be poor if provided by existing facilities and personnel. Persons needing essential services that could only be provided in the City of Arcadia would have at least a twenty minute round trip. The County would experience a greater burden in providing services to the proposed development than it would if the development were located closer to the City of Arcadia. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(f), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary." There are no changed or changing conditions in the area which would make it necessary to amend the zoning or the Comprehensive Plant. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(g), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions of the neighborhood." The proposed development would create a high density residential development, urban type land use in an area of DeSoto County which heretofore enjoyed a rural character. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(h), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety." The proposed development would create traffic congestion, and would adversely affect public safety. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(l), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations." The proposed development would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties as property owners attempt to develop their properties. This development would drastically reduce the reserve capacity of State Road 31, and adjacent property owners would find it increasingly difficult and expensive to meet the Levels of Service required by the Comprehensive Plan. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(m), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of a special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare." The proposed development would not constitute the grant of a special privilege if approved, since the developer is seeking approval of a PUD. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(n), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning." There is no reason why the property on which the proposed development is to be located could not be used for what it zones, agricultural usage. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(o), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County." The proposed development is out of the scale with the needs of the County and the immediate neighborhood. The neighborhood is designated at a maximum density of 1 unit per 10 acres. This development would be at a density of 6 units per acre. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.5(p), provides that among the factors to be considered in a rezoning is "whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed uses in districts already permitting such use." There was no showing that other sites in DeSoto County could not be developed at this time. The DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance, Section 9.3, Planned Unit Development Districts (PUD), provides in part that it is the intent of the PUD Ordinance "to provide an optional alternative zoning procedure so that planned developments may be instituted at appropriate locations in the County in accord with the planning and development objectives of the County." The proposed development is not in an appropriate location, nor is it in accord with the planning and development objectives of the County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission denying of the application for development approval of Petitioner, and upholding the decision of the DeSoto County Board of County Commissioners to deny the request for rezoning for the Countryside Retirement Resort. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1(in part),2,3,6(in part),7(in part),16,17,18,19,20(in part),21,22(in part),23,24,26,27(in part),28,29(in part),30, 31,32,33,36(in part),37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,46(in part),49 (in part),50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61 (in part),62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69 (in part),71,72 (in part),73,74,75(in part),76,81,92,95(in part),96(in part),98,99,100,101,105,106(in part),108,109(in part),112(in part) Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs - 4,5,6(in part),(in part),8,15,47,48,72(in part),77,78,79,80,82,83,84,88,89,102,104,106(in part),107,109(in part),110,111,112(in part),113,114 Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or subsumed: paragraphs - 9,10,11,12,13,14,20(inpart),22(in part),25,27(in part),29(in part),34,35,36(in part),45,46(in part),49(in part),61(in part),69(in part),70,73,75(in part),85,86,87,90,91,97,103 Rejected as argument or conclusions of law: paragraphs - 93,94,95(in part),96(in part) Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 (in part),19(in part),26,27,28,29,30,32(in part),36,37,38,39,40, 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70 ,71,72,74,75,76(in part),77(in part),78,79,80,81, 82,84,85,86,87 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph - 83 Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or subsumed: paragraphs - 18(in part),19(in part),20,21,22,23,24,25,37 (in part),55(in part),56(in part),57(in part),73 Rejected as argument or conclusions of law: paragraphs - 14,31,32(in part),33,34,35,55(in part),56(in part),57(in part),76(in part),77(in part) Intervenor Department of Community Affairs' proposed findings of fact Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7(in part),8,9,10,11,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,20,21(in part),22(in part),23(in part),24,25,26,27,28,29 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs - 7(in part) Rejected as argument or conclusion of law: paragraphs - 14,21(in part),22(in part),23(in part) Intervenors Halls' proposed findings of fact. Intervenors Halls did not submit separate proposed findings, but adopted the proposals submitted by the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlie Stampelos, Esquire William Wiley, Esquire MCFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Vorbeck, Esquire Fred Bechtold, Esquire VORBEC, & VORBECK 207 East Magnolia Avenue Arcadia, Florida 33821 Kathryn Funchess Asst. General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lewis Hall, Jr., Esquire HALL & HEDRICK Republic National Bank Building 150 Southeast Second Avenue Suite 1400 Miami, Florida 33131 William E. Sadowski Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire General Counsel, Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Douglas M. Cook, Director Planning & Budgeting Exec. Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Crestview's (City's) small-scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 1370 on November 26, 2007, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background B & H is a Florida corporation which owns and operates a number of concrete batch plants and a surveying and engineering company known as Integrated Engineering Solutions, LLC. The parties have stipulated that B & H is the owner of property within the City and submitted comments to the City in support of the change in the land use prior to the adoption of the plan amendment. As such, B & H is an affected person and has standing to participate in this matter. In 2005, B & H purchased a 75.56-acre tract of vacant, undeveloped land in the unincorporated part of Okaloosa County (County), just southwest of the City. The parcel is generally bounded on its northern side by Interstate 10 (I-10) and by a 150-foot wide Gulf Power Company easement on its southern boundary. All of the property carried a County land use designation of RR, which limits development to one residential unit per five acres. See Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 10.1.e. (Petitioner's Exhibit A). After B & H purchased the property, it applied for development approval (including a land use change from RR to an industrial) from the County. In the face of substantial public opposition, and a negative staff recommendation, B & H withdrew its application during a County Planning Commission hearing on April 12, 2007. (The County staff noted that the property "is located in the immediate vicinity of . . . a residential subdivision"; that a wide range of industrial uses would be allowed on the property if it was changed to IN; that the requested action would have the effect of "spot zoning"; that there is no shortage of industrial-zoned lands in other areas of the County; and that "the requested action is not compatible with the proximate residential subdivision and does not result in an appropriate transition of uses, densities, and intensities as expressed in [FLUE] Policy 4.4.") Shortly thereafter, B & H filed a petition for voluntary annexation with the City. On August 27, 2007, the City annexed a 9.98-acre parcel of B & H's land lying in the eastern half of the larger parcel. (The remainder of the larger parcel remains in the County.) B & H then filed an application in the form of a small-scale development amendment seeking a change in the land use on the property from RR to IN. Because the size of the parcel was less than 10 acres, the change in land use was accomplished by this type of amendment, which is not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (Department). See § 163.3187(1)(c)1. and (3)(a), Fla. Stat. According to FLUE Policy 7.A.3.4.f. in the City's Plan, the IN category is designed to protect lands for production and distribution of goods and for other industrial activities. A wide range of industrial uses and commercial uses are allowed in this category. Specific uses include light and heavy manufacturing, assembly, training facilities, vehicle repair (including body work and painting), packaging, processing, wholesale business and warehousing, truck terminals, borrow pits, asphalt/concrete plants, heavy equipment sales, service and/or rentals, and other uses similar to those listed herein. Residential uses are prohibited except as an accessory to a permitted use. In addition to the application for a change in the FLUM, B & H submitted an application for site plan approval for a concrete batch plant to be located on the southern end of the subject property. This use would be consistent with the IN category. However, until this proceeding is concluded, the site plan will not be reviewed, modified, or approved by the City, and therefore any development provisions incorporated therein are not final. Further, the proposed use (a concrete batch plant) requires the issuance of a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). On September 9, 2007, the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the amendment and voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the application to the City Council. On October 8, 2007, a first reading of Ordinance No. 1370 implementing the amendment occurred at the City Council meeting. On October 22, 2007, a public hearing was held before the City Council. The City Council voted 3-2 to deny the amendment. On November 13, 2007, the City Council conducted another public hearing for the first reading of the amendment. On November 26, 2007, the City Council conducted a second public hearing on the amendment and adopted Ordinance No. 1370 enacting the amendment. (New zoning on the land will not be imposed until or unless the plan amendment here is found to be in compliance.) Although not subject to review by the Department, the following day the City sent a copy of the adopted Ordinance to the Department. On December 24, 2007, Petitioner, who resides in Antioch Estates, a nearby residential subdivision located within the City, filed her Petition with DOAH. On February 7, 2008, she moved to amend the Petition and authorization to do so was granted by Order dated February 8, 2008. In her Amended Petition, she generally contended that the amendment is not in compliance because it is internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions in several respects; the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis; the property being reclassified is greater than 10 acres in size and therefore cannot qualify as a small-scale development amendment; the City did not analyze the financial feasibility of the amendment; and the City failed to conduct the necessary intergovernmental coordination and review. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner resides within the City and offered comments in opposition to the amendment prior to its adoption. As such, she is an affected person and has standing to challenge the amendment. At the hearing, Petitioner, who is a planner for the City of Destin but resides in Crestview, acknowledged that before she filed her initial Petition, her husband was contacted by a representative of Couch Ready Mix USA (Couch), a non-party who operates a concrete batch plant 0.8 miles southeast of Antioch Estates on Old Antioch Road, and with whom B & H would compete if the application is approved and a new concrete batch plant constructed on the site. However, Petitioner stated that she would have filed a petition even if her husband had not been contacted by Couch. Even so, it is fair to infer from the evidence that funding for Petitioner's counsel and two experts was provided by Couch. The Subject Property The subject property is a 9.98-acre parcel bordered on the north by I-10 and on the east, west, and south by property owned by B & H, all of which is designated RR and zoned Agricultural. Directly to the east of the larger B & H parcel is a 70-foot strip of vacant land owned by Rhett Enzor, a non- party whose land stretches from I-10 southward to the Gulf Power easement. The Enzor property also carries a RR land use designation and Agricultural zoning. Besides the 70-foot strip on the eastern side, Mr. Enzor owns the other property that surrounds the larger parcel to the south and west; however, the extent of that property is not of record. Just to the east-northeast and adjacent to the Enzor property is a residential subdivision (Antioch Estates) comprised of around 125 homes. The subdivision is divided into two sections - the larger section lying north of I-10 and the smaller section located just south of I-10. It is unclear whether the entire subdivision has 125 units, or if the southern portion alone has that number. In any event, Petitioner and members of the public who offered comments at the hearing reside in the southern portion of the subdivision and oppose the application. At its closest point, the western boundary of the subdivision (particularly lots 51-55) appears to be slightly more than 600 feet from the 9.98-acre parcel, but no more than 70 feet or so from the eastern boundary of the larger parcel. The distance to the proposed concrete batch plant, which will lie in the south-southwest end of the subject property, is slightly less than one-quarter mile. An elementary school (Antioch Elementary School) with an enrollment of around 800 students and 100 staff, built sometime after 1996, is located just east of Antioch Estates. A former borrow pit, Blocker Pit, lies south of the subdivision, while an active borrow pit, Garret Pit, lies around one-half mile or so southeast of the subdivision. Antioch Estates is classified by the City as Low Density Residential (LDR), while the school is in the Public Use land use category. Under FLUE Policy 7.A.3.4.a., the LDR category "is limited to residential uses, customary accessory uses, recreation uses, churches and places of worship and planned unit developments. Non-profit and civic organizations may be permitted by special exception. This category is intended for single family homes which may be developed with up to six (6) units per gross acre." Antioch Road appears to be a major arterial road running in a northwest-southeast direction (crossing over or under I-10) just east of the elementary school. (Less than a mile southeast of the school, Antioch Road becomes P.J. Adams Parkway.) All vehicles wishing to access the school, Antioch Estates, or the 9.98-parcel (as well as the larger B & H parcel) must do so by turning off of Antioch Road onto Garret Pit Road, a County-maintained road which intersects with Antioch Road just south of I-10. Within a short distance, Garret Pit Road intersects with Whitehurst Lane, a paved road which runs in a northwest direction from Garret Pit Road to the school and eventually makes a loop in the subdivision. At the Whitehurst Lane intersection, Garret Pit Road turns into a dirt road. Vehicles traveling to B & H's property continue south on Garret Pit Road for 300 feet or so until it intersects with Point Center Road, a privately-owned, unplatted and undedicated dirt road which runs directly west from Garrett Pit Road (and roughly parallel to I-10) through the Enzor strip and into the eastern side of the B & H property. From there, it appears that vehicles would turn south for a short distance on Borrow Pit Road (also referred to as Barrow Pit Road on certain map exhibits), another dirt road which eventually turns westward when it reaches the southern boundary of B & H property. The 9.98-acre parcel is around 66 feet north of Borrow Point Road. According to a B & H witness, Point Center Road and Borrow Pit Road are not actually roads, but are more akin to dirt trails which trucks now use to reach the excavating and land fill sites. Finally, Point Center Road passes approximately 140 feet south of, and parallel to, the southern boundary of Antioch Estates. When the subject property was annexed into the City, it retained the County FLUM designation of RR and zoning of Agricultural. The FLUM and zoning designations are retained until a plan amendment and rezoning is approved by the City. Under the County's Plan, residential uses in RR must not exceed one unit per five acres. There is currently an inactive borrow pit (covering around six acres) on the southern part of the 9.98-acre parcel, which extends westward into the larger parcel. B & H says it has no intention of resuming this operation. A small storage facility with "manholes," "pipe," and other "equipment" sits on the southwestern corner of the property, while a small wetlands area of less than an acre occupies the northwestern corner. To the west of the subject parcel on the northwestern corner of the larger parcel is an active, permitted 7.5-acre Construction & Demolition (C & D) landfill. There is some ambiguity in the testimony over the actual size of the landfill; however, in DEP's letter of intent dated March 17, 2006, which transferred Permit No. 0002800-002-SO from the original owner (Point Center, Inc.) to B & H, it stated that B & H is authorized to operate a 7.5-acre disposal unit until March 17, 2010. See Petitioner's Exhibit B. Although the useful life of the existing C & D landfill will eventually run out, at the hearing B & H's Project Manager stated that the company has an application pending with DEP to expand the landfill. The status of that matter is unknown. Expansion of a non-conforming land use, however, may be problematic. See Finding of Fact 21, infra. Besides the active C & D landfill, B & H is also periodically retrieving fill dirt from the larger parcel for site work operations, using up to 30 dump trucks for this work. According to a witness, the larger parcel still has around 3,000,000 cubic yards of usable dirt. Whether B & H is authorized to conduct borrow pit operations on the larger parcel is not of record. More than likely, once the landfill is used up (or no later than March 2010 when the permit expires unless it is renewed), the non-conforming use will have run its course, and the RR designation will apply to all future activities on the larger parcel. Although the entire B & H parcel was classified as RR, the borrow pit and C & D landfill are non-conforming uses under the County's Plan, presumably having been in existence before the County's Plan was adopted. A non-conforming use is one where the actual use of the property is not consistent with the future land use of the comprehensive plan or not consistent with the zoning of the property. There are very strict parameters as to whether or not you can change or modify a non-conforming use. Normally, changes to non-conforming uses are not allowed. A non-conforming use can not be expanded. B & H has acknowledged that it intends to seek annexation of the entire larger parcel into the City. With the exception of the C & D landfill, it is also planning to request a FLUM amendment from RR to IN for the remainder of the larger parcel. Thus, if the instant application is approved, it is fair to say that this action will be the forerunner of an effort to reclassify the entire 75.56 acres (except the 7.5-acre landfill) as industrial property, leaving only the 70-foot strip of Enzor property as a RR buffer between the industrial land and the subdivision. Petitioner's Objections Ten-Acre Maximum Petitioner's first objection is that the amendment does not meet the statutory criteria for a small-scale development amendment because the use involves more than 10 acres. See § 163.3187(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. ("[t]he proposed amendment [must involve] a use of 10 acres or fewer"). Petitioner argues that parcel size is not the only determinant of what must be included in the amendment, and that any acreage that is integral to the design and operation of the proposed use is considered in determining whether the small scale development amendment criteria are met. Petitioner argues that B & H failed to include in the amendment all acreage that is integral to the design and operation of the proposed use. It is undisputed that the subject parcel is 9.98 acres, as determined by Kermit George, who sealed the property's survey for B & H, and as confirmed by City employee Teresa Gaillard by using the Autocad software program. Relying primarily upon site plans for the concrete batch plant filed by B & H with the City, however, Petitioner contends that the acreage (.0604 acres) related to a 66-foot driveway which will access the south side of the property from Borrow Pit Road, the acreage (1.607 acres) related to the use of Borrow Pit Road after turning off of Point Center Road, the acreage (.052 acres) for an easement necessary to run a County water line from B & H's southern property line to the smaller parcel, and the 150-foot buffer on the east side of the site (which will be required by the City when or if a concrete batch plant is permitted and built) must be included in the total amount of acreage. Excluding the buffer, Petitioner has calculated this additional land to total 1.7194 acres. Petitioner argues that even if only one of the above items is included, it would cause the size of the amendment to exceed ten acres and lose its status as a small-scale development amendment. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the dirt trail that makes up Borrow Pit Road, as well as the 66-foot trail from Borrow Pit Road to the subject property, are already being used by B & H trucks or other vehicles to access the landfill and borrow pit area. Therefore, this "infrastructure" will be used for other purposes, irrespective of whether development on the 9.98-acre parcel occurs. At the same time, the City's planning expert noted that good planning practices do not require that the land necessary to access a parcel with roads or utilities, and off-site buffering, be included in calculating whether the "use" of the parcel exceeds 10 acres. Except as to the buffering issue, this interpretation of the statutory language is more logical and reasonable than Petitioner's approach and is hereby accepted. Compare Parker v. St. Johns County et al., DOAH Case No. 02-2658, 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 34 at *12 (DOAH Dec. 17, 2002, DCA Feb. 27, 2003)("[i]t would be unreasonable to construe Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes, as requiring local governments and applicants to calculate pro rata share impacts of off-site utilities, determine proportionate acreage based on those impacts, and apply those figures to the small scale acreage calculations"). The issue of whether the acreage related to the off- site buffering should be included as a use is not so clear cut. The City Land Development Code (LDC) requires that there be appropriate buffering between industrial and residential land uses. While the pertinent portion of the LDC is not of record, the evidence submitted by B & H and the City shows that an approximate 150-foot buffer will be necessary on the eastern side of the parcel. A City witness testified that the buffering "would normally take place upon the property being developed." However, because the use will occur in an existing borrow pit (which is 20 feet below the surface of the adjacent land), the City concluded that it would be more appropriate to place any required vegetative buffer and fencing off-site on the edge of the larger parcel, also owned by B & H. The buffering is an integral part of the project being placed on the parcel. In other words, the plant cannot be built without the required buffering. Therefore, the land on which the buffer and fence will be placed should be included as an integral part of the property's use. Compare St. George Plantation Owners' Association, Inc. v. Franklin County et al., DOAH Case No. 96- 5124GM, 1997 Fla. ENV LEXIS 37 at *18-20 (DOAH Feb. 16, 1997, Admin. Comm. Mar. 25, 1997) where three off-site absorption beds required to serve a wastewater treatment plant were considered an integral part of the facility, thereby increasing the size of the amendment's "use" from 9.6 to 14.6 acres. By adding the acreage for the 150-foot off-site buffer and fencing to the 9.98 acres, the use of the property that is the subject of the amendment clearly involves more than 10 acres and cannot qualify as a small-scale development amendment. Data and Analysis Petitioner also objects to the amendment as not being supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, as required by Section 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). Paragraph (2)(a) of the rule requires that "plan amendments . . . shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element." To be based on data "means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of the adoption of the . . . plan amendment at issue." Id. Petitioner points out that B & H has acknowledged (by way of answers to Requests for Admissions and stipulated facts in its Motion in Limine) that it did not present to the City any studies or data related to noise, traffic, property values, air pollution, or protected natural resources that may be impacted by, or attributable to, a concrete batch plant being placed on the subject property. She also argues that to the extent an analysis was made in the City's staff report (as to infrastructure demands, protection of wetlands and natural resources, traffic, financial feasibility, and compatibility), it was based on incorrect data or was otherwise insufficient. The City's planning consultant prepared the staff report for the City, which summarizes the data and analysis supporting the amendment. See § 1, Joint Exhibit E, which is a six and one-half page staff report. The analysis was performed on the premise that a concrete batch plant would be located on the subject property. The staff report indicates that "[t]he purpose of the amendment is to provide for the development of a concrete batch plant." See page 1, § 1, Joint Exhibit E. The staff report contains in summary form the data and analysis supporting the amendment. Section 1 reflects that the City relied upon (a) FLUM map sheet 7-5, which indicated that all adjacent lands except I-10 on the north side are in the RR land use category while lands in the vicinity are classified as LDR, MDR, Conservation, Public Lands, Industrial, and Commercial; (b) data reflecting that the existing use of land on the subject property is vacant and undeveloped; the larger B & H parcel contains a C & D landfill and is otherwise vacant; adjacent properties include numerous single-family homes and subdivisions, existing and planned multi-family projects, planned commercial uses, and a school; and wetlands are located in the northwest corner of the subject property; (c) data showing that the type of development on the property will be a concrete batch plant; (d) data showing that the amendment will "result in a significant decrease in potential demands on all City infrastructure systems" (potable water, sewer, solid waste, recreation/open space, drainage, and traffic) because it will eliminate potential future demands for residential units that would otherwise be allowed on the RR property; (e) data reflecting that the change in land use is compatible and suitable with adjacent lands because the proposed facility is "not adjacent to any homes, schools or other similar uses," and the adjacent properties are owned by B & H; (f) data showing that the site is generally level with an average elevation of 100 feet; (g) data in the Soil Survey of Okaloosa County, Florida indicating that the soil "is suited for the planned use and development of the subject property"; (h) data reflecting that there is "a small area with wetland soils" in the northwest corner of the property which will not be developed; and (i) data indicating that there are no historic and archeological resources on the property. The consultant also reviewed the current Plan to determine if the plan amendment was consistent with all relevant provisions and concluded that the "amendment is consistent with and furthers the adopted Comprehensive Plan." He added that at the same time the small-scale amendment was being considered, the City was also considering a set of large-scale amendments to its Plan (presumably to the FLUM), and the data and analysis used for those amendments provide further support for the amendment being challenged. However, the nature of the large- scale amendments, and their underlying data and analysis, are not of record or otherwise identified. Finally, the City did not perform a concurrency analysis since it says that the Department no longer requires one at the amendment stage and instead defers that task until the development process begins. Whether the City specifically considered the concerns noted in the County's staff report recommending a denial of the land use change is not clear. However, the staff report discounted the notion that the amendment would encourage urban sprawl (or "spot zoning" in the words of the County staff report) since it promotes urban infill development. In response to a criticism by Petitioner, at hearing the City's consultant utilized further data from City sources, presumably available at the time the amendment was adopted, which indicate that the total available capacity for new customer usage from the City's water system is 3.2 million gallons per day, or far more than is necessary to meet the water requirements related to the proposed industrial usage. Without providing specifics, the consultant also opined that if the County is called upon to provide water to the site, as B & H now intends, it likewise has sufficient capacity to do so. In analyzing the impacts on infrastructure, the City assumed that a change from RR to IN, and the placement of a concrete batch plant on the property, would "result in a significant decrease in potential demands on all City infrastructure systems." The more persuasive evidence shows, however, that when comparing the new traffic that would be generated by potential residential units on the property versus a concrete batch plan, the latter would probably generate an increase of at least 110 vehicle trips per day, most by heavy trucks, which is more than five times the number of trips used in the City's analysis. In contrast, the staff report stated that the projected demands from development of the plant "[i]n theory, [could result in] up to 20 trucks trips per day" but this high a number was "not likely." In this respect, the data being used and analyzed were not correct or were incomplete, and the City's assumptions drawn from that data were flawed. Thus, as to these impacts, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Although the staff report also failed to reflect the increased water usage that would be generated by the concrete batch plant, at hearing the City relied upon available data to show that both the City and County had sufficient capacity to provide water service for the plant. To a certain degree, compatibility and suitability overlap one another. "Compatibility" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23) as "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." This criterion is used to evaluate whether the proposed industrial land use is compatible with the uses on nearby or adjacent properties. On the other hand, subsection (128) of the rule defines "suitability" as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." This criterion requires a determination of whether the industrial land use category is suitable in this particular area, given the existing characteristics of the land. After reviewing and analyzing data on the issue of suitability and compatibility, the City concluded that because B & H owned all the lands around the site (except on the northern boundary which adjoined I-10), "adverse issues [not otherwise identified in the report] associated with compatibility should be minimized." To further support its finding of suitability and compatibility, the report went on to state that the subject property "is not adjacent to any homes, schools or other similar uses." While the data used by the City (such as the FLUM map) were adequate, the City did not react to it in an appropriate manner. The City is correct in concluding that a change to an industrial land use category may be suitable on land where a non-conforming borrow pit already exists. However, because the proposed industrial use is in "relative proximity" to rural residential land on three of its sides, a large residential subdivision that begins no more than 200 yards away, an access road used by numerous heavy trucks which lies only 140 feet south of the subdivision, and a single outlet for all traffic exiting the subdivision, school, and B & H property, it is fair to infer that there will be a direct or indirect negative impact on those adjacent or nearby uses in contravention of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(123). In this respect, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. The City's recognition of the wetlands area on the subject property, and its finding in the report that such lands would be protected if development occurs, constitutes sufficient data and analysis and appropriate reaction thereto to satisfy the statute and rule. Petitioner also contends there was no analysis related to the fact that Point Center Road, the private road used to access the parcel, crosses wetlands "at the bottom of the hills," and the wetlands will be impacted by the change. As pointed out at hearing, however, the road has been there "forever," and filling of the adjacent wetlands occurred many years ago, or long before B & H acquired the property. Other than paving the road if the land change is approved, no other "filling" will occur, and the City's assessment of this matter was sufficient. All other contentions by Petitioner regarding the lack of sufficient data and analysis to support the amendment have been considered and rejected. Financial Feasibility Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, requires that "the comprehensive plan shall be financially feasible." Relying upon this statute, Petitioner contends that the City failed to analyze whether the amendment was financially feasible. According to Petitioner's expert, when a FLUM change is made, a financial feasibility analysis must be made, which requires that the local government make a facility-based analysis to demonstrate whether the local government has sufficient capacity for the change. Specifically, she argues that there is no commitment from the County to provide water, and that the City did not analyze whether the City or County has the capacity to provide sufficient water to serve a concrete batch plant. Although the staff report addresses this issue in summary fashion and without specifics, at hearing the City's planning consultant testified, without contradiction, that the total available capacity from the City's water system is 3.2 million gallons per day, or far more than is necessary to meet the potential water requirements of a concrete batch plant on the site. He also opined, without contradiction, that if the County is called upon to provide the water, it likewise has sufficient capacity to do so. Based upon this analysis of available data, it is found that financial feasibility was adequately addressed by the city. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioner next contends that the City did not evaluate and coordinate the amendment with the County, as required by Section 163.3177(4)(a), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015, and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) of the City's Plan. The statute provides in part that "[c]oordination of the local comprehensive plan with the comprehensive plans of . . . the county . . . shall be a major objective of the comprehensive planning process." The two most relevant provisions in the Plan on this subject, both very general in nature, are ICE Goal 13.A., which states that a goal of the Plan is to "[p]rovide coordination of this plan (ordinance) with Okaloosa County, other local governments (as appropriate) and other governmental agencies providing services within the City[,]" and ICE Objective 13.A.1., which provides that the City shall "review, on an annual basis, actions that have taken place to coordinate the Comprehensive Plan of Crestview with the Plans of other units of government and the Okaloosa County School Board." Although the County was given constructive notice of B & H's annexation request through the publication of a notice in a local newspaper on July 7, 2007, there is no evidence that the County was given specific notice that an application for a change in the FLUM had been filed by B & H and was being processed by the City, or that the County was afforded an opportunity to provide input into that process, if it chose to do so. Given the unique circumstances here, coordination is especially important since the subject property is surrounded on three sides by County land designated as RR with Agricultural zoning, the requested change would create a small industrial pocket in the middle of County RR land, and the County staff had just prepared a report recommending denial of the same change before the City annexed the property. While the cited statute, rule, and Plan provisions clearly do not contemplate that adjacent local governments have veto power over the City's ability to enact plan amendments, or that the City is required to accept alternative suggestions proposed by other entities, at a minimum they contemplate that notice of changes be given to adjacent local governments, and that those local governments be afforded the right to offer input, if any, prior to consideration of the amendment. See, e.g., City of West Palm Beach et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case Nos. 04-4336GM, 04-4337GM, and 04-4650GM, 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 192 at *34-35 (DOAH July 18, 2005, DCA Oct. 21, 2005). Because there was no coordination here, even minimal, the adoption of the plan amendment contravened the cited statute, rule, and ICE Goal 13.A. Internal Consistency Petitioner next argues that, contrary to the requirement in Section 163.3187(2), Florida Statutes, that there be "internal consistency" within a plan, the amendment is inconsistent with the Plan in the following respects: quality of life (Legal Element Section 1.04); compatibility (FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c.); school siting (FLUE Policy 7.A.9.1.); and wetlands impacts (Conservation Element Goal 11.A and Objective 11.A.2.). Petitioner first contends that the amendment is inconsistent with the stated general intent and purpose of the Plan, which is found in Section 1.04 of the Plan's Legal Element. That Element contains a "whereas" clause, the Plan's title, jurisdiction for adopting the Plan, the City Council's intent in adopting the Plan, and its effective date. The Element indicates that it is intended to implement Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.001, which sets forth the broad purposes of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5. Section 1.04 provides in relevant part that the Plan is intended to "maintain and improve the quality of life for all citizens of the City" and to protect and promote the "public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens." This salutary language is so broad and aspirational in nature that the undersigned does not construe it, or other provisions in the Legal Element, as an appropriate basis for finding an amendment not in compliance. Petitioner's argument is accordingly rejected. Petitioner also argues that the amendment is inconsistent with the Plan's requirement that compatibility of adjacent land uses be ensured. FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c. appears to be the only Plan provision specifically dealing with this issue and it provides that the LDC shall contain detailed provisions to "ensure compatibility of adjacent land uses." B & H and the City take the position that during the zoning and development phase of the process (rather than during the plan amendment stage) the LDC would be used to ensure compatibility, as required by the Plan. However, the issue of compatibility was analyzed by the City and presented to the City Council, and the staff report contains an entire section on compatibility and suitability. See Finding of Fact 30, supra; § 1, pages 3-4, Joint Exhibit E. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider at the plan amendment stage whether the change in land use is compatible with adjacent or nearby properties. As noted earlier, Antioch Estates is a low-density residential subdivision directly to the east of the B & H parcel. At its closest point, the subject property is around 200 yards from the subdivision. The distance from the subdivision to the proposed concrete batch plant is less than a quarter-mile. At the same time, the road over which the heavy trucks will travel to and from the industrial site is no more than 140 feet south of the southern boundary of the subdivision, and the connecting road eventually terminates at an outlet onto Antioch Road shared by traffic from the subdivision and school. Finally, B & H acknowledges that the proposed change here is a precursor to a request for annexation of the larger parcel into the City and a change in the land use on the larger parcel (except for the land fill) to industrial. This would leave the Enzor property (which is only 70 feet wide) as the sole remaining RR buffer with Antioch Estates. Given these considerations, the change in land use will not "[e]nsure compatibility of adjacent land uses," as required by FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2. Finally, Petitioner contends that the amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 7.A.9.1.1., which provides that a "proposed school location shall be compatible with existing and projected uses of adjacent property." (Emphasis added). Since the Antioch Elementary School already exists, it appears that this provision has no application. For the same reason, Petitioner's contention that the amendment contravenes Section 1013.36(3), Florida Statutes, is also rejected. That statute requires that a new school should not be sited adjacent to factories or other properties from which noise, odors, or other disturbances would be likely to interfere with the educational program. While compatibility issues with existing schools are relevant when a map change is being made, they can only be considered in the context of Plan provisions which directly apply to those issues. Summary In summary, because the amendment involves a use of more than 10 acres, it does not meet the criteria in Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes; the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis with respect to impacts on infrastructure (traffic) and compatibility; the amendment contravenes the statutory, rule, and Plan requirement that it be coordinated with other local governments; and it is internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 7.A.1.2.c., which requires compatibility of adjacent uses. All other contentions raised by Petitioner have been considered and rejected.
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 small-scale development amendment adopted by the City by Ordinance No. 1370 on November 26, 2007, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2008.
The Issue Whether the 14 applications (application numbers 54481 through 54494) for the eight sign structures (six double-sided and two single-sided) adjacent to Interstate Route 95 and the Florida Turnpike within the City of Port St. Lucie should be granted or denied by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner’s Applications Petitioner’s applications are for sign structures at eight different locations within the City of Port St. Lucie (the City). Six of the structures are two-sided sign structures and two are single-sided sign structures. Petitioner’s 14 applications were received by Respondent on July 1, 2003. The applications were completed in accordance with Respondent's Rules. Respondent’s original Notices of Denied Application were dated and mailed out July 29, 2003, and were received by Petitioner on August 1, 2003. Petitioner filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on August 21, 2003. On December 2, 2003, Respondent issued amended notices of denied application on each of the 14 applications. Referral of the Petitions to the DOAH was delayed at the request of Petitioner. All Sign Sites are Located in a Commercial or Industrial Zone. The sites upon which the proposed sign structures will be erected are located on parcels that have been zoned commercial or industrial. The parcels where the proposed sign structures will be erected have been designated “Utility” by the City’s Future Land Use Map and have been designated “Utility” under its Land Development Regulations. The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes the “Utility” land use as a category of Industrial land use. The City’s Land Development Regulations include the “Utility” land use category under Article IX, Industrial Districts. The sign sites are designed to correspond to the parcels of land designated in the City’s Zoning Book, as follows: Application No. 54487 is located at site 7-1, on Parcel 7. Application Nos. 404708 & 404710 are located at site 35-2, on Parcel 35. Application Nos. 404701 & 404702 are located at site 35-5, on Parcel 35. Application Nos. 404697 & 404699 are located at site 35-6, on Parcel 35. Application Nos. 404705 & 404706 are located at site 35-7, on Parcel 35. Application No. 404698 is located at site 41-2 on Parcel No. 41. Application Nos. 404704 & 404704 are located at site 46-1, on Parcel 46. Application Nos. 404707 & 404709 are located at site 48-1, on Parcel 48. The certified statements of the City’s zoning official establish that the sign sites are each located in a commercial or industrial zone. All applications submitted by Petitioner were submitted on Respondent's forms, which have been incorporated into Respondent’s rules by reference. Page 2 of 2 of each application submitted by Petitioner included a section to be completed by a City zoning official, and each provided as follows: To be completed by appropriate zoning official: Designation of parcel on the Future Land Use Map: UTILITY, WHICH IS AN INDUSTRIAL LAND USE CATEGORY. The primary land uses under this designation are: DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATING MAJOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STORM WATER SYSTEMS, WATER AND WASTEWATER PLANTS, ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AND TRANSMISSION AND STORM WATER RIGHTS-OF-WAY, TELEPHONE SWITCHING STATIONS. Current Zoning of parcel (from Land Development Regulations): UTILITY, WHICH IS AN INDUSTRIAL LAND USE CATEGORY. The primary land uses under this designation are: UTILITIES FACILITIES, STORM WATER SYSTEMS, WATER AND WASTEWATER PLANTS, ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES, TELEPHONE, CABLE TELEVISION AND SIMILAR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES. Sign located within city limits? _X_ Yes No Please provide the name and telephone number of the person the Department may contact if additional information is required: I certify that the above information reflects the designation of the parcel as it is shown on the current comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and with all local governmental requirements, and that I am authorized to sign this form on behalf of the county/municipality named above: Cheryl S. Friend ________ Signature of Local Government Official Cheryl S. Friend, Asst. Director of P&Z Printed Name and Title 5/22/03 Date The testimony of Petitioner’s expert witness established that the proposed sign sites are each located in a commercial or industrial zone. Edward Williams was accepted in this case as an expert in planning and zoning, and he has over 28 years' experience in applying planning and zoning principles. He has been a[0]ccepted as an expert in planning and zoning in Florida courts in over 30 counties. Williams [0]testified that he reviewed the issue of whether the parcels where signs are to be located are within commercial or industrial zones and concluded that they were[0]. [0] Williams reviewed the Future Land Use Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which plainly defines "Utility" as an industrial land use. [0]The City’s zoning code also shows Utility zoning as an industrial use. [0]The City decided it was appropriate, considering all factors, to adopt a utility zoning category as a part of the industrial use classification because of the nature of the community. Williams concluded that, based on the actual uses identified under the various land use categories designated by the City, the City correctly placed the "Utility" category under the industrial land use category. [0]9. The Utility category under the City's Future Land Use Element and Land Development Regulations is intended for facilities that are larger than those that serve residential areas. They are more significant than just service lines. 10. Long-established land use classification systems utilized by planners to classify land use, and which are based on the activities performed and their impact on other properties and other uses, show that the proposed sign sites are located in commercial or industrial zones. These long-established land use classification systems have been used by local governments in Florida[0] to prepare comprehensive plans, land development regulations, and zoning maps. An evaluation of all of these classification systems shows that utilities are listed in the heavy commercial and in the industrial type categories. By their nature, by their use, and by their compatibility issues, they are commercial and industrial uses.[0][0] [0]11. The utility uses described under the City’s Future Land Use Element and its Land Development Regulations do meet the definition of industrial uses in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(58). The public considers those utility uses to be industrial uses. The unchallenged statements of the City’s “zoning official” and Williams’ expert testimony establish that each sign site is located on a parcel of land designated for commercial or industrial use under both the Future Land Use Map of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Land Development Regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (2003).1 John Garner’s contention that the uses authorized under the “Utility” designation are not commercial or industrial uses is not consistent with the land use planning principles or land use classification systems used as the basis for comprehensive planning in Florida. Garner has misapprehended the nature and patterns of industrial development in Florida. His description of industrial development is incorrect, to the extent that Florida's industrial uses are of a less heavy and dirty type typical of heavy industrial states and are more easily integrated with commercial and residential areas. Security is an issue for industrial uses in some areas of the state, and they are fenced in, but this is not common in the current development of industrial parks, where security is provided at the building, not the roads or perimeter. Though providing a general description of the nature of industrial uses in Florida that emphasized controlled access, heavy traffic, and the like, Garner acknowledged that industrial uses can be stand alone locations on a single lot. Comprehensive planning in Florida is accomplished under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The general purpose of the future land use element of a comprehensive plan is to reflect the local government’s long-range vision of how a community should develop and where certain uses are going to develop. From a planning standpoint, it is inappropriate to direct Respondent to review comprehensive plans and land development regulations to identify permitted uses on a parcel, but ignore technical planning and zoning principles in favor of lay definitions. Respondent works closely with the Department of Community Affairs and should be consistent in how it applies planning principles. Respondent’s Uniform Interpretation of Subsection 479.01(3), Florida Statutes According to Garner, Respondent interprets the terms “commercial or industrial use” found in Subsection 479.01(3), Florida Statutes, as those words are “commonly understood,” rather than as applied in land development regulations. Garner uses the layman’s everyday interpretation of the term "industrial" when applying the term. Respondent has a uniform interpretation of Subsection 479.01(3), Florida Statutes, under which it utilizes an everyday lay definition of commercial or industrial zone, rather than a technical planning and zoning approach. Garner’s opinion that the sign sites were not designated as industrial uses was based on this uniform interpretation. That interpretation is not reflected in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-10. Commercial or Industrial Zoning Not Enacted Primarily to Permit Signs The testimony of Petitioner’s expert witness is persuasive that the commercial or industrial zoning of the proposed sign sites was not enacted primarily to permit signs. According to Garner, Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 10.0052(2)(a) is not triggered if commercial or industrial uses are the primary permitted uses. There is no problem under that portion of the rule if the allowed uses for a parcel are commercial or industrial in nature. Similarly, Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.0052(2)(b) is not triggered if commercial or industrial uses are the primary permitted uses. The industrial uses authorized under the City’s Future Land Use Map and its Land Development Regulations are primary permitted uses and not incidental to other primary uses or permitted only by variance or special exception. Such uses are expressly permitted under the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. As applied by Respondent, in order for zoning of a parcel to run afoul of Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 10.0052(2)(c), both factors in that portion of the rule must exist; that is, both the physical dimensions or other attributes of the affected parcel would not reasonably accommodate traditional commercial or industrial uses and the area surrounding the affected parcel is not predominantly commercial or industrial. Williams e[0]valuated whether the dimensions or other attributes of the parcels would accommodate traditional industrial uses and [0]concluded that traditional commercial and industrial uses could be accommodated on the parcels. His conclusions are persuasive. There are many possible commercial or industrial uses that can be accommodated on all of the parcels at issue in this case, including warehousing, equipment storage yards, material storage yards, and small manufacturing facilities. The utility uses designated for these parcels are one of the types of industrial uses that could be accommodated on these parcels. However, regardless of that fact, a full range of industrial uses, including warehousing, manufacturing facilities, and storage facilities, can be accommodated on these parcels. The sizes or configurations of these parcels do not preclude their development for commercial and industrial uses in the traditional sense. Lots in the 50 to 60-foot range can accommodate traditional commercial and industrial uses, including regular warehouses, fabrication yards, contractor yards, equipment yards, and material yards. A review of the City's Land Development Regulations shows that there are no restrictions that would prevent industrial uses on these parcels. It is not unusual to see industrial development on parcels the size and shape of those on which the signs are proposed to be located. Many of these parcels are actually quite large in size. They are oddly configured as a result of platting and construction of roads, but not so oddly configured that they couldn't be developed for commercial or industrial uses. Garner offered the opinion that none of the parcels upon which the sign sites were located would accommodate traditional industrial uses. However, Garner has had no direct experience in the ownership, proposal, permitting, development or operation of any commercial or industrial development in Florida. Garner was of the opinion that three of the parcels had size or shape problems, but admitted that the other parcels were large enough to physically accommodate industrial development. Garner admitted that essentially all of the parcels could be fenced for security and access control. Ultimately, the principal basis for Garner’s position that the parcels would not accommodate traditional industrial development was that it is not “appropriate” for industrial uses to obtain their access through residential streets. He testified that all but one parcel (containing Site No. 48-1) currently obtains access exclusively through residential streets. However, Garner did not know how much industrial development in Florida actually uses access through residential streets and was not personally familiar with actions of local zoning officials on requests by industrial developers to have access through residential streets. In order to determine whether these parcels can accommodate traditional commercial or industrial uses, it is necessary to consider the development history of Port St. Lucie, and platting by General Development Corporation, in the 1960's, that restricted the size and location of lots within the City. There are differences in typical commercial and industrial development in a rural versus urban/city setting. In a city, 2,000 square-foot lots are developable and are highly desirable. Commercial and industrial development can be found on lots as small as 30 feet wide, due to past platting, but commercial or industrial development on 50-foot lots is fairly standard. A review of the City’s Future Land Use Map shows that many existing commercial and industrial areas in the City have their access through residential areas. Preexisting plats prohibit access in any other way. [0]The reason that the City does not restrict access for industrial uses through residential areas is that the prior plats by General Development limited how the community could grow. Garner was not aware of any restriction under City codes that would restrict industrial development from using residential streets for access. He was not aware of any restriction that would prevent access for an industrial use from using residential streets, or whether the City has any problem with a developer bringing industrial traffic through a residential area. In fact, there are no restrictions under the City’s Land Development Regulations against industrial uses having their access through residential areas. The reason that there are no such restrictions is revealed through the City’s Future Land Use Element. The City’s Future Land Use Element shows that the City is trying to increase its commercial/industrial acreage, provide jobs and employment opportunities and deal with the plats and roads its been given. The General Development plat and the extension of the interstate and turnpike system have seriously constrained how the community can develop. The City’s Future Land Use Element recognizes that there is insufficient commercial and industrial development in the City and attempts to increase that through the planning process. The commercial or industrial zoning of the parcels was not enacted primarily to permit signs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order granting the 14 applications (application numbers 54481 through 54494) for outdoor advertising sign permits submitted by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 3rd day of January, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Plan Amendment No. 04-4 adopted by Ordinance No. 647 on October 5, 2004, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Intevernor owns a 31.4-acre tract of land in Martin County several miles southwest of Jupiter, east of Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike, and slightly more than one mile west of U.S. Highway 1. On the southern half of the property is an existing cemetery, Riverside Memorial Park, Inc. (the Cemetery), which has been in place since 1901 and is used for interments. The northern half of the land is completely undeveloped and contains native vegetation, including sand pine scrub and pine flatwoods. (If the land use change is approved, besides continuing in-ground burials and constructing mausoleum buildings on the vacant part of the land, Intervenor apparently intends to construct a funeral home. This intended use, and the possibility of others, has triggered the filing of the challenge by Petitioner.) The Cemetery is bordered on the east by a developed residential neighborhood, Tropic Vista; on the north by a platted but largely undeveloped residential area, Hyland Terrace, and the Jonathan Dickinson State Park (State Park); and on the south by Southeast County Road, which runs along the Martin County-Palm Beach County boundary line. Another residential neighborhood lies just south of that road in Palm Beach County. The County's existing Plan was adopted in 1990. Since that time, the Cemetery has been designated on the FLUM as Institutional, Public Conservation, which is defined in Section 4.4.M.1.h.(2) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan as follows: The Public Conservation category recognizes those publicly owned areas designed for conservation uses. Only development compatible with conservation and passive recreation uses shall be permitted in the Public Conservation category. This may include access, parking, and other facilities which make possible the management of the resource and the public's enjoyment of the resources. Conservation areas include, but are not limited to, the DuPuis Preserve in south Martin County and the Savannas in north Martin County. Enviromentally sensitive lands acquired by the County shall be reclassified to the Institutional-Conservation land use designation during the next plan amendment cycle. The State Park and most of the platted residential property to the north of the Cemetery (e.g., Hyland Terrace) are currently designated Public Conservation on the FLUM. The remainder of the property to the north and the neighborhoods to the east and west of the property are designated Low Density Residential on the FLUM, which allows a maximum of five dwelling units per acre. The residential property to the south in Palm Beach County is also designated Low Density Residential under that County's future land use map. By application filed with the County in September 2003, Intervenor, who purchased the Cemetery in 1997, requested that the FLUM designation on the property be changed to General Institutional. That land use category is defined in Section 4.4.M.1.h.(3) of the FLUE as follows: The General Institutional category accommodates public and not-for-public facilities such as, but not limited to, schools, government buildings, civic centers, prisons, major stormwater facilities, fire and emergency operation center facilities, public cemeteries, hospitals, publicly owned public water and sewer systems, dredge spoil management sites, and airports. Investor owned regional public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries may be allowed in General Institutional. Lands acquired by the County for General Institutional uses shall be reclassified to the Institutional- General land use designation during the next plan amendment cycle. Lands or property rights acquired by the Florida Inland Navigation District as future dredge spoil management sites shall be reclassified to the Institutional-General land use designation during the next plan amendment cycle. (Emphasis added) Concurrently with this change, Intervenor also requested a zoning change on the parcel from Public Service to Public Service-2 (PS-2). However, the County denied that requested change in zoning. On February 19, 2004, the Local Planning Agency (LPA) voted 5-0 to recommend approval of Intervenor's request. On April 4, 2004, the County voted to accept the LPA's recommendation. On May 7, 2004, a transmittal package consisting of 13 amendments, including Plan Amendment No. 04- 4, was transmitted to the Department for its review. In an Objections, Recommendation, and Comments Report (ORC) issued on July 9, 2004, the Department had no objections to, or recommendations for, Plan Amendment No. 04-4 and made only the following brief comments regarding that amendment: The change would correct an inappropriate designation given the site previously and would allow the continued use of the site for cemetery use. Adjacent properties will be protected through buffering, landscaping, and screening requirements. The proposed change is being made to correct an inappropriate land use designation on a well-established existing land use. After receiving the ORC, and making changes to certain amendments (but not Plan Amendment No. 04-4) to satisfy the Department's concerns, in a report dated August 10, 2004, the County staff recommended to the County that the modified package of amendments be approved. As to Plan Amendment No. 04-4, the County staff noted that "[t]he requested land use amendment meets the criteria to correct an inappropriate land use designation." The County scheduled the package of amendments for consideration at a meeting in September 2004. Due to Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, however, the matter was rescheduled to the following month. On October 5, 2004, by a 4-1 vote, the County enacted Ordinance No. 647, which adopted, among others, Plan Amendment No. 04-4. The revised package was then forwarded to the Department for its compliance review. The data and analyses presented by the County in support of the Plan Amendment included aerial photographs and detailed site maps; a review of past changes in future land use designations in the surrounding area; information about, and analysis of, environmental considerations including soils, wetlands, overall hydrology, plant and animal species, and impact on the adjoining State Park; a capital facilities impact analysis; a transportation analysis; a concurrency analysis, including impacts on public utilities, parks and recreation facilities, and fire and public safety facilities; an evaluation of the potential for contribution to urban sprawl; and an extensive review of compatibility with numerous goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan. Although Petitioner asserted at hearing that "the documentation of the applicant . . . [does not] support the purpose to correct an inappropriate land use designation," none of this data and analyses was factually contradicted by Petitioner. On November 29, 2004, the Department published its Notice in the Stuart News, a local newspaper of general circulation. On December 16, 2004, Petitioner, who resides in St. Lucie County and says she owns four plots within the Cemetery, filed her 19-page Petition raising a number of procedural and substantive allegations.2 At hearing, however, her testimony focused on the issues of whether Intervenor was required to secure the consent of all of the individual burial plot owners before it could file the application for a land use change; whether the plan amendment actually corrects an inappropriate land use designation, rather than being "a complex change from an actual passive land use of the historical cemetery"; whether the amendment comports with the requirements in Chapter 497, Florida Statutes, which governs funeral and cemetery services; and whether the proposed land use is compatible with the "passive" nature of the cemetery. Prior to the hearing, Petitioner did not assert that Intervenor was required to obtain the consent of all plot owners before filing its application with the County. Therefore, the issue has not been timely raised. Even it was, the issue is irrelevant to an in compliance determination, as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. That is to say, while ownership may bear on the issue of standing, it is not a consideration in determining whether a land use change is in compliance. Thus, the County (or even Intervenor for that matter) can initiate a change in land use, regardless of the ownership of the affected property. Likewise, issues regarding compliance with the requirements of Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, are not relevant here. Those matters should be raised with the agency responsible for administering funeral home and cemetery regulations. In the same vein, Petitioner's concern that the undeveloped portion of Intervenor's land may be used for a funeral home or another use allowed in the General Institutional category is not relevant to the issue of whether the amendment is in compliance. Compatibility concerns such as these can be addressed through relevant zoning and building code requirements and land development regulations. Finally, Petitioner has contended that the existing land use category, Institutional, Public Conservation, is appropriate for the Cemetery and that it is unnecessary to change that designation. To place this issue in proper perspective, it is necessary to go back to 1982, when the first County FLUM was adopted. At that time, there was only one institutional designation, which was assigned to all institutional property, both publicly and privately owned, including the Cemetery. When the 1990 Plan was adopted, however, the Department required that the County establish three categories of institutional property: Institutional General, Institutional Recreational, and Institutional, Public Conservation. Probably because the State Park, a County fire station, a missile tracking station, a mental health facility, and the Cemetery were all in the same area, through "oversight" the Public Conservation designation was inadvertently assigned to all of those parcels at that time, even though that designation was inappropriate for the privately-owned Cemetery. The existing designation, Institutional, Public Conservation, recognizes those "publicly owned areas designed for conservation uses." (Emphasis added) See § 4.4.M.1.h.(2). The category is specifically limited to "development compatible with conservation and passive recreation uses," such as "[e]nvironmentally sensitive lands." Id. One of its purposes is to protect natural areas, natural flora, and fauna. The new land use designation, General Institution, accommodates public and not-for-profit facilities, such as schools, government buildings, and civic centers. It also specifically includes private cemeteries. See § 4.4.M.1.h.(3). The Cemetery is not owned by any government or other public entity, but is entirely privately-owned, either by Intervenor, by a subsidiary corporate entity, or by the heirs to the deceased owners of individual cemetery plots. (Apparently, warranty deeds were given to purchasers of burial plots prior to 1985, and since that time, certificates of perpetual interment have been issued.) As such, the Cemetery appropriately falls within the General Institutional land use category. It is beyond fair debate that the land use Public Conservation land use is an inappropriate one for the Cemetery because the land use designation, by definition in the Plan, is intended only for "publicly owned areas designed for conservation uses." The Cemetery is neither publicly owned nor a conservation use of the land. It is beyond fair debate that the land use General Institutional is the only appropriate one for the Cemetery because that land use designation, by definition in the Plan, expressly provides that "private cemeteries may be allowed" in that category.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that Plan Amendment No. 04-4 adopted by Ordinance No. 647 on October 5, 2004, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Bradford County Board of County Commissioners should approve or deny an application to rezone a 12.76-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Highway 301 and County Road 18 in unincorporated Bradford County (“the Property”) from Residential, (Mixed) Single Family/Mobile Home (RSF/MH-1) to Commercial Intensive (CI).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Craig W. Patterson and Timothy Buffkin own the Property and are the applicants for the proposed re-zoning. Bradford County is the local government responsible for determining the land use designation and zoning classification for the Property and has adopted a comprehensive plan and LDRs which it amends from time to time. The Property The Property is a 12.76-acre parcel located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 301 (US 301) and County Road 18 (CR 18) in unincorporated Bradford County. US 301 is a four-lane divided principal arterial roadway, and CR 18 is a two-lane major collector roadway. The intersection has a traffic light and left turn lanes on US 301. This is the only intersection of a principal arterial road and a major collector road in unincorporated Bradford County. The Property is roughly rectangular, with approximately 1,240 linear feet fronting on US 301 (eastern boundary of the Property) and approximately 450 feet fronting on County Road 18 (northern boundary). The Property is not located within a flood-prone area and has little or no wetlands. Approximately a half mile to the east of the Property is Hampton Lake. The Property is relatively flat. The soils on the property are poorly drained soils, but not indicative of wetlands. The soils and topography of the property do not preclude its development with a system to control stormwater and drainage. Currently, the Property contains one single-family dwelling unit. The Property is bounded on the north by a commercial land use and single-family residences, on the east by vacant and commercial land use, on the south by vacant land, and on the west by vacant land and single-family residences. Current Zoning and Land Use Designations Before October 2004, the Property was designated on the County’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as “Residential Low Density,” which authorizes residential development at a density of less than or equal to two dwelling units per acre. On October 21, 2004, the County amended the FLUM to re-designate the Property as “Commercial.” However, the zoning for the Property remained “Residential, (Mixed) Single Family / Mobile Home (RSF/MH-1). The current zoning does not allow the types of uses appropriate under its Commercial land use designation. The Property is also located within an Urban Development Area which is defined in the Future Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan as an “area to which higher density agricultural, residential (single family, multi-family and mobile homes) and commercial and industrial uses are to be directed.” Within Urban Development Areas, lands classified as “Commercial” are to be used for the “sale, rental and distribution of products or performance of services, as well as public, charter and private elementary, middle and high schools.” Certain other uses may also be approved as special exceptions or special permits. Surrounding Land Uses A portion of the land to the north of the Property and all of the land immediately east are within the municipal boundaries of the City of Hampton. The City of Hampton has zoned property at the US 301/CR 18 intersection as “CG”, a commercial designation which includes all of the uses authorized under Bradford County’s CI zoning district. Within the past several years, a truck repair and auto parts facility was located and is still operating east of the Property, across US 301. Farther east, but bordering those commercial lands, a residential subdivision (Fox Hollow) is under development. The Requested Re-zoning The Applicants seek to re-zone the Property to Commercial Intensive (CI). Permitted principal uses and structures allowed within the CI zoning district are consistent with the types of commercial uses listed in the comprehensive plan for the Commercial land use designation, namely retail outlets for the sale of food, home furnishings, vehicles, etc.; service establishments such as barber shops, shoe repair shops, repair and service garages; medical or dental offices; and wholesaling. The CI zoning district is described as “intended for intensive, highly automotive-oriented uses that require a conspicuous and accessible location convenient to streets carrying large volumes of traffic and shall be located within commercial land use classifications on the [FLUM].” The Property meets the description of a conspicuous and accessible location that is convenient to streets carrying large volumes of traffic. Concurrency Management Assessment The requested re-zoning is a “straight” re-zoning request, meaning that the re-zoning is not associated with any particular proposed use. Future development of the site will be subject to development plan review and approval, pursuant to Article Fourteen of the County LDRs. A concurrency reservation is not available until final site plan approval. However, at the County’s request, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (NCFRPC) performed concurrency management assessments of the re-zoning in 2006 and again in 2008. In 2006, the NCFRPC provided the County with nonbinding concurrency determination that the applicable service levels would be met or exceeded for potable water (to be supplied by potable water wells); sanitary sewer (to be served by on-site septic tanks); solid waste; drainage; recreation; affordable housing; and historic resources. As to transportation facilities, the 2006 concurrency management assessment determined that the maximum potential development of the Property would generate 389 trips on US 301 at “PM peak hour.” When added to the then-existing PM peak hour trips, based on Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic count data, US 301 would continue to operate within the adopted level of service (LOS). Between 2006 and 2008, the adopted LOS standard for US 301 was raised from “C” to “B,” meaning that the governmental objective was changed to maintain a freer flow of traffic during evening peak traffic. Therefore, despite the reduction of “background” trips on US 301, the 2008 concurrency management assessment determined that maximum development of the Property would cause the new LOS “B” standard to be exceeded. Petitioners presented a traffic analysis based upon more recent FDOT traffic count data than was used by the NCFRPC for its 2008 concurrency management assessment. The newer data showed a further decline in background trips on US 301, so that adding the maximum potential trips from the Property would no longer result in total PM peak hour trips that would exceed the adopted LOS standard. Petitioners’ more recent data and analysis is professionally acceptable and should be used. At the time of site plan review for any future development of the Property, an updated concurrency assessment will be required and will be based on the number of trips generated by the actual proposed use, rather than the trips that would be generated by the maximum development potential of the Property. The assessment will also use the most current FDOT traffic count data. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses The County’s Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the application for re-zoning at its July 10, 2006, meeting. It recommended denial of the re-zoning based upon the impact of the proposed change upon living conditions in the neighborhood. As factual support for the recommended denial, the Planning and Zoning Board’s report cites “all comments received during the said public hearing and the Concurrency Management Assessment concerning said application.” At the August 19, 2008, public hearing held before the Administrative Law Judge, members of the public expressed concern that the CI zoning would be incompatible with the existing residential development to the west, in the Hampton Lake area. Some members of the public also expressed concern about possible future uses of the Property, such as a truck stop or bar. Package stores for the sale of alcoholic beverages, bars, taverns, cocktail lounges, truck stops and automotive service stations can only be approved as special exception uses in the CI zoning district. Special exception uses require approval of the County’s Board of Adjustment after a public hearing, upon a finding that granting the special exception use would promote the “public health, safety, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, propriety or the general welfare.” The Board of Adjustment must also determine that the special exception use would be compatible with adjacent properties. A favorable decision here on the requested re-zoning to CI is not a determination that a bar or truck stop on the Property would be compatible with the adjacent residential area. The LDRs impose site use and design criteria for commercial uses that adjoin residential districts. Site plan approval for commercial developments in CI zoning districts requires the consideration of landscape buffers, height restrictions, off-street parking requirements, lot coverage and yard standards. These development conditions are designed to minimize impacts to adjacent residential areas. Stormwater Some of the speakers at the public hearing expressed concern about stormwater runoff from the Property. One speaker, Michael Davis, testified that stormwater from the Property currently flows across his property. Another expressed concern that runoff from the Property would flow directly to Hampton Lake. On-site stormwater retention facilities would be required for the Property in conjunction with its development. The LDRs require that post-development runoff rates not exceed pre-development conditions. The objective of the required stormwater runoff controls is to approximate the rate, volume, quality, and timing of stormwater runoff that occurred under the site’s unimproved or existing state. There is no basis, at this stage of analysis, to determine that the County’s stormwater regulations are not adequate to prevent adverse stormwater impacts to adjacent residences or to Hampton Lake. Traffic on CR 18 Several speakers expressed concerns regarding increased traffic on CR 18. Petitioners conducted a site-specific traffic count for CR 18 east of US 301 and determined that the peak hour trips are now 131. The capacity for CR 18 is approximately 600. Based upon the total of 389 additional trips generated by the maximum potential development of the Property (on either US 301 or CR 18), the adopted LOS standard for CR 18 would not be exceeded. Petitioners demonstrated that the proposed re-zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the LDRs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Bradford County Board of County Commissioners approve the requested re-zoning. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Norman, Clerk of the Board Bradford County Board of County Commissioners 945 North Temple Avenue Starke, Florida 32091 Marcia Parker Tjoflat, Esquire Charles L. Gibbs, Esquire Pappas Metcalf Jenks & Miller, P.A. 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William E. Sexton, Esquire Brown & Broling 486 N. Temple Avenue Starke, Florida 32091
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 843, 845 (as amended by Ordinance No. 847), 846, 847, 851, 853, and 854 are “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is charged with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments and to determine whether they are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in the Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Martin County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time. Groves Holdings, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company. Groves Holdings, LLC operates a real estate management and investment business in the County that manages the leasing, entitlement, and disposition of lands owned by its related subsidiaries Groves 12, LLC, and Groves 14, LLC. Groves 12, LLC, and Groves 14, LLC, are Florida limited liability companies wholly owned by Groves Holdings, LLC. Groves 12, LLC, owns 2,800 acres of citrus grove. Groves 14, LLC, owns 1,700 acres of land being developed as a residential community and equestrian club known as Hobe Sound Polo Club. The land owned by Groves 12, LLC, is located in the rural area of the County, approximately one mile from the closest boundary of an urban service district. The land being developed by Groves 14, LLC, is also located in the rural area. Groves 14, LLC, also owns 450 acres not being developed that are located partially within the rural area and partially within an urban service district The Groves submitted written comments regarding the Plan Amendments to the County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. Donna Melzer and Eliza Ackerly each owns real property in and resides in Martin County. Melzer and Ackerly each submitted comments regarding the Plan Amendments to the County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. MCCA is a not-for-profit Florida corporation incorporated in 1997 for the purposes of conserving the natural resources of Martin County, and maintaining and improving the quality of life for residents of the County. Its members include individuals and corporate and non-corporate entities. A substantial number of its members reside, own property, or operate a business in Martin County. MCCA engages primarily in lobbying, public advocacy, and litigation in Martin County regarding the CGMP. MCCA conducts membership meetings, sends a newsletter to members and others, and sometimes hosts meetings open to the general public. MCCA is also involved in environmental preservation activities in Martin County, including educational meetings, field trips, and lobbying for public purchase of lands for conservation. No evidence was presented to show that MCCA owns property in the County, maintains an office in the County, or holds a business or occupational license. MCCA submitted comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments, on behalf of its members, during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. Hereafter, MCCA, Donna Melzer, and Eliza Ackerly will be referred to collectively as MCCA. The Plan Amendments Section 163.3191(1), Florida Statutes, requires each local government to conduct an evaluation and appraisal of its comprehensive plan every seven years and to prepare an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (“EAR”). Martin County initiated its second evaluation and appraisal process in 2007, culminating in the adoption of an EAR in July 2008. Section 163.3191(10), Florida Statutes, requires a local government to adopt comprehensive plan amendments based on the recommendations in the EAR in a single amendment cycle within 18 months after adopting the EAR. The County’s proposed EAR-based amendments were sent to the Department in September 2009. The Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (“ORC”) Report the next month. After considering and responding to the ORC Report, the County adopted Ordinance Nos. 842 through 856 on December 16, 2009, amending all the elements of the CGMP. The Department reviewed the Plan Amendments and determined that a new “Essential Services Nodes” policy of the FLUE adopted by Ordinance No. 845 was not in compliance. The Department determined that all of the other amendments adopted by Martin County were in compliance. The County adopted Ordinance No. 857, which rescinded the Essential Services Nodes policy to which the Department had objected. The decision to rescind the policy was made unilaterally by the County. The rescission was not pursuant to a compliance agreement with the Department. Based on the County’s rescission of the Essential Services Nodes policy, the Department determined that Ordinance No. 845, as amended by Ordinance No. 857, was in compliance. All of the Plan Amendments are text amendments. The Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) is not changed. Urban Service Districts The CGMP establishes urban service districts (USDs) in the County. There is an Eastern USD and an Indiantown USD. These USDs are subdivided into a primary USD and a secondary USD. About 87 percent of the County’s population resides east of the Florida Turnpike in the Eastern USDs. The Indiantown USDs, which are west of the Florida Turnpike, are separated from the Eastern USDs by more than 20 miles of mostly agricultural lands. The primary purpose of the USDs is to prevent urban sprawl by directing growth to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available or are programmed to be available at appropriate levels of service. The provision of urban public facilities and services is generally limited to USDs. The term “public urban facilities and services” is defined in the CGMP as “regional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network.” Under FLUE Policy 4.7A.2, urban development, including commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and urban residential land uses may only be located within the Primary USDs. FLUE Policy 4.7B.1 permits low density residential use (half-acre lots or greater) in the Secondary USD. No urban or suburban uses and no utility services such as water and sewer may extend outside the USD boundaries. Most of the lands outside the Primary and Secondary USDs are designated Agricultural, but there are also lands designated Public Conservation and Public Utilities. MCCA’s Issues Section 1.10 Chapter 1 of the CGMP is entitled “Preamble” and addresses general topics such as the legal status of the CGMP, the continuing evaluation of the CGMP, and amending the CGMP. The Preamble contains no goals, objectives, or policies. MCCA objects to a sentence in Section 1.10 of the Preamble, adopted by Ordinance No. 843, which states, “This Plan shall be adopted by ordinance and shall supersede the 1990 Comprehensive Plan and all related amendments.” MCCA contends that this sentence will create problems and confusion if some of the Plan Amendments are determined to be in compliance, but other amendments are determined to be not in compliance. There is no confusion. The reference to “This Plan” in Section 1.10 is reasonably interpreted to refer to the entire CGMP, as amended by the latest EAR-based amendments that are either already in effect or will become effective following the conclusion of these consolidated cases.2/ Chapter 2 Definitions MCCA objects to several definitions added in Chapter 2 of the CGMP, but the evidence presented does not show an internal consistency or other "in compliance" issue. FLUE Goal 4.7 MCCA objects to the changes in FLUE Goal 4.4G, which would be re-designated Goal 4.7. Existing Goal 4.4G states: 4.4G Goal (encourage urban development in urban service areas) Martin County shall regulate urban sprawl tendencies by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available, or are programmed to be available, at the levels of service adopted in this Growth Management Plan. (italics in original) New Goal 4.7 states: Goal 4.7. To regulate urban sprawl by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to areas with urban public facilities and services, where they are programmed to be available, at the levels of service adopted in this Plan. (italics in original) MCCA contends that the removal of the word “shall” in the new goal “removes the mandatory restriction.” The County did not intend to make a substantive change to Goal 4.4G. In this particular context, the removal of the word “shall” does not require a different interpretation or application of the goal. It is not a substantive change. FLUE Policy 4.12A.2 MCCA’s major objection to Ordinance No. 845 is with new FLUE Policy 4.12A.2. Most of the objections raised by MCCA to other changes in the CGMP are directly related to MCCA's objection to Policy 4.12A.2. MCCA contends that this new policy, which allows “small-scale service establishments” outside the USDs, fails to include reasonable controls on commercial development and will adversely affect agricultural uses and the quality of life of rural residents.3/ Policy 4.12A.2 states: Restrictions outside urban service districts. Outside urban service districts, development options shall be restricted to low-intensity uses, including Agricultural lands, not exceeding one unit per 20 gross acres; Agricultural Ranchette lands not exceeding one unit per five gross acres; and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses. (italics in original) Martin County contends that this policy is not a substantive change because nearly the same wording already exists as Section 4.6.D.4 in a part of the FLUE entitled “Implementation Strategies,” and the section was merely re- located and re-designated as Policy 4.12A.2. Section 4.6.D.4 provides: Development outside the urban services district shall be restricted to low intensive development in order to promote cost-effective practices in the delivery of public services. Outside Urban Service Districts development options shall be restricted to low intensity uses including agriculture and agricultural ranchettes, not exceeding one unit per 5 gross acres, and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses as provided by section 6.4.A.5.e., Housing Service Zones in the Housing Element. (italics in original) The reference in this policy to Housing Service Zones is an error. Sometime in the past, the County deleted provisions in the CGMP regarding Housing Service Zones, but overlooked this particular reference. Comparing Section 4.6.D.4 with new Policy 4.12A.2, the significant changes appear to be that Section 4.6.D.4 is transformed from a “strategy” to a “policy,” and the new policy no longer ties small-scale service establishments to Housing Service Zones. However, the determination of whether a substantive change was made in the replacement of Section 4.6.D.4 with new Policy 4.12A.2 also requires consideration of Policy 4.4.G.1.e, which states: Martin County shall provide reasonable and equitable options for development outside of Primary Urban Service Districts, including agriculture and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses. Policy 4.4.G.1.e is already designated as a policy and it does not tie small-scale service establishments to Housing Service Zones. Therefore, although Section 4.6.D.4 differs from new Policy 4.12A.2, there is no substantive difference between new Policy 4.12A.2 and existing Policy 4.4.G.1.e. MCCA asserts that Policy 4.12A.2 and Policy 4.4.G.1.e differ substantively because the former does not have the “agricultural land use designation limits on uses allowed” that are in Policy 4.4.G.1.e. However, as shown above, both policies allow for small-scale service establishments that support rural uses as well as agricultural uses. In support of its arguments about small-scale service establishments, MCCA also points to existing FLUE Policy 4.4.G.1.b (re-designated Policy 4.7A.2) and “implementation strategy” 4.6.D.3 (to be deleted) which require commercial uses to be located in the Primary USDs. The policy and implementation strategy that restrict commercial uses to the Primary USDs co- exist in the CGMP with Policy 4.4.G.1.e, which allows small- scale service establishments outside the Primary USDs. Therefore, in whatever manner the County currently reconciles these policies and strategies, that reconciliation pre-dates the EAR-based amendments. The FLUE amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 845 do not alter the situation. MCCA refers to the County planning staff's report associated with another proposed plan amendment known as "Becker B-4" in support of MCCA's argument that the amendments at issue in the present case have substantively changed the FLUE with regard to small-scale service establishments. However, none of MCCA's allegations regarding the relevance of the Becker B-4 staff report are borne out. If the Becker B-4 amendment is adopted by the County, it will be subject to its own "in compliance" review. In summary, when all relevant provisions of the CGMP are taken into account, the changes made by Ordinance No. 845 that are related to small-scale service establishments are not substantive changes to the CGMP. MCCA’s claims of internal inconsistency that are based on MCCA’s objections to new Policy 4.12A.2 must also fail as unsupported by evidence of a substantive change. MCCA’s claim that the County did not demonstrate a need for more commercial uses outside the USDs (based on the allowance for small-scale service establishments) must also fail as unsupported by evidence of a substantive change. MCCA’s claim that the allowance for small-scale service establishments constitutes a failure of the County to discourage urban sprawl must also fail as unsupported by evidence of a substantive change. FLUE Policy 4.5F.4 MCCA objects to the changes to Policy 4.5F.4, which allows planned unit developments (PUDs) designed to preserve open space, environmentally sensitive lands, and agricultural land uses. These PUDs can be located in areas currently designated Agricultural and can include residential lots greater than two acres in size if certain criteria are met. MCCA contends that this policy is inconsistent with Policy 4.13A.1, which restricts residential densities in agricultural areas to 20-acre residential lots. The allowance in Policy 4.5F.4 for PUDs with residential lots smaller than 20 acres already exists. Therefore, in whatever manner the County currently reconciles Policies 4.5F.4 and 4.13A.1, that reconciliation pre-dates the EAR-based amendments. The FLUE amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 845 do not alter the situation. Furthermore, a PUD created under Objective 4.5F requires a plan amendment. It appears that one of the purposes of this requirement is to re-designate any agricultural lands to a residential future land use designation.4/ FLUE Objective 4.7A MCCA objects to the removal of the word “shall” from existing FLUE Objective 4.4.G.1 (which would be re-designated as Objective 4.7A). MCCA argues that the existing objective prohibits commercial uses outside the Primary USDs and that the removal of the word “shall” will allow commercial uses outside the USDs. However, the objective does not prohibit commercial uses outside the Primary USDs. The objective states that the County “shall concentrate higher densities and intensities of development” in the Primary USDs. To concentrate a land use in one location does not mean to prohibit it elsewhere. It is Policy 4.7A.2 that requires new commercial uses to be located in the Primary USDs. In this particular context, the removal of the word “shall” does not require a different interpretation or application of Objective 4.7A. It is not a substantive change. FLUE Policy 4.9H.2 MCCA objects to new Policy 4.9H.2, regarding residential PUDs, because the policy indicates that commercial uses can be included in a residential PUD, even if the PUD is located outside the Primary USDs. Policy 4.7A.2 requires all new commercial development to be located in the Primary USDs. Objective 4.5F and its associated policies allow for residential PUDs in agricultural areas outside the USDs, but do not indicate that the PUDs in agricultural areas can include commercial uses. Policy 4.9H.2 conflicts with Policy 4.7A.2 and with Objective 4.5F and its associated policies FLUE Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(d) MCCA objects to new Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(d), which allows one “accessory dwelling unit” on a residential lot. Accessory units cannot be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit and are not counted as separate units for purposes of density calculations. MCCA's argument regarding accessory dwelling units assumes that the new policy allows accessory units in the rural areas of the County, outside the Primary USDs. However, Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(d) appears under the heading "General policies for all urban Residential development." The term "urban" is not defined in the CGMP, but there are several FLUE policies that direct urban residential densities to the Primary USDs, such as Policies 4.7A.2 and 4.7A.3. Objective 4.7A directs densities greater than two units per acre to the Primary USDs, which indicates that densities greater than two units per acre are urban densities. In order to maintain internal consistency, accessory units would have to be confined to areas of the FLUM designated for urban residential density. See FLUE Objective 4.13A.7. The County's proposal to not count accessory uses for density purposes was shown to be a professionally acceptable planning practice. Accessory units are similar to residential additions, converted garages, and other changes that can add bedrooms and residents on a residential lot, but which traditionally have been disregarded when calculating density. FLUE Policy 4.13A.8.(5) MCCA contends that changes made to Policy 4.13A.8.(5), regarding Expressway Oriented Transient Commercial Service Centers ("Expressway Centers"), combined with the proposed deletion of Section 4.6.D.3 of the "Implementation Strategies," allows for more commercial development without data and analysis to support the need for additional commercial development. Policy 4.13A.8.(5) creates Expressway Centers at three large Interstate 95 interchange locations in the County as a special land use designation to accommodate the unique needs of people traveling through the County. Section 4.6.D.3 (which ordinance No. 845 would delete) allows a waiver for Expressway Centers from the general requirements applicable to the USDs if an applicant for a waiver meets certain criteria. MCCA contends that the waiver process weighs "the traveling public’s needs against the value of the urban boundary." That is not an accurate description of the waiver process, because none of the criteria mentions the urban boundary. MCCA contends that the waiver process has been replaced with a "market need test" in Policy 4.13A.8.(5) without supporting data and analysis and that the change encourages urban sprawl. Policy 4.13A.8.(5) requires a market feasibility analysis to show that "the uses proposed are warranted by the traveling public they are intended to serve." MCCA presented no evidence on the County's past applications of Section 4.6.D.3 and Policy 4.13A.8.(5). MCCA failed to show how the demonstration required for a waiver under Section 4.6.D.3 is substantively different and more protective than the demonstration required to establish an Expressway Center under Policy 4.13A.8.(5). MCCA failed to show how the creation of Expressway Centers or the specific amendments to Section 4.6.D.3 and Policy 4.13A.8.(5) will lead to more commercial uses outside the Primary USDs, so as to encourage urban sprawl. State Comprehensive Plan MMCA failed to present evidence or argument to demonstrate that any of the Plan Amendments is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Other Issues MCCA raised other issues in its petitions for which it did not present evidence at the final hearing. With regard to all the issues raised by MCCA that are not specifically addressed above, MCCA failed to prove an inconsistency. The Groves' Issues The Groves’ principal objection to the Plan Amendments is with the County’s methodology for determining the need for residential dwelling units, which is based in large part on the a residential capacity analysis (RCA) set forth in FLUE Policy 4.1D.4, adopted by Ordinance No. 845. The Groves contend that the RCA overestimates the capacity or supply of dwelling units on vacant lands that can be used to meet projected population growth. Because need is derived from a comparison of supply and demand, the Groves contend that the RCA’s overestimation of supply will always cause the County to underestimate the need for additional dwelling units. FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 provides: The County shall consider the following factors in its residential capacity analysis: The current peak population, based on the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) medium population, shall be used to demonstrate the unit need in the fifteen year planning period; A market factor of 125 percent shall be applied to the unit need; The Eastern Urban Service District and the Indiantown Urban Service District shall be considered separately; Maximum density shall be calculated for Future Land Use categories in which residential development is allowed; Wetland acreage shall be subtracted from the vacant, undeveloped acreage; Because some land will be taken up by non-residential uses such as roads and utilities, a reduction of 8.5 percent shall be calculated to account for such uses. In the past, Martin County used a similar methodology for determining residential need, but it was not a part of the CGMP. New FLUE Policy 4.1D.3 requires that a new RCA be performed every two years. The RCA is to be used to evaluate future plan amendments and future changes to USD policies. The Groves did not dispute the County’s calculation of residential demand, the number of dwelling units needed to serve the projected population through the planning period 2010 to 2025. As stated in FLUE Policy 4.1D.4, demand is based on mid- range population projections from the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research, which is then adjusted by a 125 percent market factor. A market factor is a multiplier that is applied to account for factors that prevent the full or efficient use of densities allowed by a FLUM. FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 requires that the Eastern USDs and the Indiantown USDs be considered separately. This requirement is based on an historical pattern of higher population growth east of the Florida Turnpike and the expectation that the pattern will continue into the foreseeable future. The County projected an increase of 17,598 new residents in the Eastern USDs and an increase of 754 in the Indiantown USDs by 2025. When these figures are divided by average persons per household (2.21), the result is a demand for 7,963 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs and 341 dwelling units in the Indiantown USDs. Applying the market factor of 125 percent results in a demand for 9,954 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs, and 426 units in the Indiantown USDs for the 2010-2025 planning period. To calculate the residential supply of dwelling units that can be developed on existing vacant lands, FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 directs that the calculation begin by determining the maximum density allowed under each future land use category of the vacant lands. In the following discussion, the maximum density allowed under a future land use designation will be referred to as the “theoretical” maximum density. It is the general practice of the Department to require local governments to use theoretical maximum densities in a need analysis unless there are policies in the comprehensive plan preventing landowners from attaining the theoretical maximum densities. However, like the Department's general practice to accept a market factor no greater than 125 percent, these are not requirements explicitly stated in Department rules from which the Department never deviates. FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 incorporates two limiting factors that prevent the attainment of theoretical maximum densities: (1) wetlands and (2) roads rights-of-way and utility easements. Development is generally prohibited in wetlands. However, landowners whose lands contain wetlands can transfer half of the “lost” density associated with the wetland acreage to the uplands. Therefore, in calculating the acreage of vacant lands that are available for residential development, the RCA subtracts half the wetland acreage. The County also reduces the total vacant land acreage by 8.5 percent to account for the loss of developable acreage due to the presence of road rights-of-way and utility easements within which development is prohibited. After reducing the total acres of vacant lands in the USDs to account for wetlands and for rights-of-way and utilities, the County determined that there is a supply or vacant land capacity of 5,790 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs and 5,335 units in the Indiantown USDs. The County then adjusted these numbers to account for approved residential developments that have not yet been constructed. This adjustment resulted in final calculation of the existing supply in the Eastern USDs of 9,339 dwelling units and an existing supply in the Indiantown USDs of 6,686 dwelling units. The Groves' Critique of the RCA The Groves argue that the RCA overestimates supply by failing to account for other policies of the CGMP that restrict development and prevent a landowner from attaining the theoretical maximum density. Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 9.1G.4 requires the preservation of a wetland buffer around a wetland. There was conflicting evidence about whether the County credits the landowner for the acreage set aside as a wetland buffer. The Groves contend that no credit is given and cites Table 4-2 of the FLUE, which indicates that wetland buffer acreage is not subtracted to arrive at the total available acreage that can be developed. The Groves also point to the testimony of a County planner, who stated that the County intended to subtract buffer acreage from vacant land acreage, but ultimately did not do so "based on adamant public comment." However, the County's planning director, Nicki Van Vonno, stated that "[Y]ou do get the full density off of the buffer land." It would be logical for the County to not subtract wetland buffer acreage when calculating residential capacity if the landowner is getting full credit for the buffer acreage. Therefore, it is found that the County allows a full transfer of the density associated with wetland buffer acreage to the uplands. COSE Policy 9.1G.5 requires that 25 percent of upland native habitat on a site be preserved. The landowner is allowed to transfer density from these native upland habitat areas to the unaffected areas of the property. Nevertheless, the Groves contends that COSE Policy 9.1G.5 impairs the ability of landowners to attain the theoretical maximum density. The CGMP also requires a portion of the site be set aside for sufficient water retention and treatment. The RCA does not account for any loss of density caused by water retention and treatment areas. The County had proposed to reduce the theoretical maximum density by 15 percent to account for "surface water management and required preservation,” but abandoned the idea when the Department objected to it as not adequately supported by data and analysis. The evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to establish that the requirements of the CGMP associated with surface water management and preservation reduces the theoretical maximum density of residential lands by 15 percent. The County has a mixed-use land use category called Commercial-Office-Residential (COR). The County allows only a third of a COR parcel to be developed for residential uses and this practice reduces the theoretical maximum density of COR lands. However, the RCA assumes 100 percent of the COR acreage is available for residential use. The County attempted to justify this discrepancy by pointing out that the limitation of residential uses on COR lands is not incorporated into the CGMP. However, it is an undisputed fact (datum) that the County's practice reduces residential capacity on COR lands. The RCA fails to account for this fact. If the RCA accounted for the limitation of residential development on COR lands, the supply of dwelling units in the Eastern USDs would be reduced by 733 units. FLUE Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(a) establishes a 40-foot height limit countywide which sometimes prevents a landowner from attaining the theoretical maximum density. The RCA does not account for any loss of density caused by building height restrictions. FLUE Policies 4.1F.1 through 4.1F.3 require transitional density zones when land is developed at a higher density than adjacent lands. FLUE Policy 4.1F.2 establishes a zone (or “tier”) abutting the adjacent land, equal to the depth of an existing adjacent residential lot in which development is restricted, to the same density and compatible structure types (e.g., height) as on the adjacent property. The RCA does not account for any loss of density due to the tier policies. Although the landowner is allowed to transfer density to the unaffected portion of the property in the case of some development restrictions imposed by the CGMP, there is not always sufficient acreage remaining to make full use of the transferred density. The Groves' expert witness, Rick Warner, reviewed residential development projects that had been approved or built during the past 15 years in the Eastern USDs and compared the actual number of approved or built units to the theoretical maximum density allowed by the applicable land use designation for the property at the time of approval. Warner determined that, on average, the projects attained only about 45 percent of the theoretical maximum density. The Groves presented the testimony of Morris Crady, who testified that, of the 14 development projects in the County that he was involved in, CGMP policies caused the projects to be developed at 1,285 units fewer than (about 41 percent of) the maximum theoretical density. Comparing the County’s estimated demand for 9,954 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs through 2025 with the County’s estimated supply of 9,339 dwelling units, indicates a deficit of 615 dwelling units. Comparing the County’s estimated demand for 426 dwelling units in the Indiantown USDs through 2025 with the County’s estimated supply of 6,686 dwelling units, indicates a surplus of 6,260 dwelling units. The County decided to make no changes to the FLUM because it believes the projected population can be accommodated with existing land use designations. The Groves argue that, because the RCA overestimates supply, the deficit in the Eastern USDs is actually substantially larger.5/ For example, taking into account the County's policy regarding limiting residential uses on COR lands, the deficit would be 1,348 units in the Eastern USDs. The deficit would be enlarged by the effects of the other factors discussed above that reduce a landowner's ability to attain the theoretical maximum density. The County contends that there is additional residential capacity outside the USDs that should be considered. The County also points to the large surplus of available dwelling units in the Indiantown USDs. The County asserts that there is excess supply to meet the need when all the available dwelling units in the County are considered. These other considerations, however, are not a part of the RCA and, therefore, are in conflict with the RCA. Acres vs. Dwelling Units The Groves assert that County's determination of residential does not identify the amount of land needed for each category of land use as required by law, but, instead, expresses need solely in terms of total dwelling units. The Department has accepted residential need analyses expressed in dwelling units. Dwelling units can be converted into acreages, but only if one is told what density to apply. A local government must determine how many dwelling units it wants in each land use category in order to convert a need expressed in total dwelling units into a need expressed in acreages. Martin County believes that it has a sufficient supply of dwelling units to meet the projected population through the planning period. Apparently, the County is also satisfied with the existing size and distribution of future land use categories as depicted on the FLUM. The existing vacant land acreages for each land use category, set forth in the CGMP, represents the amount of land in each land use category that the County believes is needed to meet the projected population. However, there is an imbalance in the various types of residential land uses in the Eastern USDs. For example, there are only 13 acres of high density residential land and 57 acres of medium density residential land remaining in the Eastern USDs. In contrast, there are 2,950 acres of rural residential lands. The County has acknowledged that its past emphasis on low-height and low-density has contributed to a lack of affordable housing. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council noted that the small amount of vacant land in the County available for medium and high residential development contributes to the lack of affordable housing in the County. The Plan Amendments include policies which are designed to address the imbalances in land uses and the lack of affordable housing. These policies include permitting accessory dwelling units for urban residential development; allowing a 10 du/ac density bonus and an affordable housing density bonus in Medium Density Residential developments; reducing the criteria for an affordable housing density bonus in High Density Residential developments; and reviewing residential capacity in the Indiantown USDs. Commercial Need There is no state-wide standard for the amount of commercial, industrial, institutional, conservation, or agricultural lands that a local government must identify in its comprehensive plan in order to accommodate its projected population. The County acknowledges that there is a deficit of commercial land necessary to accommodate economic needs, but no changes in the FLUM are proposed as part of these EAR-based amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that Plan Amendments are “in compliance,” except for the following policies adopted by Martin County Ordinance No. 845, which the Department should determine are not "in compliance": FLUE Policy 4.1D.4; and FLUE Policy 4.9H.2. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 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 3rd day of September, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether a change on the Land Use Plan (LUP) map of Respondent, Miami-Dade County (County), adopted by Ordinance No. 09-28 on May 6, 2009, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The County is a charter government that administers the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (Plan), a broad-based countywide policy-planning document to guide future growth and development. See County Exhibit 1. The LUP is a component of the Plan and contains the various land use designations. The County adopted the Ordinance which approved the change in the LUP that is being challenged here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. Blue Lake is a small, family-owned corporation that has owned the subject property since 1966. It submitted oral and written comments to the County during the adoption process. Flagler Retail Associates, Ltd., owns and operates a retail shopping center, Park Hill Plaza, located at 9501 West Flagler Street, around one-half mile from Blue Lake's property. It submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. Flagler, S.C., LLC, owns and operates a retail shopping center, Flagler Park Plaza, at 8221 West Flagler Street, which is approximately 1.8 miles from the subject property. It also submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. SC Mota Associates, Ltd., owns and operates a retail shopping center, the Mall of Americas, located at 7757 West Flagler Street, which is approximately 25 blocks from Blue Lake's property. It submitted comments and objections to the plan amendment during the adoption process. History of the Amendment A mobile home park with around 275 units occupied the property from 1957 until June 2007, when Blue Lake closed the park. At the time of the hearing, the mobile home park was around 80 percent demolished and cleared out. The property is currently listed for sale by its owners. The property is located within the County's Urban Development Boundary at the northeast corner of West Flagler Street, a six-lane divided arterial roadway running in an east- west direction and designated as a major roadway, and Northwest 102nd Avenue (also known as West Park Drive). The southwest corner of the property borders the City of Sweetwater and a small shopping center. Directly to the west of the property and across West Park Drive is a part of the Florida International University campus. To the east are the campuses of a public middle school and elementary school, while a large, single- family residential area lies to the south. Directly north of the property (and just south of State Road 836, also known as the Dolphin Expressway) is the western portion of a large multi- family residential complex (formerly a golf course) identified in the record as the Fountainbleau Park area, which stretches across Northwest 97th Avenue to the east. The County has two cycles per year for applicants to file amendments to the Plan, which may be text amendments having countywide application, or site-specific LUP map amendments having localized impact. In the April 2008 cycle, nineteen applications were filed with the County, including Blue Lake's Application No. 9. The application was filed by Gold River Corporation, which had a contract to purchase the property from Blue Lake contingent on a land use change. Gold River Corporation later assigned the contract to Blue Lake Partners, LLC, an entity unrelated to Blue Lake. The contract to purchase later "fell through" for unknown reasons. Blue Lake is now pursuing the land use change on its own behalf. Application No. 9 requested that the County amend the LUP map by changing the land use designation on a 41-acre parcel from Low-Medium Density Residential Communities to Business and Office. The former land use allows between six and thirteen dwelling units per gross acre and could be fully developed with as few as 244 residential units or as many as 533. The new land use allows both residential and commercial development, including a wide range of commercial uses such as retail, professional services, and offices. If developed to its maximum residential potential, the new category could accommodate more than 2,200 units. If developed to its maximum commercial potential, the new use would allow more than 679,000 square feet of commercial floor space. A Declaration of Restrictions is a tool permitted by the Plan to craft "a more refined amendment" that can take into consideration more than just a change in the land use of a parcel of property. See County Exhibit 1 at I-74.1. Restrictions are considered an adopted part of the Plan. Id. They can provide greater restrictions on a parcel, delineate the property's uses, and make the amendment more consistent with the Plan than it might otherwise be. In July 2008, Blue Lake offered a first Declaration of Restrictions that would prohibit residential development on the property on the premise that the change would satisfy a deficiency in land designated for commercial development. See County Exhibit 60. Land Use Element Policy LU-8E provides that applications requesting amendments to the LUP map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of all Plan Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; [and] Enhance or impede provision of services at or above adopted LOS Standards; [and] Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods; and Enhance or degrade environmental or historical resources, features or systems of County significance; and If located in a planned Urban Center, or within 1/4 mile of an existing or planned transit station, exclusive busway stop, transit center, or standard or express bus stop served by peak period headways of 20 or fewer minutes, would be a use that promotes transit ridership and pedestrianism as indicated in the policies under Objective LU-7, herein. County Exhibit 1 at I-17-18. The various factors in the Policy are weighed and balanced when considering a map change. However, paragraph (i) is considered by the County to be the "primary," or at the very least an "important," factor when reviewing map changes since the County must ensure that there is enough land for different types of uses to accommodate the projected growth within the County. In fact, a County witness could recall no more than one or two instances over the last thirty years where the County had approved a LUP map change when the staff had determined that there was a lack of need under this provision. Under the County's plan amendment review process, an application for a change in the LUP map is first reviewed by the Department of Planning and Zoning staff, then the applicable community council, next by the Planning Advisory Board, and finally by the Board of County Commissioners. Community councils are elected bodies from thirteen different geographic areas of the County that act as a planning board for making recommendations on amendments that affect their jurisdiction. A needs analysis determines the availability of commercial land in a given area relative to the availability of residential land. Consistent with its past practice of performing a supply and demand analysis under paragraph (i) of Policy LU-8E, the Department of Planning and Zoning staff looked at need within two minor statistical areas (MSAs). An MSA is one of 32 geographical subareas into which the County has been subdivided for the purpose of collecting and inventorying data on the supply and demand for different land uses and for disaggregating the County's population into subareas. On very infrequent occasions, the staff has used a "tier," which is an aggregation or collection of several MSAs, rather than a single MSA. Another geographic area known as a census tract, which is much smaller than an MSA, is also allowed by the Plan. See Land Use Element Policy LU-8F ("the adequacy of land supplies . . . for business and office uses shall be determined on the basis of localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts, [MSAs] and combinations thereof"). As noted below, however, the County has never used a census tract and considers them to be "inappropriate" for a needs analysis in a case such as this. Because the Blue Lake property is located within MSA 3.2 and borders on MSA 5.4, the staff conducted a supply and demand analysis in those two MSAs. After completing its review, on August 25, 2008, the staff recommended that the application be denied, mainly on the ground the amendment was inconsistent with Policy LU-8E(i). See County Exhibit 60 and Blue Lake Exhibit 24. Specifically, based on its review of MSAs 3.2 and 5.4, the staff found that there was already an ample supply of vacant and available commercial land within the study area. In fact, out of 32 MSAs within the County, MSA 3.2 had the second highest ratio of commercial activity to population. Characterizing this supply of commercial land as "significant," the staff noted that there were more than 2,500 acres of commercial land in MSAs 3.2 and 5.4 either in use or vacant, and this category would not be depleted until after the year 2025. As to residential land, the supply of that category within the MSAs would be depleted by the year 2015, and staff noted that the property was currently designated residential and could serve to satisfy the future demand for residentially designated land within the MSAs. Despite a lack of need, the staff recommended that the amendment be transmitted for further local and state review on the belief that during the subsequent review process the application could possibly be modified into a more mixed-use project and thus be compatible with the Plan. In making this recommendation, the staff did not examine other needs or deficiencies, such as the need for elderly housing or for mixed-use properties. On September 23, 2008, the amendment was reviewed by the Westchester Community Council, which recommended that the amendment be approved but only with a change to allow residential development on the property to encourage a mixed-use project. Just before the amendment was considered by the Planning Advisory Board, Blue Lake offered a second Declaration of Restrictions, which reduced the amount of proposed commercial development from 620,000 to 400,000 square feet. See Blue Lake Exhibit 35. On October 6, 2008, the Planning Advisory Board recommended approval and transmittal of the amendment with a change to allow a potential mixed-use project. Although the County staff continued to recommend that the application be denied, on November 6, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners considered the matter and voted to transmit the amendment and second Declaration of Restrictions to the Department for its review. On March 13, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report to the County. See Petitioners' Exhibit 10. In its ORC, the Department noted, among other things, that the County had not demonstrated a need for additional commercial uses on the property since the County's need analysis demonstrated that the commercial land in the area would not be depleted until after the year 2025. The ORC went on to recommend that the County either retain the current land use or provide data and analysis to support the need for the proposed amendment and its consistency with Policy LU-8E. On March 27, 2009, the County staff issued its response to the ORC in which it agreed that there was a lack of need for the amendment and that no new data and analysis had been submitted by the applicant. On April 6, 2009, the Planning Advisory Board again considered the application and recommended approval with the acceptance of the proposed Declaration of Restrictions. On April 13, 2009, Blue Lake's consultant submitted a revised commercial needs analysis to the County which concluded that there was in fact a need for more Business and Office designated land within his defined study area. See Blue Lake Exhibit 66. As a study area, the consultant used four census tracts (rather than MSAs) comprising around two square miles. The study area, in which Blue Lake's property was located, was bounded by major roadways on three sides and a man-made canal on the fourth. The consultant noted that the three roads and canal created an insular area that discouraged residents from leaving the area and thus justified in part further commercial development in the study area. Within his study area, the consultant found the ratio of commercial to population to be 3.3 acres per 1,000 people, which is significantly below the county-wide average of 6.0 acres per 1,000 people. He also found that the study area contained 1.4 vacant acres split up in five different locations, which because of the size and distribution made the study area essentially depleted. Although the County generally uses the same type of analysis as the consultant, it disagreed with the consultant's use of a smaller selected study area as well as many of his assumptions. Further, the County has never used a census tract in performing a needs analysis. It rejected Blue Lake's alternative needs analysis on the grounds it was not peer-reviewed and it appeared to be using an inappropriate primary trade area. The Department agreed with the County's assessment of the study. Given the deficiencies cited by the County, the report submitted by Blue Lake's consultant has not been credited. On May 1, 2009, Blue Lake offered a third Declaration of Restrictions which continued to include a restriction on commercial development of 400,000 square feet, but added certain requirements addressing compatibility of the proposed development of the property with existing residential development to the north and west by prohibiting construction of buildings on the northerly two acres of the property, requiring a landscape buffer, prohibiting certain types of commercial uses on the property, and including various other requirements not relevant here. See Blue Lake Exhibit 78. On May 5, 2009, the day before the Board of County Commissioners' adoption hearing, Blue Lake submitted a fourth Declaration of Restrictions which provided that commercial development would not exceed 375,000 square feet; "up to 150 dwelling units [would be] designated for elderly housing"; "ancillary and accessory uses" for the elderly could be constructed but would not exceed 15 percent of the floor area of the elderly housing facility (or just over 25,000 square feet); the northerly two acres would be reserved without buildings or used for elderly housing; a buffer would be installed; and certain commercial uses would be prohibited. See Blue Lake Exhibit 79. Notwithstanding these restrictions, the staff was still not satisfied that a need existed for further commercial development or that the owner had a commitment to build a specific minimum number of elderly housing units. On the evening of May 5, 2009, in response to a continued concern by the County staff, Blue Lake submitted a fifth (and final) Declaration of Restrictions, which provided in relevant part as follows: Notwithstanding the re-designation of the Property to "Business and Office" on the County's LUP map, the maximum development of the Property shall not exceed the following: (a) 375,000 square feet of retail, commercial, personal services and offices; and (b) no less than 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing, as such term is defined under Section 202 of the Fair Housing Act of 1959 (12 USC 1701) and Chapter 11A of the Miami-Dade County Code (the "Code"), along with such ancillary and accessory uses as may be desirable, necessary or complementary to satisfy the service needs of the residents, such as, but not limited to, counseling, medical, nutritional, and physical therapy, provided that such ancillary and accessory uses shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the floor area of the elderly housing facility. County Exhibit 18. The final version of the restrictions differed from the fourth version by changing the words "up to 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing" to "no less than 150 dwelling units designated for elderly housing," a change suggested by the County staff. As finally revised, the last set of restrictions allows a mixed-use development and limits the owner to less than sixty percent of the non-residential uses that could have been available under the Business and Office land use designation. It also requires the allocation of two acres of land for the development of the elderly housing units as a precondition to any commercial development of the property. This means that the only permissible use on those two acres is the construction of no less than 150 dwelling units for "elderly housing," or more than sixty percent of the minimum residential units (233) that could have been previously constructed at full development under its current land use. If an elderly component is constructed, depending on the size of the structure, it allows the owner to provide "ancillary and accessory uses" for that component that could increase the total amount of commercial use to more than 400,000 square feet. As a prerequisite to approval of its application, Blue Lake executed and recorded the fifth Declaration of Restrictions. Although the staff still "[had] concerns regarding the demand for additional commercial land in this area," and agreed that the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i) had not been met, given the foregoing restrictions, the inclusion of a mixed-use component, and the need for elderly housing in the County, it recommended adoption of the amendment. Just prior to the vote by the Board of County Commissioners on May 6, 2009, a Blue Lake attorney sent the following email to a County staffer for the purpose of clarifying the commitment that Blue Lake was making in the Declaration of Restrictions: Yesterday's revision to the Declaration [which requires no less than 150 dwelling units for elderly housing] simply expands the universe of uses that would be permitted on the property. By reducing the overall square footage of commercial development, the owner would set up the conditions to allow the future development of 150 senior housing units. However, because the development of this type of project depends on so many factors, including zoning approvals, government incentives, etc., the owner's ability to build 375,000 square feet of commercial space is not in any way dependent on whether any senior housing units are actually built on the Property or the timing of such construction. (Emphasis added) Blue Lake Exhibit 86. There is no record of any response by the staff to the email or any indication that this "clarification" was conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners prior to its vote. A copy of the email was not provided to the Department. After learning of its contents at the final hearing, a Department planner stated that he considers the Declarations of Restrictions to be controlling, and not the email. On May 19, 2009, the County staff prepared a final response to the ORC stating that while it rejected the alternate needs analysis submitted by Blue Lake's consultant, and it "partially concur[red] with the Department's view that there was a lack of need, the applicant had adequately responded to its needs objection by "commit[ting] to building a mixed-use project and to reducing the commercial floor area." County Exhibit 10 at p. 2. On June 11, 2009, the County transmitted the amendment to the Department for its compliance review. On July 29, 2009, the Department found the amendment to be in compliance and noted in a staff report that "[t]he adopted amendment provides additional information for application #9 related to need (objection #1) and road capacity (objection #2)." Petitioners' Exhibit 54. It went on to say that "the County adequately responded to the Objection [regarding need] by reducing the commercial uses and introducing a mixed use component by adding residential units." Id. The Department's report added that Blue Lake had "committed to building a mixed use project which reduces commercial area from 679,535 square feet . . . to 375,000 square feet . . . [,] the mixed use development is supported by FLUE Policy LU-10A and Land Use Concept #8, [and] the mixed use development reduces the potential loss of housing units on the site, which is supported by Goal 1 of the Housing Element." Id. On August 3, 2009, the Department published in the Miami Herald its Notice of Intent to find the map change in compliance. On August 26, 2009, Petitioners filed their Amended Petition with the Department generally contending that the map change was not supported by adequate data and analysis for new commercial development in the area and that the change in land use would have an adverse impact on traffic. The latter objection was later withdrawn. As clarified in Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order and the Stipulation, they contend that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policies LU-8E(i), LU-8F, and LU-10A, Land Use Concept No. 8, and Housing Element Goal 1, as well as the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.005(2) and 9J- 5.006(2)(c).2 Petitioners' Objections Petitioners first object to the amendment on the ground that the amendment is not consistent with Policy LU-8E(i) because there is no demonstrated need for more commercial land in the study area. That Plan provision requires that map amendments "shall" be evaluated against all goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan, "and in particular" whether the amendment satisfies "a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County." Similarly, while Petitioners agree that the data and analysis used to support the amendment are relevant and appropriate, and were applied in a professional manner, they contend the data support a continuation of the current residential land use. Despite efforts by the County at hearing to downplay the importance of Policy LU-8E(i) in its review process, it can be inferred that a needs analysis under that provision is one of the most important, if not primary, consideration when reviewing LUP map changes. This is borne out by the fact that except for one or two occasions, the County has never approved a map change over the last thirty years without a needs analysis supporting that change. The evidence supports a finding that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8E(i) because there is no need for 375,000 square feet of new commercial development within the study area (MSAs 3.2 and 5.4). More specifically, the relevant data and analysis used by the County reveal that the MSA in which the property is located (MSA 3.2) has the second highest ratio of commercial activity to population of the 32 MSAs in the County; that the supply of existing or available commercial land use will not be depleted for at least another fifteen years; and that there is no "deficiency" of commercial land in the study area to accommodate projected population or growth, as required by the Policy. Although the amendment will authorize at least 375,000 square feet of new commercial development, both the County and Department concede that a need for more commercial land does not exist. It is beyond fair debate that the amendment is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policy LU-8E(i). Likewise, because the data and analysis do not support the amendment, but rather support a contrary result, the County reacted to the data in an inappropriate manner. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2). The County and Blue Lake argue, however, that even though no need for commercial land exists, the final version of the Declaration of Restrictions incorporates a provision requiring an elderly housing component, which when combined with the commercial component, changes the character of the land to a mixed use. By Blue Lake offering this restriction, they argue that the application, as amended, furthers other Plan provisions that encourage affordable housing for the elderly (e.g., Housing Element Goal 1, Objective HO-9, and Policy HO-9A) and furthers provisions that encourage the rejuvenation of decayed areas (in this case a 50-year-old mobile home park) with a mixture of land uses (e.g., Land Use Element Policy LU-10A and Land Use Concept 8). Thus, they contend that the "need" requirement in Policy LU-8E(i) is now met because Blue Lake is satisfying a deficiency in both the supply of elderly housing as well as mixed uses. To support the contention that a need for elderly housing exists, the County posited that there is a need, "in general," for elderly housing in the County. It also pointed out that between the years 2000 and 2008 there was a small percentage increase in the number of persons over 65 years of age residing in the County. See County Exhibit 64. But the County agrees that the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i) does not distinguish between different types of residential use, such as whether properties are available for elderly residents. Neither does the test assess the need for mixed uses. Therefore, regardless of whether or not there is a need for elderly housing or mixed-use projects, any such need does not address the needs test in Policy LU-8E(i). Even assuming arguendo that it does, the County made no study of the need for "elderly housing" or "mixed use projects" within MSAs 3.2 and 5.4. The County and Blue Lake also contend that the proposed mixed use furthers other laudable provisions within the Plan, which more than offset any lack of commercial need. While development of the property under the current or not yet effective new land use would certainly "rejuvenate" an area now occupied by a closed, 50-year-old mobile home park, and result in the redevelopment of what is now probably a substandard urban area, see Land Use Concept 8 and Land Use Policy LU-10A, furtherance of those provisions by creating a new commercial land use category does not trump the lack of need for more commercial land. Similarly, the Department found the amendment, as adopted, was in compliance because the final version of the Declarations of Restrictions introduced an elderly housing mixed-use component, which essentially negated the lack of need for commercial development. It is fair to infer from the evidence that, like the County, the Department made this determination in the belief that the elderly housing component was intended to address a need for affordable or subsidized housing for senior citizens. Petitioners contend, however, that the final version of the Declarations of Restrictions does not truly provide for an elderly housing/mixed use in this context. The fifth version of the Declaration of Restrictions references the term "elderly housing" as that term is defined in "Section 202 of the Fair Housing Act of 1959 (12 USC 1701)" and "Chapter 11A of the County Code." Because the federal law, related regulations, and the entire Chapter 11A were not made a part of the record by any party, it is appropriate to take official recognition of those matters. The federal regulation (section 1701) referred to in the amendment relates to "supportive housing for the elderly" and the federal assistance programs administered by the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Its provisions are lengthy, cumbersome, and complicated, and they have been amended numerous times since their adoption. While the terms "elderly person" and "frail elderly" are defined in sections 1701q(k)(1) and (2) of the regulations, the undersigned was unable to find a specific definition of "elderly housing," and counsel have provided no citation. Chapter 11A of the County Code is a civil and human rights ordinance that is enforced by a County Commission on Human Rights. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the County has cited Section 11A-13(5) as the provision that defines the term. See County Exhibit 157. That provision enumerates "[e]xceptions to unlawful practices" and defines "housing for older persons" in the context of unlawful housing practices, but not in the context of a land use change. Therefore, it has little, if any, value in deciphering the meaning of the term "elderly housing" in the Declaration of Restrictions. When asked to define the term "elderly housing" as used in the Declaration of Restrictions, no witness could give a precise answer or refer to any provision in the federal law or County Code where a definition of that term is found. Therefore, if an elderly component is ever built on the property, it is fair to infer that the developer has wide discretion in choosing the type of units built and their price, and there is no guarantee or requirement that they be targeted for anyone except "elderly" persons, whatever age and associated income status that may encompass. Because of these ambiguities and uncertainties, the inclusion of an elderly housing component does not further the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan encouraging affordable housing for all citizens, including the elderly, that the County relies upon to support the amendment. Finally, the fifth Declaration of Restrictions permits a developer to either construct elderly housing or merely reserve for an indefinite period of time the northerly two acres of the 41-acre tract free from construction of buildings. If construction ever occurs on those two acres, the only permissible use is "no less than 150 dwelling units for elderly housing." Petitioners contend that the commitment is illusory since there is no requirement that a residential component ever be built. The County and Blue Lake point out, however, that when a map amendment is approved, there are no timetables for when development must actually occur. Similarly, the Department does not look at the timing of development when an amendment is reviewed, and the fact that there is no time limitation in the amendment does not render it out of compliance. While it is reasonable in this case to question whether an elderly housing component will ever be built, the plan amendment simply approves a map change, and Petitioners have not cited any Plan requirement, Department rule, or statute that mandates development within a certain period of time in order for a map change to be in compliance. Petitioners' argument is rejected. In summary, it is beyond fair debate that (a) the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with Land Use Policy LU- 8E(i); (b) the change in land use is not supported by the most relevant and appropriate data and analysis; (c) by adopting the amendment, the County reacted to the data and analysis in an inappropriate manner; (d) the reference to "elderly housing" is ambiguous, vague, and uncertain and does not further Plan provisions that encourage affordable housing within the County; and (e) even if the plan amendment furthers other Plan provisions that encourage the rejuvenation of decayed urban areas with mixed uses, on balance this consideration does not outweigh the foregoing deficiencies. All other contentions by Petitioners not specifically discussed herein have been considered and rejected.
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 plan amendment (Application No. 9) adopted by Ordinance No. 09-28 on May 6, 2009, be found not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 14th day of July, 2010.
The Issue The Appellants raise several issues on appeal, including: whether Ordinance 003-2015 did not comply with the constitutional single subject rule and did the County’s application of the Ordinance violate the Florida Constitution; whether the County exceeded its police power in enacting Ordinance 003-2015 and failed to follow the essential requirements of the law when it applied the ordinance to the Appellants’ property; (3) whether the Planning Commission’s decision violated its obligations to support, protect, and defend the Unites States and Florida Constitutions; and (4) whether the Appellants were deprived of their fundamental due process rights during the Commission hearing.
The Issue The issue is whether a text amendment to the general description of the Commercial land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) of Respondent, City of Jacksonville (City), adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-401-E on June 22, 2010, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City is a municipal entity and is responsible for enacting and amending its Plan. Since 2007, the City has participated in the Pilot Program for adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. Except for amendments based on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report or amendments based on new statutory requirements that specifically require that they be adopted under the "traditional" procedure described in section 163.3184, and small-scale amendments, all other amendments must be adopted under that process. Under the Pilot Program, municipalities have "reduced state oversight of local comprehensive planning," and plan amendments may be enacted in "an alternative, expedited plan amendment adoption and review process." § 163.32465, Fla. Stat. Although the City must send a transmittal package to the Department of Community Affairs (Department) and other designated agencies for their preliminary review, the Department does not issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report or a notice of intent. Instead, the Department "may provide comments regarding the amendment or amendments to the local government." Id. It may also initiate an administrative proceeding to challenge whether an amendment is in compliance. Id. In this case, the Department did not file adverse comments or initiate a challenge to the City's amendment. Clifton Curtis Horton owns real property located at 7175 Blanding Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Horton Enterprises, Inc., is a Florida corporation that owns and operates a "strip club" known as "New Solid Gold" located on Mr. Horton's property. The club is an "adult entertainment establishment" as defined by the Jacksonville Municipal Code (JMC). See §§ 150.103(c) and 656.1101, JMC. History Preceding the Amendment In order to operate an adult entertainment facility within the City, the facility must have both a correct land use and zoning classification. The location must also satisfy certain distance limitations from schools (2,500 feet), other adult entertainment businesses (1,000 feet), churches (1,000 feet), residences (500 feet), and businesses selling alcohol (500 feet). See § 656.1103(a)(1)-(4), JMC; § 847.0134, Fla. Stat. Prior to 2005, adult entertainment facilities were an authorized use in the Heavy Industrial (HI) land use category. In 2005, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2005-1240-E, which approved a text amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City's 2010 Plan adding the following language to the Community/General Commercial (C/GC) land use category: "Adult entertainment facilities are allowed by right only in Zoning District CCG-2." See Respondent's Exhibit D. That classification is the primary zoning district within the C/GC land use category. The Ordinance also deleted the following language from the HI land use category: "Adult entertainment facilities are allowed by right." Id. The purpose of the amendment was to change the permissible land use designation for adult entertainment facilities from HI to C/GC with a further condition that the property must also have a CCG-2 zoning classification. At the same time, the City enacted Ordinance No. 2005-743-E, which adopted a new zoning requirement that any adult entertainment facility whose location was not in conformity with the revised land use/zoning scheme must close or relocate within five years, or no later than November 10, 2010. See § 656.725(k), JMC. Because New Solid Gold did not conform to these new requirements, it would have to close or relocate within the five-year timeframe. On an undisclosed date, Horton Enterprises, Inc., and two other plaintiffs (one who operated another adult entertainment facility in the City and one who wished to open a new facility) filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the City's adult zoning scheme and seeking to enjoin the five-year amortization requirement, as applied to them. See Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n v. City of Jacksonville, Case No. 3:05-cv-1267-J-34JRK (U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Fla.). On September 30, 2009, the United States District Court entered a 33-page Order generally determining that, with one exception not relevant here, the City's zoning and land use scheme was permissible. See Petitioners' Exhibit V. On November 3, 2009, that Order was appealed by Petitioners to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit where the case remains pending at this time. The parties' Stipulation indicates that oral argument before that Court was scheduled during the week of December 13, 2010. An Order of the lower court memorialized an agreement by the parties that the five- year time period for complying with the new requirements are stayed until the federal litigation is concluded. See Petitioners' Exhibit JJ. The Court's Order also noted that an "ambiguity" in the Plan arose because the City failed to "remove the language in the general description of the Commercial land use designations acknowledging its intention to locate adult entertainment facilities in the HI category." Id. at 19. This occurred because when adopting the new amendments, the City overlooked conflicting language in the general description of the Commercial land use designations in the FLUE. However, the Court resolved the ambiguity in favor of the City on the theory that the conflicting language was contrary to the City's overall legislative intent in adopting the new land use/zoning scheme and could be disregarded. Id. Thereafter, a new amendment process was begun by the City to delete the conflicting language. This culminated in the present dispute. The Transmittal Amendment - 2010-35-E To eliminate the ambiguity, the City proposed to amend the FLUE by deleting the following language from the general description of the Commercial land use designations: "Adult entertainment facilities are allowed by right in the heavy industrial land use category, but not in commercial." This amendment was numbered as Ordinance No. 2010-35-E. A public workshop was conducted by the City's Planning and Development Department on December 14, 2009. Thereafter, public hearings were conducted by the City Planning Commission on February 11, 2010; by the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on February 17, 2010; and by the full City Council on February 9 and 23, 2010. It became effective upon the Mayor signing the Ordinance on February 26, 2010. Although the Ordinance inadvertently referenced section 163.3184 as the statutory authority for its adoption, it also stated that the amendment was being transmitted for review "through the State's Pilot Program." See Petitioners' Exhibit E. As required by the Pilot Program, copies of the amendment were then transmitted to the Department and seven other agencies. No adverse comments were received from any agency. It is undisputed that Petitioners did not attend the the workshop or any hearing, and they did not submit written or oral comments concerning the proposed amendment. When the process for adopting Ordinance No. 2010-35-E began, the City's 2030 Plan was still being reviewed by the Department and had not yet become effective. Consequently, at the Department's direction, the Ordinance referenced the City's then-effective 2010 Plan as the Plan being amended. On February 3, 2010, the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan became effective, replacing the 2010 Plan. However, the 2030 Plan contained the same conflicting language. Notice of the public hearings for Ordinance No. 2010- 35-E (and other plan amendments adopted at the same time) was published in the Daily Record on January 29, 2010, a local newspaper that the City has used for advertising plan amendments since at least 2003. The parties agree that the legal advertisements complied with the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. Besides the above notice, an additional notice regarding Ordinance No. 2010-35-E was published in the Florida Times Union on January 31, 2010. The parties agree that this advertisement did not meet the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. but was published by the City for the purpose of providing additional public notice and to broaden the coverage of the plan amendment. The Adoption Amendment - 2010-401-E Because the 2030 Plan contained the same conflicting language in the Commercial land use descriptions, on May 25, 2010, a draft of Ordinance No. 2010-401-E was introduced at City Council for the purpose of deleting this language. Except for referencing the latest Plan, the language in Ordinance Nos. 2010-35-E and 2010-401-E was identical. While somewhat unusual, this procedure was authorized by the Department because the 2030 Plan became effective during the middle of the amendment process. A copy of the draft Ordinance and schedule for the upcoming hearings on that Ordinance was emailed by the City's counsel to Petitioners' counsel on June 4, 2010. See Petitioners' Exhibit FF. Public hearings on Ordinance No. 2010-401-E were conducted by the Planning Commission on June 10, 2010; by the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on June 15, 2010; and by the full City Council on June 8 and 22, 2010. All of the meetings occurred after Petitioners' counsel was given a schedule of the hearings. The amendment became effective upon the Mayor signing the Ordinance on June 24, 2010. Notice of the public hearings for Ordinance No. 2010- 401-E was published in the Daily Record on May 28, 2010. The parties agree that the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. were met. An additional notice of the public hearings was published in the Florida Times Union on May 30, 2010. The parties agree that this legal advertisement did not meet the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b., but was published by the City for the purpose of providing additional public notice and to broaden the coverage of the plan amendment. Ordinance No. 2010-401-E, as originally proposed, incorrectly referenced section 163.3184, rather than the Pilot Program, as the statutory authority for adopting the amendment. During the hearing conducted by the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on June 15, 2010, an amendment to Ordinance No. 2010-401-E was proposed changing the statutory authority to section 163.32465. The City proposed the same amendment for 19 other plan amendments being considered at the same hearing. The amendment was minor in nature and had no effect on the substance of the Ordinance. It is undisputed that Petitioners did not appear or submit written or oral comments at any public hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2010-401-E. On July 21, 2010, Petitioners timely filed their Petition with DOAH challenging Ordinance No. 2010-401-E. Their objections, as later refined in the Stipulation, are both procedural and substantive in nature and are discussed separately below. Petitioners' Objections Substantive Objections As stated in the Stipulation, Petitioners contend that the amendment is not in compliance because it "is inconsistent with the balance of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and underlying municipal policies, since it forces adult uses into zones which permit residential and educational uses." To support this claim, Petitioners point out that the C/GC land use category permits a wide range of uses, including commercial uses in close proximity to sensitive uses, such as schools, churches, and residential areas. Petitioners characterize the current range of uses in C/GC as "an excellent planning approach to downtown Jacksonville" and one that promotes a well-reasoned, mixed-use development in the urban area. Because Ordinance No. 2010-401-E "forces" adult uses into the C/GC category where, despite the distance limitations, they will have to co-exist with sensitive uses, Petitioners contend the amendment is inconsistent with Policy (15)(b)3. and Goal (16) of the State Comprehensive Plan, which generally encourage orderly, efficient, and functional development in the urban areas of the City. Further, they assert it would contradict the City's "policy" of separating adult uses from residences, businesses, and schools. Petitioners' primary fear is that if they are required to relocate from HI to C/GC where sensitive uses are allowed, this will generate more complaints from schools, churches, and residents, and result in further zoning changes by the City and more forced relocations. As explained by Mr. Killingsworth, Director of the City's Planning and Development Department, Ordinance No. 2010- 401-E does not change the permitted uses in the Commercial or HI land use categories. Those changes in permitted uses were made by Ordinance No. 2005-1240-E in 2005 and are now being litigated in federal court. The purpose of the new amendment is simply "to clear up an inconsistency [noted by the federal court but told that it could be disregarded] that existed in the comprehensive plan." Mr. Killingsworth added that even if the language remained in the Plan, it would have no regulatory weight since the actual language in the C/GC and HI categories, and not the "header" or general description that precedes the category, governs the uses allowed in those designations. Assuming arguendo that the new amendment constitutes a change in permitted uses, the City established that from a use standpoint, adult entertainment facilities (like businesses selling alcohol) are more consistent with the C/GC land use category with the appropriate distance limitations from schools, churches, and residential areas. Further, the placement of adult entertainment facilities on property with a C/GC designation will not necessarily result in their being closer to residential property, as the City currently has a "great deal" of HI land directly adjacent to residential properties, as well as grandfathered enclaves of residential areas within the HI category. The City also established that the HI category is set aside for uses that generate physical or environmental impacts, which are significantly different from the "impacts" of a strip club. Finally, while a plan amendment compliance determination does not turn on zoning issues, it is noteworthy that the CCG-2 zoning district is the City's most intensive commercial district, and that very few schools (all grandfathered) remain within that zoning classification. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the amendment is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and internally consistent with the "balance of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan." Procedural Objections Petitioners' principal argument is that the City did not publish a notice for either Ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation, as described in section 166.041(3)(c)2.b., or in the proper location of the newspaper; that these deficiencies violate both state law and a Department rule regarding notice for the adoption of this type of plan amendment; and that these procedural errors require a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. They also contend that because the legal notice did not strictly comply with sections 163.3184(15)(e) and 166.041(3)(c)2.b., both Ordinances are void ab initio.2 As noted above, the City has published legal notices for plan amendments in the Daily Record since at least 2003. The newspaper is published daily Monday through Friday; it has been published continuously for 98 years; it is published wholly in English; it is mailed to 37 zip codes throughout the City and around 20 zip codes outside the City; most of its revenue is derived from classified and legal advertisements; it is considered by the United States Postal Service to be a general circulation newspaper; it is available in newsstands throughout the City; and although much of the newspaper is directed to the business, legal, and financial communities, the newspaper also routinely contains articles and editorial content regarding special events, sporting news, political news, educational programs, and other matters of general interest pertaining to the City that would be of interest to the general public and not just one professional or occupational group. Its publisher acknowledges that the newspaper is a "Chapter 50 periodical," referring to chapter 50 and specifically section 50.031, which describes the minimum standards for newspapers that can be utilized for publishing certain legal notices. Also, its website states that it covers political, business, and legal news and developments in the greater Jacksonville area with an emphasis on downtown. Although Petitioners contend that the legal notice was published in a portion of the Daily Record where other legal notices and classified advertisements appear, as proscribed by section 166.041(3)(c)2.b., and is thus defective, this allegation was not raised in the Petition or specifically in the parties' Stipulation. Therefore, the issue has been waived. Both proposed recommended orders are largely devoted to the issue of whether the Daily Record is a newspaper of general paid circulation as defined in section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. For the reasons expressed in the Conclusions of Law, it is unnecessary to decide that question in order to resolve the notice issue. Petitioners received written notice that the City intended to adopt Ordinance No. 2010-401-E prior to the public hearings, along with a copy of the draft Ordinance and "everything" in the City's file. They also received a copy of all scheduled hearings during the adoption process. See Petitioners' Exhibits EE and FF. Therefore, notwithstanding any alleged deficiency in the published legal notice, they were on notice that the City intended to adopt the plan amendment; they were aware of the dates on which public hearings would be conducted; and they had an opportunity to submit oral or written comments in opposition to the amendment and to otherwise participate in the adoption process. Given these facts, even assuming arguendo that the publication of the legal notice in the Daily Record constitutes a procedural error, there is no evidence that Petitioners were substantially prejudiced in any way. Petitioners also contend that reference by the City to section 163.3184, rather than the Pilot Program, in the draft ordinance during the preliminary stages of the amendment process is a procedural error that rises to the level of requiring a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. This argument is rejected as the error was minor in nature, it was corrected shortly after Ordinance No. 2010-401-E was introduced, it did not affect the substance of the amendment, and it would not confuse a member of the public who was tracking the amendment as to the timing and forum in which to file a challenge. In Petitioners' case, they cannot claim to be confused since they timely filed a Petition with DOAH, as required by section 163.32465(6)(a). Finally, intertwined with the procedural arguments is the issue of whether Petitioners are affected persons and thus have standing to challenge the plan amendment. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners (or their representative) did not attend any meeting regarding the adoption of either Ordinance. Petitioners argue, however, that emails between the parties in May and June 2010, and a telephone conference call on June 3, 2010, involving Petitioners' counsel and the City's then Deputy General Counsel, equate to the submission of written and oral comments regarding the amendment. The parties have stipulated that the following written communications between Petitioners and the City occurred in May and June 2010: Petitioners made a public records request regarding the amendment on May 21, 2010, to Cheryl Brown, Council Secretary/Director, seeking various public documents relating to Ordinance No. 2010-35-E, transmitted by electronic mail and facsimile. On May 27, 2010, counsel for Petitioners exchanged emails with Assistant General Counsel Dylan Reingold regarding pending document requests relating to Ordinance No. 2010-35-E, and Mr. Reingold provided a number of responsive documents. On June 3, 2010, Cindy A. Laquidara, then Deputy General Counsel (but now General Counsel), sent an email to Petitioners' counsel stating: "Below please find the schedule for the passage of the comp plan changes. Call me with questions or to discuss. Take care." On June 4, 2010, counsel for Petitioners exchanged a series of emails with Assistant General Counsel Reingold regarding the status of Ordinance Nos. 2010-35-E and 2010-401-E, as well as the review of the proposed plan amendment by the Department of Community Affairs. On June 4, 2010, Jessica Aponte, a legal assistant with counsel for Petitioners' office, exchanged emails with Jessica Stephens, legislative assistant, regarding the proofs of publication for the legal advertisements relating to Ordinance No. 2010- 35-E. The affidavits of Petitioners' counsel (Petitioners' Exhibits KK and LL) regarding a conversation with the City's then Deputy General Counsel would normally be treated as hearsay and could not, by themselves, be used as a basis for a finding of fact. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. However, the parties have stipulated that they may be used in lieu of live testimony by Petitioners' counsel. See Stipulation, p. 17. The affidavits indicate that the reason for the conference call was "that [Petitioners] were trying to reach a mutually acceptable approach with the City by which enforcement of the City of Jacksonville's amortization ordinance against [them] . . . would be deferred pending the outcome of the appeal to the Eleventh Circuit." Petitioners' Exhibits KK and LL. During that call, counsel also advised the City's counsel that "there were [procedural] problems with the enactment of the subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that they would likely be filing challenges to its enactment." Id.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-401-E is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2011, 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 11th day of January, 2011.
