The Issue The issue in this case is whether Marion County's small- scale comprehensive plan amendment 01-S27 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). Specifically, Petitioners contend that the amendment is: (1) inconsistent with goals, objectives, and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan--specifically, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Objectives 1 and 2, and Policies 2.7 and 2.8; and (2) inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5), which requires that proliferation of urban sprawl be discouraged. (Other contentions are inapplicable. See Conclusions of Law, infra.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioners all reside in the Sherman Oaks subdivision in Marion County, Florida. Sherman Oaks is adjacent to and northwest of the parcel which is the subject of the County's small-scale comprehensive plan amendment 01- S27 (Plan Amendment). This "Amendment Parcel" consists of 2.375 acres located at the northwest corner of the intersection of State Road 40 (oriented east-west at that location) and NW 80th Avenue (oriented north-south at that location) (the Intersection) near Ocala, Florida. The Plan Amendment changes the land use designation for the Amendment Parcel from Urban Reserve to Commercial. Pertinent History of the County's Comprehensive Plan. The County originally adopted its Comprehensive Plan in January 1992. Because of an objection by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) that the original Comprehensive Plan allocated too much land area to the Urban area, the County adopted remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, which added a new land use classification, Urban Reserve. The Comprehensive Plan defines the Urban Reserve land use classification as follows: This classification provides for the expansion of an urban service area or an urban expansion area in a timely manner. The underlying land uses in this classification shall be those of the rural lands until, through the Plan Amendment process, these areas are designated as Urban Expansion Area or Urban Service Area on the Future Land Map series. Commercial land use designation falls within the generalized Urban Area category in the County's Comprehensive Plan. From the date of the adoption of remedial amendments in 1994 through this date the Amendment Parcel has had a land use designation of Urban Reserve. The Amendment Parcel is part of a larger parcel of land designated Urban Reserve which extends for approximately a mile to the west of the Amendment Parcel, half a mile to the south of the Amendment Parcel, and greater than two miles to the north of the Amendment Parcel. (There also is some Medium Density Residential, which falls with the generalized Urban Area land use category, approximately two miles north of the Amendment Parcel; this is a major residential development called Golden Ocala). All of the property on the east side of the Intersection for approximately half a mile on either side of State Road 40 has had a land use designation of Urban Expansion, which allows urban and commercial uses, since 1992. Marion County has extensive areas in the western half of the County designated as Rural Land. Approximately a mile west of the Amendment Parcel, the property along the north and south sides of State Road 40 changes land use designation from Urban Reserve to Rural Land. Prior to adoption of the County’s Comprehensive Plan in 1992, the Amendment Parcel had a general retail zoning classification of B-2 (Community Business), which has remained in place since the date of the Comprehensive Plan adoption. The Plan Amendment would allow the Intervenor to make immediate use of the Amendment Parcel under its existing zoning classification of Community Business. The County’s Comprehensive Plan also contains a land use classification of Rural Activity Center (RAC) for existing commercial nodes in the Rural Land area. According to the definition in the Comprehensive Plan, this classification: provides for the utilization of mixed-use areas and the infilling of those areas under appropriate circumstances. Rural Activity Centers provide for a nodal-type development pattern. When the Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 1992, the County identified a number of RACs and included them on the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The Intersection was not made a RAC in 1992 because it was surrounded by Urban Expansion lands that were changed to Urban Reserve in 1994. Otherwise, it probably would have been designated a RAC because there already was commercial development on the east side of the Intersection in 1992. Designation as a RAC would have allowed Intervenor to make use of its B-2 (Community Business) zoning classification from 1992 forward. The evidence was not clear why Castro's Corner at the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and County Road 225A was designated a RAC. It is not now surrounded by Rural Lands; however, from the evidence presented, it is possible that Castro's Corner was surrounded by Rural Lands at the time it was designated a RAC. Pertinent History of the Amendment Parcel In light of the see-saw history of decision-making on applications for comprehensive plan amendments affecting the Amendment Parcel since 1998, it is not surprising that Petitioners are perplexed by this Plan Amendment. In 1998 application was made to change the land use designation from Urban Reserve to Commercial on a parcel that included the Amendment Parcel and approximately seven additional acres lying immediately to the west of the Amendment Parcel, for a total of 9.9 acres, with the entire application parcel having frontage on State Road 40. The County's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use amendment. Staff's report stated that the proposed Commercial land use designation would "continue the formation of a commercial node at the intersection . . . consistent with FLUE Policy 2.7"; would "coordinate development with sufficient roadway capacity and access management procedures, and available water and sanitary sewer facilities as required by FLUE Policy 2.8"; was "compatible with the existing commercial uses on the east side of the intersection"; and was "generally compatible with the areas's [sic] topography, soils and environmental features." Staff's report concluded that the recommendation for approval was based on findings that the request would "not adversely affect the public interest"; was "consistent with the identified objectives and policies in the Marion County Comprehensive Plan"; and was "compatible with the surrounding land uses." The County's Planning Commission agreed with planning staff's recommendation and voted 7-0 for approval, but the County Commission denied the application. In 2000 the Amendment Parcel was included in another application for a land use designation change from Urban Reserve to Commercial on 13.88 acres in the northwest quadrant of the Intersection. This time, the Planning Department recommended denial. As to compatibility with the goals, objectives, and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan, staff's recommendation was based on findings that the proposed amendment was "not compact and contiguous to the Urban Area (FLUE Policy 2.18)"; did "not preserves [sic] the county's rural areas while allowing the provision of basic services by directing growth to existing urban areas and commercial nodes (FLUE Objective 3.0)"; "does not coordinate development with availability of public facilities such as centralized potable water and sanitary sewage facilities (FLUE Policy 2.18)"; "does not promote the efficient use of resources and discourage scattered development and sprawl because it is not located in an area of increasing urban residential development and commercial development (FLUE Policy 2.7)"; and "does not encourage development that is functional and compatible with the existing land uses adjacent and in the surrounding area (FLUE Policy 1.21)." As to consistency with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5 urban sprawl indicators, staff found that the proposed amendment "promote[d] the development of low-intensity, low-density, or single use development"; "promote[d] urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development"; did "not protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities"; allowed "for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increases the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education health care, fire and emergency response, and general government"; did "not encourage development which would, by it's [sic] location, provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses"; did "not encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses"; and "encourage[d] development which would result in the loss of significant amounts of open space." The report concluded that it was based on findings that "[g]ranting the amendment will adversely affect the public interest"; the "proposed amendment is not compatible with land uses in the surrounding area"; and "[g]ranting the amendment is not consistent with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., and the Marion County Comprehensive Plan." The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend denial. The application was withdrawn prior to the transmittal hearing before the County Commission. In August 2001, Intervenor submitted an application to change the land use on the property it owns at the Intersection (containing 2.85 acres) from Urban Reserve Area to Commercial. The southern boundary of the original application parcel consisted of 275 feet of frontage on the north side of State Road 40. The eastern boundary of the original application parcel fronted on NW 80th Avenue, with 459 feet of frontage. The County's Planning Department recommended that Intervenor's application be denied. The stated basis for the recommendation was that the proposed plan amendment represented "an extension of urban type land use into the rural area" and that "[d]evelopment of the property as commercial was not compatible with adjacent land uses." Planning staff took the position that the proposed Commercial land use designation did "not encourage compact, contiguous development (FLUE Objective 2)"; did "not preserve the County's rural character (FLUE Policy 2.7)"; did "not coordinate development with sufficient roadway capacity (FLUE Policy 2.8)"; and was "not compatible with the existing adjacent uses (FLUE Objective 1)." Staff also took the position that the proposed Commercial land use designation application would "promote urban sprawl as specified in the Urban Sprawl Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)" because it was "not compatible with surrounding land use designations"; "discourage[d] a functional mix of uses"; and "discourage[d] [sic?] a land use pattern that disproportionately increases local government's fiscal burden of providing necessary public services." In conclusion, staff based its recommendation on findings that the application would "adversely affect the public interest"; was "not consistent with the identified objectives and policies in the Marion County Comprehensive Plan"; and was "not compatible with the surrounding land uses." The Planning Commission heard Intervenor's presentation and comments from objecting property owners, including Petitioners, and voted 4-3 to deny the application. At a public hearing conducted on December 11, 2001, the County Commission heard Intervenor's presentation and comments from objecting property owners, including Petitioners. During the hearing, at the suggestion of the Commission, Intervenor agreed to amend the application to reduce the total amount of property for which the land use change was requested from the original entire parcel of 2.85 acres to a smaller 2.375 acre parcel (now the Amendment Parcel). The purpose of the reduction in the size of the Amendment Parcel was to exclude a heavily treed area on the north boundary of the original application parcel to create a buffer for residential property owners residing to the north and northwest of the Amendment Parcel. Intervenor also agreed to allow parallel access across the back (north) of the Amendment Parcel to the property fronting State Road 40 to the west, in the event of future development of those properties. After amendment of the application, the County Commission voted 5-0 to approve. Amendment Parcel Characteristics and Surroundings. Both State Road 40 and 80th Avenue in the area of the Intersection are heavily traveled and frequently congested. The Intersection is signalized, and traffic backs up for long distances during busy times when the light is red. The Amendment Parcel and the land to the west between State Road 40 and Sherman Oaks to the north is vacant. The property in the northeast quadrant of the Intersection has a land use designation of Urban Expansion, which allows commercial usage. The property in this quadrant of the Intersection is already commercially developed. There is a combination convenience store/restaurant building at the immediate Intersection. To the north of that parcel along 80th Avenue is Golden Hills Mobile Home Park and the sewage treatment facility serving the mobile home park. The southeast quadrant of the Intersection also has an Urban Expansion land use designation and is also already commercially developed. A prior convenience/general store at the immediate southeast corner of the Intersection has been torn down, and a temporary fruit stand currently occupies the immediate corner. This quadrant of the Intersection also includes a two-story building with retail businesses on the first floor. The property in the southwest quadrant of the Intersection, lying immediately to the south of the Amendment Parcel, has an Urban Reserve land use designation but is currently used as part of an operating horse farm. While it may not completely explain the swings in the decision-making of the County's planning staff, the County Planning Commission, and the County Commission with respect to northwest quadrant of the Intersection, the evidence was that traffic on both State Road 40 and 80th Avenue increased substantially in the five years preceding the County Commission's decision to approve Intervenor's amended application. During this time period, 80th Avenue to the south of the Intersection was extended farther southward to State Road 200, which was widened to six lanes during the same time period. In addition, the Marion County school system constructed a combination high school/middle school on SW 80th Avenue approximately two to three miles south of the Intersection, generating additional traffic. As a result of these changes (together with general growth in the County), 80th Avenue has become a major north/south corridor road in western Marion County, both to the north and to the south of State Road 40. In addition, there was discussion at the County Commission hearing on the Plan Amendment about the initiation by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) of a four- laning road improvement project on State Road 40, including at the Intersection and to the east and west of this Intersection. It was represented that, while the project was not within FDOT's three-year work program, FDOT was in the process of acquiring large parcels for needed drainage retention areas for the project, including a parcel to the west of the Amendment Parcel and a parcel encompassing most of the southeast corner of the Intersection. At final hearing in this case, written communications from FDOT regarding the project confirmed that FDOT had initiated the process of design and right-of-way acquisition for the project but did not have a finalized project time line. A preliminary project time line prepared by FDOT showed construction more than two years away, but the time line also established that the FDOT four-laning project on State Road 40 is underway. The prospect of four-laning State Road 40 played a part in the County Commission's thinking that the timing was right to change the land use designation of the Amendment Parcel to Commercial. Intervenor's Alleged Inaccurate Representations The County's application form cautions applicants that false statements on the application could result in denial. However, it was not proven that denial is mandatory in the case of any inaccuracy. Rather, the evidence was that information in the application can be corrected and supplemented during the review process. Intervenor's application contained inaccurate representations as to the proximity of some public facilities in relation to the Amendment Parcel. Petitioners made no attempt to prove the significance of those inaccuracies, except as to centralized water and sewer water facilities. Intervenor's application stated that the nearest centralized water and sewer facilities were those at the Golden Hills Mobile Home Park on the east side of NW 80th Avenue. The application also stated, as part of its justification, that private central water and sewer was available. The evidence proved that the Golden Hills sewage treatment facilities are presently inadequate for use by the mobile home park itself and are being upgraded to meet current needs of the park. The facilities probably would not be available for Intervenor's use at the Amendment Parcel. While the Golden Hills sewage treatment facilities likely will not be available for Intervenor's use at the Amendment Parcel, the evidence was that the County is working with a large development called Golden Ocala, located approximately five miles north of the Amendment Parcel, for construction of a regional wastewater treatment plant to serve that development. If built, the regional facility might have capacity available for Intervenor's use at the Amendment Parcel. Intervenor's application and presentation to the County Commission on December 11, 2001, stated that the Amendment Parcel is undeveloped and that there is no existing agricultural use on the parcel. While these statements were not proven to be untrue, Petitioners presented evidence that hay was grown on the Amendment Parcel from the late 1980's through spring 2001. Three crops of hay were harvested each year. Each harvest consisted of approximately 18-20 bales; each bale brought approximately $45. Petitioners questioned the accuracy of representations as to the natural buffer strip between the Amendment Parcel and Sherman Oaks. Petitioners did not dispute the existence of relatively dense trees in the buffer strip. However, they are concerned that the line of trees does not extend to the west all the way to the entrance to Sherman Oaks off State Road 40; if additional commercial development occurs to the west on State Road 40, there will not be a similar natural buffer. Petitioners also point out that the trees in the natural buffer strip are not thick enough to form an impregnable barrier to access, light, and sound. They concede, however, that the natural buffer is helpful and that there is no similar natural buffer between them and commercial development to the east across NW 80th Avenue. Petitioners concede that the 75-foot buffer strip is wide enough to contain the entire natural buffer. However, they thought the buffer strip would have to be 90 feet wide to contain the drip lines of all the trees so as to protect their root systems. They conceded that the building setback line probably would prohibit construction of buildings within the drip line of the trees but were uncertain as to whether the setback line would apply to parking lots and driveways. Petitioners' evidence was insufficient to prove that the 75- foot buffer was not enough to protect the natural buffer. Petitioners' evidence was sufficient to prove that, during the presentation before the County Commission, Intervenor's representative may have misspoken or exaggerated on some points (e.g., the timing of FDOT's widening of State Road 40, the distance between the Amendment Parcel and the entrance to Sherman Oaks, and the extent of past and existing commercial development at the Intersection). But the evidence was that the County Commission questioned the information presented by Intervenor, and information also was presented by Petitioners and the County's planning staff; considering all the information presented, it was not proven that the County Commission based its decision on misinformation. At the final hearing, Petitioners raised the issue of stormwater runoff. Petitioners questioned whether stormwater can be managed on the Amendment Parcel without adversely impacting Sherman Oaks. Evidence presented by Petitioners proved that topography would make onsite stormwater management difficult. Natural runoff appears to flow in a northeasterly direction towards an already-stressed stormwater facility within Sherman Oaks. Intervenor suggested that the site could be "tilted" by grading to reverse natural runoff flow so as to contain runoff in the southwestern or western part of the site. Petitioners suggested that "tilting" may not be permissible due to the relatively shallow depth to limerock under the Amendment Parcel site, but Petitioners' evidence was not sufficient to prove that drainage could not be addressed onsite through "tilting." Petitioners also questioned the accuracy of traffic counts presented in the Planning Department's staff report on Intervenor's application. Staff used 2000 traffic counts that did not take into account all of the increased traffic as a result of the opening of the new school south of the Amendment Parcel. But the County's Planning Director explained that the traffic analysis required for a land use designation change does not have to be as rigorous and accurate as the analysis required at the time of concurrency determination. At that time, Intervenor probably will be required to conduct a detailed and up-to-date traffic analysis that would take into account actual traffic counts related to the new school. Other Pertinent Comprehensive Plan Provisions. Objective 1 of the County's FLUE states: Upon Plan adoption, growth and development will be coordinated by ensuring the appropriate compatibility with adjacent uses, topography, soil conditions, and the availability of services and facilities through the preparation, adoption, implementation and enforcement of innovative land development regulations, including mixed use techniques. Objective 2 of the County's FLUE states: In order to promote the efficient use of resources and to discourage scattered development and sprawl, Marion County shall establish and encourage development within Urban Areas. This will discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, encourage infill and facilitate the provision of urban services through: Land Development Regulations that specify standards which allow higher intensities of land use in areas where adequate services are available and where specific design criteria are met, and future land uses are coordinated with appropriate topography conditions and soil types. A generalized Future Land Use Map which designates an appropriate amount of acreage in each land use category that reflects projected needs, existing development patterns, environmental suitability, availability of infrastructure, and community values. Policy 2.7 of the County's FLUE states: The County shall discourage scattered and highway strip commercial development by requiring the development of such uses at existing commercial intersections, other commercial nodes and town centers of mixed uses. Policy 2.8 of the County's FLUE states: The following performance criteria shall be followed when providing for the location of commercial and industrial land uses within the designated Urban Area: Protection of the development from natural hazards by locating development away from areas that have natural hazards or that may contain sensitive natural resources; Require concurrency be met to ensure adequate services from available public utilities and other urban services; Minimize environmental impacts by ensuring all appropriate permits are obtained and adhered to; Prevent over allocation of commercial land by requiring the adherence to needed acreage based on population projections; and Provide buffering from other land uses to minimize conflicts. Objective 4 of the Stormwater Management Sub-element of the County's Infrastructure Element states: Marion County's land development regulations shall implement procedures to ensure that, at the time a development permit is issued, adequate stormwater management facility capacity is available or the developer will be required to construct storm water facilities within his development according to County standards. Policy 4.1 of the Stormwater Management Sub-element of the County's Infrastructure Element provides some detail as to required content of the procedures, including a requirement: In addition, developers will comply where applicable with the Water Management districts flood control criteria for stormwater quantity and quality. (Citations omitted.) Policy 4.3 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub-element of the County's Infrastructure Element provides in pertinent part: The County's land development regulations shall provide for issuance of development permits within the identified wastewater service areas consistent with the following guidelines: * * * c. Where public wastewater treatment facilities are required, they shall be available concurrent with the impacts of development. Facilities which meet county specifications and the level of service standards for the service areas will be provided by the developer in the interim and will be connected to central facilities when they become available . . .. Internal Consistency. Petitioners presented no evidence that the Plan Amendment did not adhere to "needed acreage based on population projections." Consistent with the pertinent provisions of the County's Comprehensive Plan itself, the County's Planning Department Director testified that the County's Comprehensive Plan encourages the planning concept of nodal commercial development (allowing commercial development on all four corners of an intersection). This planning technique allows clustered commercial development in commercial nodes, locating in outlying areas, to provide localized commercial services for residents. Notwithstanding testimony that Petitioners probably would not patronize retail stores at the Intersection, the expert testimony was that commercial node development is intended to assist in reducing trips and average trip lengths by providing limited commercial services to area residents without necessitating their travel to a centralized commercial area. In the County’s Comprehensive Plan, the concept of commercial node development in non-urban areas is the basis for the RAC land use designation. See Finding of Fact 7, supra. Both of the County's witnesses testified that commercial development of all four quadrants of the Intersection is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan policy of encouraging commercial node development because it has long-existing partial commercial development, is signalized, and provides access in all directions. The evidence did not prove that the County's Comprehensive Plan requires traffic, sanitary sewer, or drainage (or any other) concurrency at the time of the adoption of a plan amendment. The County has adopted in its Land Development Code a concurrency management system requiring that concurrency be established prior to the issuance of a development order (such as a building permit). The evidence was that determining capacity and concurrency at the development order stage in the development process is standard and customary, and is used in a number of jurisdictions in the state. Regardless of the land use classification and zoning classification of the Amendment Parcel, when the Intervenor initiates application for approval of an actual development order, the Intervenor will be required under the County's Land Development Code to establish concurrency, including traffic, sanitary sewer, and drainage concurrency. There was some evidence to support the contentions of some Petitioners that commercial development of the Amendment Parcel would not be compatible with residential and rural land uses in the area and that that NW 80th Avenue is a "line of demarcation" between urban uses and rural uses. But Petitioners failed to prove those contentions by the greater weight of the evidence, including the 1998 recommendations of the County Planning Department staff and Planning Commission to approve a land use change to Commercial west of NW 80th Avenue. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan's designation of land west of NW and SW 80th initially as Urban Expansion in 1992 and as Urban Reserve in 1994 anticipated ultimate urban development of this Intersection, as well as properties approximately a mile to the west of the Intersection. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan designated two RACs to the west of the Amendment Parcel on State Road 40 (between the Amendment Parcel and the City of Dunnellon). The first RAC is three miles to the west of the Amendment Parcel, and the second RAC is seven miles to the west of the Amendment Parcel. The evidence was that the Intersection would have been a RAC had it not been designated Urban Expansion and then Urban Reserve. Finally, at least one Petitioner conceded the point and contested only the timing of commercial development of the Amendment Parcel. Alleged Urban Sprawl. Petitioners presented no analysis of urban sprawl indicators. They also presented no evidence that the Plan Amendment allocated commercial land in excess of demonstrated need in the County. As found, the Amendment Parcel is across NW 80th Avenue from existing commercial and other urban development; in addition, provision of nodal commercial development is intended to counter at least some symptoms of urban sprawl.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding that Marion County's small-scale amendment 01-S27 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary M. Bartlett 8080 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Robert S. Inglis 8078 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Helen Thomas 8130 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Paul and Joan Lussier 8071 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Wanda Negron 8076 Northwest 2nd Street Ocala, Florida 34482 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire Marion County's Attorney's Office 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471 Steven Gray, Esquire Hart & Gray 125 Northeast First Avenue, Suite 1 Ocala, Florida 34470 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 05S-01 (the Plan Amendment) adopted by Polk County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 05-004 is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes,1 and whether Petitioner, Citizens for Proper Planning, Inc. (CPPI), has standing as an “affected person” as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The ECRA is a local special district governmental agency established pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes, and is composed of a seven-member board of directors. The boundaries of the Eloise Community Redevelopment Area include an area consisting of approximately 665 acres within the unincorporated Eloise area of Polk County (the Redevelopment Area). The Subject Property is located within the Redevelopment Area. See JE 8A. The ECRA meets once a month, except July, when they do not normally meet. Its purpose is to discuss and implement the ECRA Redevelopment Plan’s six objectives within the Redevelopment Area. The ECRA opposed the Plan Amendment by and through its attorney and submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County regarding the Plan Amendment during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. As a part of its presentation to the County regarding the Plan Amendment, the ECRA delivered to the County, ECRA Resolution No. R-05-01, objecting to the Plan Amendment. The parties agree that the ECRA has standing in this proceeding. Petitioner, Bruce Bachman (Mr. Bachman), resides in Winter Haven, Polk County, Florida. His residence is located outside of the Redevelopment Area and is approximately three (3) miles from the Subject Property. He is employed as the operator (since 1980) and general manager of Phoenix Industries, LLP, (Phoenix), located at 621 Snively Avenue, County Road (CR) 655 in Eloise, which is adjacent to and across the street from the Subject Property. Mr. Bachman has served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ECRA since 1998. Phoenix operates a warehousing and distribution complex for dry, refrigerated, and frozen food products east of Snively Avenue and across the street from the Subject Property. The Phoenix property stretches north and south within an elongated area within the Redevelopment Area, and is open 24-hours a day, seven days a week.2 See JE 8A at "30". (The railroad, designated with a red line, runs north and south through the Phoenix property. JE 8A.) Phoenix has spent approximately $115,000 changing the angles of its buildings and moving docks so that trucks could maneuver on the property, and not have to enter Snively Avenue to do so. Mr. Bachman is involved with the Eloise residential area and the Redevelopment Area generally and his contributions to the Eloise area are well-noted in the record. His work with the community includes working with the students at Snively Elementary School. Individually, and on behalf of the ECRA, Mr. Bachman submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. The parties agree that Mr. Bachman has standing in this proceeding. Petitioner, Johnny Brooks (Mr. Brooks), resides at 143 8th Street, Eloise, Polk County, Florida, approximately three (3) blocks southwest from the Subject Property. His home is located within the main residential component of the Redevelopment Area. He was born in Eloise (on 5th Street) and has lived, with his wife, at the 8th Street address for 41 years. Mr. Brooks also serves as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ECRA. Although disabled, Mr. Brooks is an active member of the Eloise Community. For example, he and his wife conduct a “homework club” at the Eloise Community Resource Center (opened in 2002) located between 7th and 8th Streets and Snively Avenue, which is east and down the block from his residence. JE 8A at "2". They also use the computer lab at the resource center for adult education. They use the neighborhood Snively/Brooks Park, JE 8A at "4", approximately one block south of the Brooks' residence and west of the Snively Elementary School, JE 8A at "3", for, among other activities, Easter egg hunts and Christmas parties. Mr. Brooks is also involved in the Eloise Neighborhood Association, which offers adult computer classes, GED classes, and classes in English as a Second Language. He and his family use other resources within the Redevelopment Area, such as the Snively Elementary School, and a post office, JE 8A at "1", which is located approximately one block north of the Subject Property between 4th and 5th Streets, near Snively Avenue. Mr. Brooks attends the Eloise United Methodist Church (built in 1966-1967), which is located on land designated as Industrial (IND) on the FLUM. 3 JE 8A at "10". This church is located on the southwest side of Snively Avenue, and approximately five or six blocks south of the Subject Property and approximately two blocks south of the Snively Elementary School and the Snively-Brooks Park.4 Mr. Brooks submitted oral comments, recommendations, and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. The parties agree that Mr. Brooks has standing in this proceeding. CPPI is an organization comprised of approximately two hundred members, located throughout Polk County, Florida. CPPI has been an existing corporation since 2002. No application, request to join or payment of dues is currently required for membership. According to its executive chairperson, Jean Reed, its purpose is to "better plan for our growth in Polk County." Ms. Reed lives approximately one mile east of Eloise and four of five of the CPPI Board of Directors live within a mile of Eloise. All CPPI members live in the County. CPPI had been involved in County hearings and an administrative hearing involving a small scale comprehensive plan amendment. The organization currently encourages donations and plans to charge dues next year. CPPI submitted oral comments, recommendations and objections to the County during the Plan Amendment adoption proceedings. No evidence was presented to show that CPPI owns real property within the County. The County and the Intervenor dispute CPPI’s standing in this proceeding. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, empowered to adopt, implement, and amend its Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the laws of Florida. Intervenor, Don C. Smith (Smith or Intervenor), owns the Subject Property. He purchased the Subject Property of 9.9 acres, which is part of a contiguous 20-acre site, in May of 2003. Mr. Smith learned that the Subject Property had an RL-4 land use designation just prior to his purchase of the Subject Property. The parties agree that Mr. Smith has standing in this proceeding. The Eloise Community Redevelopment Area The Redevelopment Area consists of approximately 665 acres. EE 2, Plan at 30. It is generally bounded by the CSX railroad to the north of US 17; by Lake Lulu and Shell Road on the east; by Snively Avenue (CR 655) on the south; and by Wahneta Canal and a portion of Wahneta farms on the west. JE 8A.5 (Snively Avenue is a four-lane undivided, major collector highway, but is not a buffer.) Both historically and presently, the Redevelopment Area has been composed of mixed uses in an urban area. Under the FLUM, there are eight separate land uses within the Redevelopment Area: Industrial (IND), Business Park Center (BPC- 2), High Impact Commercial (HIC), Institutional (INST-1), Community Activity Center (CAC), Residential Suburban (RS), Residential Low-1 (RL-1), and Residential Low-4 (RL-4). JE 8A. Beginning at the northern portion of the Redevelopment Area and moving from west to east, south of the CSX railroad and approximately one block south of US 17, the land uses designated on the FLUM are HIC, CAC, and HIC. Moving southward and east of Snively Avenue, the land use designation for a triangular portion of land is BPC-2. The land use designation adjacent to and immediately south of the BPC-2 designation and east of Snively Avenue is designated as IND. The IND designation covers the land in a southerly direction until Snively Avenue intersects with Croton Road. The land to the east and adjacent to the BPC-2 and IND designations is designated as RL-1. There is a small portion of land near Shell and Croton Roads at the southern boundary of the Redevelopment Area designated as Residential Suburban (RS). (The RS designation continues to the east outside of the Redevelopment Area. Lake Lulu is to the east of the eastern RL-1 and RS designations.) There is also land designated as RL-1 west of Snively Avenue, bisected by Unnamed Street, extending west of Wahneta Canal and south-southwest of the Snively Elementary School/Snively-Brooks Park area, to the southwestern boundary of the Redevelopment Area.6 The Snively Elementary School and the Snively-Brooks Park are located in the INST-1 land use designation.7 JE 8A. Approximately 150 children walk to and from this elementary school (with another 60 to middle and high schools outside the Redevelopment Area), utilizing the sidewalk bordering the western portion of Snively Avenue. The majority of the children attending the elementary school reside in the RL-4 designated area (mainly between 1st and 9th Streets). Mr. Smith agreed that the elementary school was in close proximity to the Subject Property. Mr. Smith testified that after meetings with the ECRA, he moved the fence in front of the Subject Property and business back ten feet so that the children could have more room to walk down the street. He also instructed his drivers of big trucks and heavy equipment not to enter the Subject Property during times when the children are going to and from school. There are several school crossings, crossing Snively Avenue. There is a bus stop at 5th Street and Snively Avenue for children attending middle and high school. JE 8A at "6". There are also bus stops on 7th Street and in front of the elementary school. JE 8A at "5" and "7". Except for the residential portions of the CAC and BPC-2 areas, the primary residential area of the Redevelopment Area is generally bounded by US 17 and 1st Street on the north, the Wahneta Canal on the west, and to just north of Snively Elementary School and 9th Street on the south. JE 8A; EE 2, Plan at 6 and Figure 2. The Eloise Community Redevelopment Area Uses 1. In General The Redevelopment Area, for at least the last 40 years, has supported a wide variety of industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential uses. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Smith testified that the Redevelopment Area has supported these mixed uses and has historically been defined by the interrelationship of these various uses with the predominant industrial activities within its boundaries. In the past, the established residential area (RL-4) was once a successful working-class neighborhood which primarily provided homes to those workers who were employed in the citrus plants located within the industrial classified areas. That residential area is now blighted and provides housing for low and moderate income families. Though well established, the RL-4 residential area contains a substantial number of vacant lots within that residential designated area. 2. Redevelopment Area Problems and Redevelopment During the early 1980’s, Eloise was a troubled community, suffering, for example, from theft and vandalism. The community had difficulty finding minority contractors willing to work at Phoenix because of the problems associated with the community. By the early 1990s, the residential area of the Redevelopment Area had deteriorated to such an extent that the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HND), an agency of the County, became actively involved in the redevelopment of the community. In 1992, the Eloise Neighborhood Association was formed. In 1996, a Neighborhood Revitalization/Redevelopment Plan was commissioned by HND. This plan was prepared by County staff. Also in 1996, the HND and the Eloise Neighborhood Association prepared the Eloise Neighborhood Revitalization/Redevelopment Plan, which “focused on the 138 acres generally bounded by the CSX Railroad on the east, the railroad and US 17 on the north, the Wahneta Canal on the west, to just south of the Snively Elementary School. Its recommendations included improved social services, land use changes, housing programs and infrastructure improvements.” In 1998, a Declaration of Slum and Blight was adopted by the Board through Resolutions Nos. 98-08 and 98-66, which, respectively, made a finding of blighting conditions in Eloise and adopted a redevelopment plan for Eloise. As a result, the ERCA was created pursuant to Section 163.356, Florida Statutes, to rehabilitate, conserve, and/or redevelop the Redevelopment Area. In 2000, the Board, pursuant to Section 163.360, Florida Statutes, adopted Ordinance No. 00-33, approving of the Eloise Redevelopment Plan as the Community Development Plan for the Redevelopment Area. It was the purpose and intent of the Board that the Eloise Redevelopment Plan be implemented in the Redevelopment Area. The Board made numerous findings in Ordinance No. 00- 33 including a determination that “[t]he Plan conforms to the general plan of the county as a whole” and that “[t]he Plan conforms to the Polk County Comprehensive Plan.” The Board also determined that “[t]he need for housing accommodations has increased in the area.” The Eloise Redevelopment Plan has not been adopted as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the Plan Amendment need not be consistent with the Eloise Redevelopment Plan to be “in compliance.” The May 2000, Eloise Redevelopment Plan describes the then existing ownership patterns such that “[t]he existing Eloise residential neighborhood between 1st and 9th Streets is subdivided into platted, fifty-foot wide lots. Most are 100-125 feet in depth. Lots along 9th Street abutting the school are platted as 70-foot wide lots. The ownership pattern in this area typically follows the lot lines. Most are individually owned lots. (See Figure 6).” EE 2, Plan at 16. Particularly relevant here, it is also stated: “Lots 33 and 34 [part of the Subject Property] are each approximately 9 acres and are owned by Alterman Transport Corporation (ATC). The site is currently used for storage and, in the past, was zoned GI [General Industrial] and R-3. In the current Comprehensive Plan, however, this site is planned for Residential Suburban (RS) to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The trucks are a legal-nonconforming use and may continue but any future development shall comply with the RS land use district.” EE 2, Plan at 16. The Eloise Redevelopment Plan also recommended that the Alterman Trucking Annex, also known as the Alterman Transportation Corporation, be developed for up to 75 single- family homes by the end of 2004. EE 2, Plan at 32; JE 3 at 3 of (The Subject Property was also formerly known as the Alterman Motor Freight Terminal. JE 2, 8/10/2004 site map.) In 2001, the County also changed the classification of the Subject Property from RS to RL-4 pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-45. See Finding of Fact 54. In addition to the creation of the ECRA, the County, through the HND, has attempted to revitalize the Redevelopment Area. Since 1993, HND has spent approximately $4.4 million dollars in these efforts. These funds have been spent on community policing ($424,790), slum and blight clearing ($47,428), housing rehabilitation ($186,807), parks and recreation ($149,982), water/sewer/drainage ($1,094,677), construction of the Eloise Community Center ($2,147,037), replacement of five homes ($314,138), and rehabilitation and repair of five homes ($46,819). As part of the Eloise Redevelopment Plan, many additional infrastructure improvements have been proposed, such as fire hydrants, turnaround areas for emergency vehicles and fire trucks, storm water installation, and sewer for the Residential Area of Eloise between 1st and 9th Streets and between Snively Avenue and the canal. The proposed projects for water, sewer, and storm water include 350 parcels to be served in this Residential Area. The construction of the Eloise Community Center has been the most costly expense in these efforts. After the County obtained this parcel from Phoenix Industries, it was discovered that the land was contaminated and more than $400,000 was spent on environmental clean-up costs for this property. The ECRA and the County have made progress in the area of code enforcement. Furthermore, crime has been cut in half and a drinking ordinance was passed by the County upon request of the ECRA and the Eloise Neighborhood Association. Eloise, with the County's cooperation, also initiated a Community- Oriented Policing program. There has been an increase in construction in the area, both on the residential and commercial/industrial side of Snively Avenue. The ECRA has also been working on a beautification strategy. For example, Phoenix spent $35,000 for landscaping, removing barbed wire, installing an irrigation system, and installing an attractive entrance to its facilities. Further beautification is planned for other areas along Snively Avenue, the main gateway to the area from US 17, and improvements to Snively Elementary School, for which the ECRA allocated up to $10,000. Currently, the socio-economic status of the families living within the residential portion of the Redevelopment Area is low and moderate income. But, as noted above, the area is being revitalized, including the addition of several Habitat for Humanity-built homes. Mr. Bachman confirmed that "[t]hings have changed now," including the employment of minorities and an increase in diversity at the elementary school. The Subject Property The Subject Property is located within the Redevelopment Area on the southwest side of Snively Avenue between 5th and 6th Streets. JE 8A. The Subject Property consists of approximately 9.9 acres, which is part of a 20-acre parcel owned by Mr. Smith. Tr. 261. (There is a vacant parcel not subject to the Plan Amendment, also acquired by Mr. Smith at the same time, adjacent to and west of the Subject Property, which appears to be within a flood zone area. JE 8A at “46”. The canal serves as the western border for this parcel.) Currently, there are ten to eleven residences along 5th Street, north of the Subject Property, and ten residences between the Subject Property and 6th Street, south of the Subject Property. See EE 7. There does not appear to be any appreciable distance between these residences and the Subject Property. Aside from the residential homes north and south of the Subject Property, there are also retail, auto repair, and other commercial uses which border on Snively Avenue. See, e.g., IE 1, aerial with 15 photographs; JE 3 at 5 of 27; Tr. 295-297; JE 8A. According to Mr. Smith, he requested the land use designation change to cure the non-conforming status of the Subject Property. All operations on the Subject Property had ceased for less than one year when he purchased the Subject Property. The Subject Property has historically and, except as noted above, continuously been utilized since the late 1960’s for industrial-type purposes, including motor freight activities which include loading and unloading citrus trucks, racking, truck repair, and truck weighing. These activities would not necessarily be restricted to an Industrial land use designation;8 the current use of the Subject Property as a motor freight terminal is also permitted within a BPC-2 land use designation. There has been no substantial change in the use of the Subject Property since 1980.9 Mr. Brooks testified that while he was growing up in Eloise, the Subject Property "was primarily truck parking for the citrus plant." He "worked for the scale house back in the late 60's before the plant went down and all [they] did was like park the trucks there for unloading and which would be in the citrus plant itself." However, he never knew the Subject Property "to be an industrial park itself," during the late 1960's. Historically, Mr. Snively, who died in 1957, owned several different businesses across the street from the Subject Property, including a fresh fruit packing house, JE 8A at "20", juice plant, JE 8A at "21", concentrate plant, JE 8A at “22”. The plant closed in 1969 or 1970. In and around 1972, during the summer, Mr. Smith worked for the Snively operation when they parked their citrus trucks on the Subject Property and then for the Alterman operation on-site when he loaded and unloaded trucks. Under the County's zoning ordinance adopted in November 1970, the Subject Property, along with the Phoenix Industries Property, its adjoining property, and the property southeast and adjacent to Snively Elementary School, were zoned as General Industrial (GI). Like the Subject Property, this industrial area is located east and immediately adjacent to property classified as residential (RS) (although the property is presently undeveloped). By an amendment to the FLUM adopted by Ordinance No. 91-06 on April 19, 1991, the Subject Property was classified as RS, rather than IND.10 At the same time, the Phoenix Industries Property, its adjoining property, and the property immediately adjacent to Snively Elementary all maintained their Industrial classification. The May 2000 Eloise Redevelopment Plan recommended, in part, consideration of "a plan amendment from RS to RL-4 for the properties north of Snively [Elementary] School and west of Snively Avenue" which included the Subject Property. EE 2, Plan at 38. On July 11, 2001, the County adopted Ordinance No. 01- 45, which changed the land use designation on the FLUM from RS to RL-4, for all of the property (including the Subject Property) between 1st Street and just south of 9th Street and between Snively Avenue on the east and the canal on the west. EE 1 at map page 2. The land use designation for the Snively- Brooks Park was also changed to INST-1 from IND. Other land use designations were changed pursuant to Ordinance No. 01-45. EE 1. See also Tr. 130-136, 139-140. The FLUM changes implemented strategies set forth in the Eloise Redevelopment Plan and adopted recommended changes to the FLUM. See Tr. 163. The RL-4 designated property is located immediately adjacent to and on the north, west, and south sides of the Subject Property. JE 8A. Across Snively Avenue from the RL-4 property is the industrial area which was previously used in the citrus industry and which is currently used by Phoenix warehousing and trucking activities. JE 8A. "The purpose of the [RL-4] District is to provide areas for low density residential needs of residents in urban areas who desire areas with smaller lots, a minimum of 6,000 square feet." § 204A7., Land Development Code (LDC). The County and Mr. Smith contend that the Subject Property was mistakenly or erroneously classified as RS in 1991 and RL-4 in 2001. However, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that no mistake or error was made in 1991 or 2001 based, in part, on the chronology of events regarding the land use changes mentioned above. Merle H. Bishop, A.I.C.P., the current Director of Growth Management for the County, has been an employee of Polk County for 30 years, and was involved in the adoption of the original Comprehensive Plan in 1991. In preparing land use designations for the initial FLUM, he used aerial photographs primarily and the existing zoning at the time. Since that time, he and staff have discovered errors in mapping the land uses of property, including industrial. Typically, the errors have been corrected when presented to the Board for comprehensive plan changes to the FLUM. Mr. Bishop testified that pursuant to a policy in the Comprehensive Plan, the County desired to “recognize industrial uses.” Tr. 444-445. According to Mr. Bishop, an active industrial use would only be eliminated with good reason, i.e., such as it was a remote and isolated industrial use. Tr. 455. According to Mr. Bishop, the Subject Property, the southern parcel by the elementary school, and the Phoenix Industries property made up a major industrial use area. Tr. 456. Although Mr. Bishop stated the Subject Property "would have been" designated as Industrial in 1991 given its use, Tr. 511-512, Mr. Bishop could not "say whether or not [they] missed this on the map when [they] mapped it. I mean it appears -- I mean, when you look at the map, it's very general; or whether there was an intention to not map it." Tr. 483-484. Mr. Bishop did not testify persuasively that the Board, in 1991 or in 2001, erroneously designated the Subject Property as RS and then RL-4. The February 2, 2005, staff report, mentions the applicant’s contention that a mapping error occurred, but implicitly rejects this argument. JE 3 at 11 and 12 of 27. Staff stated: The site has recently changed ownership and the current property owner wants the non-conforming uses to become conforming uses. Recognizing the existing use will enable to [sic] owner to continue utilizing the site as it has historically been used and allow the redevelopment of the property as needed. In addition, the use has remained the same since the early 1970’s according to the applicant. The applicant also states that Policy 2.113-A2 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the [FLUM] Series shall include all major existing industrial areas; since the property has historically been used for industrial uses, the recognition of the site will correct the County’s mapping error. On the other hand, staff and the ECRA has [sic] indicated, for this and the prior requested land use change (CPA 04A-05), that the impacts to the residential neighborhood is [sic] more significant than the redevelopment of the site for commercial or industrial uses. The County worked with the residents, business owners, and land owners in the area to develop a redevelopment plan, in which, the site was intentionally made non-conforming by the community and the County in order to create separation between the industrial uses across the street from the residential uses on the west side of CR 655 (Rifle Range Road [sic]). Therefore, the applicant’s primary argument for recognizing the historical use is not relevant. JE 3 at 12 of 27. Mr. Bishop was not directly involved with the staff review although he participated at the pubic hearing before the Board. If the Subject Property were vacant, Mr. Bishop would not recommend an Industrial land use designation. He supports the land use change because of the existing (at the time) use of the Subject Property and to have the property be a conforming use. Tr. 506-507. The history of industrial-type use on both the Subject Property and other sites in the Redevelopment Area has been a subject of significant concern. Although no tests have been conducted to determine whether the Subject Property is contaminated, Dr. Cherry testified that as a result of its long industrial use, it is likely that contamination will be present, which would render its use for residential purposes not realistic. Tr. 221-223. Since the subject property is located near the property upon which the community center was constructed and both parcels were part of a larger industrial area and utilized for similar uses, Dr. Cherry suspects that the Subject Property will likewise be contaminated. Tr. 222. If the Subject Property is contaminated, it is Dr. Cherry's opinion that there will be insufficient funds to clean the area. Tr. 219. Consequently, Dr. Cherry opined that if the Subject Property could not be used for industrial purposes, it would likely be unable to be developed as residential and most likely would be abandoned, thereby becoming a “brownfield.” This would significantly burden the redevelopment efforts in the Redevelopment Area. However, the Subject Property has not been declared a “brownfield” and no finding can be made regarding the environmental condition of the Subject Property based upon the record of this case. The Small Scale Plan Amendment Application and Adoption On or about August 10, 2004, Mr. Smith filed an application requesting the County to re-designate the land use of the Subject Property from RL-4 to IND. JE 2. According to the “Narrative Summary,” “[t]his change will provide for the continuation of historical motor freight uses and provide for optional industrial uses.” Id. On January 4, 2005, the County published Notice in a newspaper of local circulation providing that the Board would consider the adoption of the Plan Amendment at its meeting of January 19, 2005. At the January 19, 2005, meeting, the County tabled consideration of the Plan Amendment to its meeting of February 2, 2005. The Polk County Planning Division Staff report is dated February 2, 2005. This report contains a detailed analysis of the application. The Planning Division recommended denial of the Plan Amendment. (The report indicates that the Planning Commission recommended approval (3 to 1 vote) of the Plan Amendment.) The Planning Division found, in part, that "the proposed development request IS NOT compatible with surrounding land uses and general character of the area of the residential uses on the southern side of Snively Avenue (CR 655) and IS NOT consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan for a land use change to Industrial (IND) because it would likely intrude into the existing residential neighborhood, allow for more intensive uses to be developed next to existing homes, and not be consistent with the approved Eloise Redevelopment Plan." (Emphasis is original). On February 2, 2005, the Board voted to adopt the Plan Amendment by the adoption of Ordinance No. 05-004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order concluding that the Plan Amendment adopted by Polk County Ordinance No. 05-004 is not "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The parties Respondent, Franklin County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter authorizes the County, under certain conditions, to adopt what is known as a small scale development amendment to its comprehensive plan. At issue in this case is a small scale development amendment adopted by the County on October 3, 1996. Petitioner, St. George Plantation Owners Association, Inc. (petitioner), is a not-for-profit corporation organized for the protection and management of the Plantation Area of St. George Island. The island lies just south of Apalachicola, Florida in the Gulf of Mexico. The parties have stipulated that petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law and thus it has standing to bring this action. Intervenors, Ben Johnson and Coastal Development Consultants, Inc., are the owners of approximately 58 acres on St. George Island known as the Resort Village Property. The property is adjacent to the St. George Island Airport. A portion of intervenors' property, 9.6 acres, is the subject of the plan amendment being challenged. The nature of the dispute Intervenors' property is subject to a 1977 Development of Regional Impact (DRI) order adopted by the County in 1977. The order has been amended from time to time. Among other things, the order provides conceptual approval for the development of "one or more high quality resort hotels or motels, together with such affiliated uses as may be appropriate or desirable, such as gift and tourist shops, restaurants, recreational activities and similar activities." Intervenors desire to develop the Resort Property Village consistent with the 1977 DRI order. The first part of the project consists of approximately 9.6 acres which they have designated as Phase I. The land is located within the Plantation Area of St. George Island and has a land use designation of residential. In June 1995, intervenors submitted detailed site plans for Phase I to the County. On August 1, 1995, the County conducted a public hearing to review the proposed site plans and specifications for Phase I. It adopted a motion which directed its staff "to review and perfect the plans presented, so that the Board can consider the final approval of the plan." It also directed its staff to provide advice concerning the procedure to be followed. After consulting with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which recommended that the comprehensive plan be amended to change the land use to accommodate the commercial uses, the staff recommended that the County adopt a small scale development amendment by changing the designation on its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for 9.6 acres from residential to commercial. By a 3-2 vote, on October 3, 1996, the County adopted Ordinance No. 96- 22 which changed the designation for the 9.6 acres on the FLUM from residential to commercial. Because the amendment affected ten or fewer acres, the County opted to make the change with a small scale development amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes. According to the site plan which accompanied a Notification of Proposed Change filed with the County on May 26, 1996, the Phase I development includes four hotels, 10,250 square feet of commercial space, 300 square feet of retail space, a beach club, a 325 seat conference center, various support and recreational facilities, and a wastewater treatment plant. The Phase I site plan, however, does not include the three subsurface absorption beds which are required to service the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant. If the absorption beds were included, they would increase the size of Phase I from 9.6 to approximately 14.6 acres. In a petition challenging the adoption of the small scale amendment, petitioner contends that, if the absorption beds are properly included in the land use amendment, the land use area would exceed ten acres and thus would require a full-scale land use amendment subject to DCA review. In response, the County and intervenors have contended that, under the current plan, there is no need to change the land use where the wastewater treatment facility will be located since such facilities are allowed in any land use category. As such, they contend there is no requirement to include such property in Ordinance 96- 22. The Wastewater Treatment Facility The proposed development will be served by a wastewater treatment facility. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued a permit to Resort Village Utility, Inc., a utility certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to serve the entire 58-acre Resort Village property. The permit provides that the plant can accommodate up to, but not exceeding, 90,000 gallons of treated effluent per day. The facility consists of the wastewater treatment plant, lines to the plant from the development which carry the untreated wastewater to the plant, and lines from the plant to three sub-surface absorption beds where the treated effluent is disbursed. The absorption beds required for the Phase I project wastewater treatment facility will not serve any residential customers. Rather, they will only serve Phase I and any other subsequent phases of Resort Village development, which is a commercial development. Construction must begin on the wastewater treatment plant once the flow of waste effluent reaches 7,500 gallons per day, or if the wastewater from restaurants reaches 5,000 gallons per day. The Phase I project is required to use this facility once the rate of flow of waste effluent exceeds 10,000 gallons per day. Until these thresholds are met, the project will rely temporarily on aerobic systems to handle and treat waste effluent. Under the permit issued by the DEP, the wastewater treatment facility required for Phase I consists of both a wastewater treatment plant and three absorption beds. Through expert testimony of a DEP professional engineer, it was established that the absorption beds were integral to the design and successful operation of the facility. The County and intervenors acknowledge this fact. Therefore, the "use" that is the subject of the amendment is the entire wastewater treatment facility, including the absorption beds, and "involves" some 14.6 acres. Since the plan amendment does not involve "10 or fewer acres," as required by statute, the amendment cannot qualify as a small scale development amendment and is thus not in compliance. In making these findings, the undersigned has considered a contention by the County that Policy 2.3 of the comprehensive plan sanctions its action. That policy reads as follows: Public utilities needed to provide essential service to existing and future land uses in Franklin County shall be permitted in all the land use classifications established by this plan. Public utilities includes all utilities (gas, water, sewer, electrical, telephone, etc.) whether publicly or privately owned. At hearing, the County planner construed the term "public utilities" as being "minor (utility) infrastructure," including wastewater treatment plants not exceeding 100,000 gallons per day. Relying on this provision, the County reasons that the proposed facility is "minor" infrastructure, since it will only have 90,000 gallons per day capacity, and thus it can be placed in a residential land use category. They go on to argue that, since no change in land use classification is needed to permit the facility, it is unnecessary to include the facility in the plan amendment. According to the County, however, the plant (but not the beds) was included only because it was easier to draw a map for the entire 9.6 acres rather than excise that portion of the land where the plant will be located. Under the same theory, the County has placed at least two existing wastewater treatment facilities in the residential land use category. Those facilities, however, predate the adoption of the comprehensive plan in April 1991, and both serve residential, as opposed to commercial, developments. Moreover, the County admitted that it lacks any "clear" policy about the meaning of "public utilities," and it has never adopted a land development regulation to implement the interpretation given at hearing. The County's position is contrary to conventional land use planning practices which define "utilities" as infrastructure such as water or electrical lines that transport a service and would, by their very nature, be required to cross different land uses. Conversely, conventional land use planning practices define "facilities" as infrastructure that performs a service, such as power plants or pumping stations. This infrastructure does not cross different land use categories. In this case, the absorption beds perform a service by further processing and treating waste effluent from Phase I. Therefore, conventional land use planning practices would logically call for the plant and related absorption beds to be classified as "public facilities" under Policy 2.2(i) of the County's comprehensive plan. That policy defines the term as including "water and sewer facilities." The classification would also be compatible with the definition of "public facilities" found in DCA Rule 9J-5.003(105), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, the County and intervenors point out that the facility may not be constructed for many years, depending on the rate and amount of development that occurs in Phase I. Thus, they contend that there is no immediate requirement for the County to change the future land use designation of the property where the absorption beds will be located. But given the fact that the beds and plant are a single, interrelated system, the County cannot choose to change the land use designation for a portion of the facility while ignoring the remainder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order determining Ordinance No. 96-22 adopted by Franklin County on October 3, 1996, as not in compliance for failing to meet the criteria of Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Richard W. Moore, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1759 Alfred O. Shuler, Esquire Post Office Drawer 850 Apalachicola, Florida 32320-850 L. Lee Williams, Esquire Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1169 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Gregory C. Smith, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue is whether two map changes on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Taylor County (County) by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 on December 15, 2009, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The Department is the state planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving amendments to comprehensive plans adopted by local governments. The County is a local government that administers a Plan. It adopted the two plan amendments that are the subject of this proceeding. It is considered a "rural" county with a current population of around 20,000 residents. Dr. Hutchins owns property in the County. Although his initial pleading alleges, and his Proposed Recommended Order states, that he "submitted oral comments regarding the subject amendments at transmittal and prior to adoption of the amendment," no evidence was presented at hearing that Dr. Hutchins did so during the adoption process. Ms. Redding and Mr. Wood are siblings and along with three other members of the Wood family jointly own property in the County. Like Dr. Hutchins, no evidence was presented at the hearing that either Intervenor submitted written or oral comments to the County during the adoption process. History Preceding the Amendments The process for adopting the County's first Plan, including the FLUM, began around 1988. For the purpose of drafting a FLUM, a Planning Board (Board) was created consisting of seven individuals, all of whom were volunteers with no formal planning experience. However, they received advice and assistance from two outside consultants, who also advised the County concerning the appropriate text to be used in the new Plan. Four members of the Board, including its former Chairman, testified at the final hearing. Over the next two years, the Board conducted meetings, spoke with numerous property owners, and collected information in order to assign each parcel an appropriate land use category. The collective efforts of the Board culminated in a large, hand- colored FLUM (consisting of numerous sections of aerial maps patched together) that was affixed to the wall of what is now the courtroom on the second floor in the County Courthouse. Testimony by former members of the Board established that the Hutchins parcel (then owned by Colin and Lucille Kelly) and the Bird Island parcel (owned by Wood, Redding, and other family members) were assigned a classification of Mixed Use-Urban Development. Because the County does not have a zoning code, the properties were never assigned a zoning classification consistent with that land use category. This classification was based upon the fact that at least two different businesses were being conducted on each parcel at the time, and the owners requested that they be given that classification. In the case of the Hutchins (then Kelly) property, it was being used to conduct a commercial fishing operation as well as a small construction company (with dump trucks, bulldozers, and front end loaders) that had a contract with Proctor & Gamble (now known as Buckeye Technologies, Inc.) to maintain roads. An office for the construction company was located in a separate mobile home placed on the property. Mr. Bird was a commercial fisherman and operated a wholesale fish business on Bird Island. Also, both he and his mother had separate homes on the property, another structure was used to store fish nets, and docking facilities for other commercial fisherman were maintained. Many of these structures were blown away during the so-called Storm of the Century on March 13, 1993, and never replaced. Except for property within the small communities of Keaton Beach, Dekle Beach, Denzel Beach, and Steinhatchee, and a few other small parcels, such as Dark Island, Cedar Island, and Intervenors' property, all of the remaining land along the coastline was placed in either Conservation or Agriculture. An unusual feature of the County is that it has one of the longest coastlines in the State (58 miles), stretching on the Gulf of Mexico from Jefferson County to Dixie County. Because around 88 percent of the coastline is owned by the State, very little waterfront land is left for development. In fact, Dr. Hutchins pointed out that except for his property and Bird Island, no other vacant, upland Gulf-front property within the County is in private ownership at this time. The FLUM, with the foregoing classifications, was adopted by the County by Ordinance No. 90-4 on June 19, 1990. Before it was submitted to the Department for its review, the County was advised by the Department that it would not accept the large, hand-colored FLUM in that format. Rather, the Department required that the map be reduced in size and digitized. To comply with this request, the original FLUM was dismantled into smaller sections and hand-carried to a firm in Crystal River that had the capability of reducing the large map into digital form. The original FLUM was then returned to the County Courthouse. When the larger map was reduced in size and converted to a digital format, it was not parcel-specific and failed to pick up the Hutchins parcel and Bird Island. Instead, except for larger tracts of land, especially in the small communities noted in Finding of Fact 8, the entire coastline was shown as being Conservation or Agriculture. This error was not detected by County officials or the affected property owners since they continued to rely upon the designations shown on the large, hand-colored FLUM in the Courthouse. The Department reviewed the FLUM, as digitized, assumed that the Hutchins and Bird Island property were Agriculture and Conservation, and found those parts of the FLUM to be in compliance. This agency action occurred on or about October 1, 1990. Thus, the Department never undertook a compliance review for either parcel with the intended higher density/intensity land use. In 1995, the room in which the original FLUM was mounted was taken over by another occupant of the Courthouse, and the original FLUM was moved to a different floor. During or after the moving process, it was lost or accidentally destroyed and its whereabouts have been unknown since that time. In 1993, Dr. Hutchins purchased his property from Colin and Lucille Kelly. Based on a conversation with a County employee, he purchased the property with the understanding that it was classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development. Although he had no specific plans to develop the property at that time, and still has none, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use category was the major inducement for him to purchase the property. In 2005, Dr. Hutchins was approached by an investor who wished to develop the property at a later time. When the investor contacted the County to confirm its land use designation, Dr. Hutchins learned for the first time that the digitized map approved by the Department reflected the property carried an Agriculture/Rural Residential land use. Because of this, the agreement with the potential investor was never consummated. In a similar vein, Mr. Wood, who served on the Board that assigned land use designations to property on the original FLUM, and knew that the Board had designated his property as Mixed Use-Urban Development, placed the Bird Island property on the market in 2005 representing that it was classified in that category. A prospective purchaser checked with the County to verify its land use and learned that it was Conservation. Mr. Wood was unaware of this error until that time. Because of this, the sale was never consummated. After 2005, the County and Department held numerous meetings in an attempt to resolve this dispute. The Department refused to allow the FLUM to be changed to reflect the original land use designations. This led to the County adopting the two challenged amendments to correct what it characterizes as a "scrivener's error." Besides the two parcels that are in dispute here, on an undisclosed date, two other parcels (in the interior part of the County) were discovered by the County to have the wrong land use category as a result of the digitizing process. Both should have been placed in the Industrial land use category, and after a review, the Department had no objection to those errors being corrected by an amendment. The Plan Amendments On December 15, 2009, the County adopted Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17, also known as CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3. The first amendment changed the land use on the 14-acre Hutchins parcel from Agriculture/Rural Residential to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The present land use allows one dwelling unit per 5 acres while the new land use designation allows up to 12 dwelling units per acre and a 60 percent impervious surface ratio for nonresidential development. See Department Exhibit 1, Future Land Use Policy I.3.2. Thus, up to 126 residential units and 96,476 square feet of non-residential development could be built on the Hutchins site. The second amendment changed the land use on the 3.36-acre Bird Island parcel from Agriculture-2 and Conservation to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The former land use allows one dwelling unit per 40 acres while the new land use would permit the same density/intensity as the Hutchins parcel. The new category would allow up to 30 residential units and 21,954 square feet of non-residential development. The amendments were transmitted by the County to the Department for its review in early April 2009. On June 5, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. The Department lodged objections to both amendments generally on the grounds the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; the amendments authorize an improper increase in density within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) without proper mitigation; the amendments failed to discourage urban sprawl; and they are internally inconsistent with existing provisions within the Plan. The ORC recommended that the County not adopt the amendments. Besides the Department, DEP and the Regional Planning Council also provided written comments on the amendments. By letter dated May 8, 2009, DEP generally noted that it had concerns regarding development adjacent to the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve (the Preserve) where the parcels are located, and that careful planning strategies should be used for any development on the land. See Department Exhibit 4. The Regional Planning Council issued a staff report on February 25, 2010, generally concluding that the amendments were consistent with the applicable Strategic Regional Policy Plan goals and objectives. See Department Exhibit 15; County Exhibit 1. The County did not respond in writing to the ORC. On December 15, 2009, it adopted the amendments without change. On March 10, 2010, the Department published its Notice of Intent to find the amendments not in compliance in the Taco Times. On March 16, 2010, the Department filed its Petition with DOAH raising the same grounds that are in its Notice of Intent. The Property The Hutchins parcel is located in the southwest part of the County, a few miles south of Keaton Beach, with around 500 to 600 feet fronting on the Gulf of Mexico. The 14 upland acres that are the subject of this case are a sub-site of a larger 25-acre parcel owned by Dr. Hutchins, with the remaining 11 acres being adjoining wetlands on the north and south sides. Dr. Hutchins has built a home on pilings on his property along with a smaller ancillary structure. Photographs indicate that except for trees, the remainder of the upland property is vacant. Bird Island also lies on the Gulf of Mexico just northwest of the Hutchins parcel and is surrounded by water on three sides. Photographs reflect one residence and a dock still on the property. The two parcels are separated by "marsh grass and a little water." Both parcels of property are easily accessible to, and just west of, County Road 361, a paved two- lane highway that begins south of the subject properties and runs adjacent to, or near, the coastline, eventually turning northeast and terminating on U.S. Highway 19 south of Perry. Both properties abut portions of the Gulf of Mexico that have been designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The waters are a part of the Preserve, which was established in 1985 and is managed by DEP. The Preserve has exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. The two parcels are located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). That is to say, they are in "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In order to increase density within the CHHA, the County must meet certain criteria set forth in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department's Objections As summarized in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department contends that the two plan amendments are not in compliance because the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; there is an improper increase in density within the CHHA without proper mitigation; and the amendments fail to discourage urban sprawl. Although the Notice of Intent also raised the issue of whether the amendments are internally inconsistent with other provisions in the County's existing Plan, the Proposed Recommended Order does not address any specific internal inconsistencies, and the evidence focuses on the first three concerns. Therefore, the undersigned has assumed that those objections have been withdrawn or abandoned. Environmental Suitability With the exception of an area in the middle part of the County's coastline (where the Fenholloway River flows into the Gulf), the Preserve extends along the County's entire coastline, including the area in which the two parcels are located. The Preserve, designated as an OFW, contains various types of seagrasses, whose function is to provide habitat for a number of species, improve water quality, and reduce currents or wave energy in the event of a storm. It is undisputed that the seagrass beds near the amendment sites are high-quality, healthy, and of high environmental value. Coastal marshes are prevalent in the area of the County where the amendment sites are located. They serve many functions, including cleaning water flowing into The Preserve, functioning as a habitat for a number of species, and acting as a coastal barrier against storm surge during large storm events. Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, requires that local governments protect and conserve natural resources through the conservation element of the local plan. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. A Department rule also requires local governments to limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon water quality and living marine resources. See Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1. High-density development (up to 12 units per acre) on the parcels clearly has the potential to negatively impact coastal marshes and seagrasses adjacent to and near the subject sites. Although Dr. Hutchins indicated that he would develop his property only to the extent allowed by DEP so that the marshes and seagrasses would be safeguarded, the Department's practice for many years has been to assume that the property will be developed at its maximum allowable density and intensity. See, e.g., Sheridan v. Lee Cty, et al., Case No. 90- 7791 (DOAH Jan. 27, 1992; DCA June 28, 1993; Admin. Comm. Feb. 15, 1994)(compliance determination must be made based on maximum impacts authorized by the amendment terms, not speculation of a lesser impact). Mr. Wood's development intentions are not known. In any event, the two parcels potentially authorize 156 residential units and 113,430 square feet of non-residential uses adjacent to an OFW. Even so, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use designation may still be permissible if specific conditions limiting the density/intensity on the parcels are incorporated into the Plan by asterisk or text language in conjunction with a new amendment. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this planning practice has been used in other cases. Without any limitations, though, the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the maximum allowable density/intensity contravenes the cited statute and rules. CHHA Both parcels are located within the CHHA of the County. Section 163.3178(2)(h), Florida Statutes, requires that the County establish mitigation criteria for plan amendments located in the CHHA. Probably because of its small size in terms of population, and the lack of development (or ability to do so) along the coastline, the County has no goals, objectives, or policies addressing criteria for mitigation. Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. requires that a plan "direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas." Also, Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)7. requires that a plan "maintain or reduce evacuation times." Prior to 2006, the Department would allow a local government to comply with the foregoing rules by allowing density increases in the CHHA if the local government decreased a similar type of density elsewhere. This practice was known as "offsets." In 2006, however, the Legislature amended the statute to include criteria for compliance with the two rules. Due to the change in the law, the Department no longer engages in the practice of offsets for land use changes in the CHHA. Instead, it requires a local government that proposes to increase density within the CHHA to meet the requirements of Section 163.3178(9)(a)1.-3., Florida Statutes. Under the statute, if the County can demonstrate a 16-hour out-of-county evacuation time for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and a 12-hour evacuation time to shelter within the County for a category 5 storm event, an increase in density within the CHHA may be allowed. See § 163.3178(9)(a)1. and 2., Fla. Stat. Alternatively, the County may use one of the mitigation measures described in Section 163.3178(9)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Except for Coastal Element Objective IX-7 of the Plan, which provides that the County maintain a hurricane evacuation time of 9 hours for a category 1 storm, see County Exhibit 7, no data and analysis, such as a hurricane evacuation study for a category 5 storm event, was presented to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Dr. Hutchins' submission during the mediation process of an evacuation plan for a category 3 storm does not satisfy this criterion. Typically, a local government will have an adopted plan for a category 5 storm, as well as an evacuation model. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the mitigation measures in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes, have not been satisfied. At hearing, the County and Dr. Hutchins contended that offsets should still be used in this case to satisfy the mitigation requirements. They point out that the County has recently purchased property (totaling 51.7 acres) that is designated Mixed Use-Urban Development and more than compensates for any potential increase of residents needing to evacuate if the two amendments are found to be in compliance. As noted above, however, the practice of offsets was discontinued in 2006 with the passage of the new law. Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, there was no legal requirement that the Department notify every affected local government and property owner that it was discontinuing that practice to comply with the new law.2 Urban Sprawl Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1.-13. identifies thirteen "primary" indicators of urban sprawl. The Department contends that eight indicators are "tripped" or "triggered" by the new amendments and collectively they indicate that the proliferation of urban sprawl is not discouraged. No evidence was presented regarding five indicators. According to the rule, "[t]he presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d). Indicator 1 is tripped if the amendments allow uses in excess of demonstrated need. In this case no need analysis for additional land in the Mixed Use-Urban Development category was submitted by the County. The absence of a study is sufficient to trigger this indicator. Indicator 2 is tripped if the amendments allow "significant" amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas. The only true existing "urban" area in the County, as that term is commonly understood, is the City of Perry. Other residential and some commercial development (but to a much lesser degree) is found mainly in a few small communities on the coastline such as Steinhatchee, an unincorporated community perhaps 15 miles south of the subject parcels with probably around 1,500 residents, and Keaton Beach and Dekle Beach, both having no more than a few hundred residents each. (Official recognition has been taken of the population data.) Keaton Beach is around 2 or 3 miles north of the subject property and has condominiums and other limited residential/commercial development. In addition, Dark Island is located a short distance north of Bird Island and is classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, which authorizes the higher density/intensity development. Given this lack of "urban areas" in the County, virtually any development outside of Perry could arguably be considered "urban development . . . in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. Notwithstanding this unique (and perhaps unfair) situation, it is fair to characterize the potential addition of 12 units per acre as urban development and a total of around 150 residential units with associated commercial development as "substantial" when considering the County's size and existing development. Therefore, the second indicator has been triggered. Indicator 3 is triggered if the amendments allow urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development." Because urban development will occur in a rural, isolated area, this indicator is triggered. Indicator 4 is triggered if there is premature development of rural land that fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources. The evidence supports a finding that this indicator is triggered. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of existing and future public services and facilities. The evidence shows that the area is not currently served by central sewer and is not near any fire or police stations. While no public facilities are planned for that area in the five year capital improvement schedule, at a meeting in March 2010 the Taylor County Coastal Water & Sewer District indicated that a request for partial federal funding to extend central sewer services to Fish Creek, which lies beyond and to the south of the subject parcels, would be placed on the April agenda. See County Exhibit 7. Whether a request was actually made at that meeting is not of record. In any event, Coastal Element Policy IX.6.5 provides that where central sewer is not available in an area classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, septic tanks may be used within the CHHA. See Department Exhibit 1. As to fire and law enforcement support, there is insufficient evidence to establish that these services cannot be provided in an efficient manner. Given these circumstances, there is less than a preponderance of the evidence to support a finding that indicators 6 through 8 are triggered. Indicator 9 is triggered if the plan amendments fail to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that this indicator is triggered. Collectively, the presence of four indicators is sufficient to support a finding that the County has failed to discourage urban sprawl. E. Scrivener's Error The County and Intervenors rely heavily upon the fact that the plan amendments are in compliance because the amendments simply correct an error that occurred when, at the Department's direction in 1990, the original FLUM was reduced in size and digitized. While at first blush this argument is appealing, it assumes that the Department would have approved the new land use classifications in 1990 when it performed a compliance review of the original FLUM. But this never occurred, and the new amendments give the Department its first opportunity to determine if the new land uses are in compliance. It is undisputed that on an undisclosed date the Department approved an amendment based on the same type of error. While the record is somewhat confusing, it appears that in that case, the two properties were Industrial, they were not located in the CHHA, and on-going business concerns were operating on the properties. Intervenor Hutchins also cited several instances where mapping errors were allowed to be corrected by subsequent plan amendments. Where final agency action in those matters is of record, however, it shows that approval was given only after a compliance review was made by the Department.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that Plan Amendments CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3 adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether plan amendments adopted by Respondent in Ordinance No. 5-1998 are not in compliance, for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Intent that is incorporated into the Petition of the Department of Community Affairs.
Findings Of Fact The Plan and the Adoption Ordinance Petitioner challenges Respondent's redesignation of a 198-acre parcel (Parcel) from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial on the future land use map (FLUM) of Respondent's comprehensive plan. This is the Plan amendment that is the subject of the present case. Respondent's comprehensive plan consists of a document that was restated through 1990 (Petitioner Exhibit 22) and a set of plan amendments adopted on October 13, 1997 (Petitioner Exhibit 13). This recommended order will refer cumulatively to the 1990 restated plan and the 1997 plan amendments as the Plan. Two conditions govern reliance upon Petitioner Exhibits 22 and 13 as the sources of Plan provisions. First, Petitioner Exhibits 22 and 13 do not contain all of the textual Plan amendments adopted by Respondent between 1990 and 1997. For example, Text Amendment T-1 in Plant City Plan Amendment 95-1, as adopted by Ordinance 34-1994 on October 10, 1994, is missing from Petitioner Exhibit 22. It is unlikely, though, that the missing Plan provisions would have a bearing on the present case. Second, and more important, Petitioner Exhibit 13 contains proposed plan language that Respondent never adopted. Similarly, Respondent did not adopt the plan language or recommendations for the addition, deletion, or amendment of plan language contained in Petitioner Exhibits 6 and 8. Petitioner Exhibit 6 is Respondent's evaluation and appraisal report (EAR). Required by law to be prepared at stated intervals, the EAR is the document by which a local government assesses the performance of its comprehensive plan and recommends needed amendments. In this case, Petitioner objected to portions of the EAR, so Respondent adopted a revised EAR (REAR), which is Petitioner Exhibit 8. After Petitioner determined that the REAR was sufficient, subject to the conditions noted below, Respondent adopted Plan amendments by Ordinance 23-1997, as adopted October 13, 1997; these amendments are contained in Petitioner Exhibit 13, which, as already noted, is part of the Plan. However, Petitioner Exhibit 13 is a composite exhibit and contains plan language that Respondent did not adopt. It is not entirely clear from the exhibit exactly what Respondent is adopting because Ordinance 23-1997 does not contain, identify, or describe the Plan amendments, nor is a copy of the Plan amendments attached to the ordinance. As incorporated into Petitioner Exhibit 13, the adopted Plan amendments precede the ordinance. These amendments change the Public Facilities Element (PFE), Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Capital Improvements Element (CIE), including the schedule of capital improvements, and substitute a comprehensive set of definitions for the sets of definitions that previously were contained in several of the elements. Incorporated into Petitioner Exhibit 13 between the adopted Plan amendments and the ordinance are a small number of pages concerning legal advertising and regional plan review, but these pages, which are irrelevant to the present case, were not adopted. Following the ordinance are additional pages concerning advertising and county plan review and a set of documents entitled, "Section A, Summary of Proposals for Plan Amendment Group 97-01." It is unclear to what Section A is supposed to be attached, but most likely Section A contains the proposed amendments that Respondent submitted to the Hillsborough County Planning Commission. In any event, Respondent never adopted Section A, as such. About six months later, Respondent adopted the Plan amendment that is the subject of this case. By Ordinance 5-1998, adopted April 13, 1998, Respondent adopted "amendments" to the Plan. The finding that this ordinance contains the subject Plan amendment is not entirely free of doubt because it is based on inference and implied stipulation; as is apparently Respondent's practice, the actual amendment is in no way identified in Ordinance 5-1998. The ordinance states only that a "copy of [the] amendment is filed in the office of the City Clerk . . .." Nothing in the record actually describes the contents of Ordinance 5-1998, but the parties and reviewing agencies, such as the Hillsborough County Planning Commission, have treated this ordinance as the one that adopted the redesignation of the Parcel, so the administrative law judge will too. The title of the adoption ordinance is: "AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PLANT CITY, FLORIDA; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (97-1)." This is the only reference to "97-1" in the ordinance. Respondent attached several documents to the submittal package to Petitioner. The amendment is identified as Amendment 97-2 in the minutes of the City Commission meeting at which Respondent adopted the ordinance; however, the ordinance does not mention this amendment number. The amendment is identified as Amendment 97-2, Map Amendment 1, in the resolution of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, which approved an amendment changing the designation of 198 acres on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. The amendment is identified as proposed Amendment 98-1 in Respondent's responses to the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments of Petitioner, although the context of these responses reveals that they pertain to the redesignation of 198 acres from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. The submittal package also includes a map that shows the area to be redesignated Industrial from Suburban Density Residential and a staff report that includes a textual and graphic analysis of the land uses surrounding the Parcel. Background The west boundary of the Parcel abuts Jim Johnson Road and a main north-south railroad line, the south boundary abuts an east-west railroad line, and the east boundary abuts Coronet Road. The Parcel is designated Suburban Density Residential, although, according to the staff report, a poor legal description leaves some doubt as to whether the westernmost part of the Parcel might already be designated Industrial. This recommended order treats the entire Parcel as Suburban Density Residential. The Parcel lies at the extreme southeast corner of Plant City. The surrounding land in Plant City is entirely Industrial. The Parcel lies at the southeast corner of one of the two largest areas designated Industrial in Plant City. Both of these areas are in the city's southern half, which is otherwise devoted to medium- and high-density residential and commercial uses. The vast portion of low-density residential, which is designated Suburban Density Residential, is in the city's northern half, which also includes some commercial, medium- and high-density residential uses. The staff report analyzes the surrounding existing land uses within this Industrial area of Plant City. On the eastern half of the north border of the Parcel is "expansive wooded fenced pasture land" with one single-family home and some stored mobile homes. On the western half of the north border and the northern half of the west border is a Food Lion distribution center on a 150-acre parcel. Immediately west, across Jim Johnson Road, is a developed industrial park. On the east border is a golf course, a power plant, and vacant, wooded land. On the south border, within Plant City, is a small area of Suburban Density Residential not proposed for redesignation. This area appears to be wooded and adjoins another wooded area that adjoins a residential area a short distance to the east. On the south border, within unincorporated Hillsborough County, of which Plant City is a part, are low- density residential uses in an area designated in the Hillsborough County plan for up to six dwelling units per acre. (All references to density shall state a ratio with the number of dwelling units followed by the number of acres; in this case, the density is 6:1). The Parcel contains fenced pasture land, one single- family residence, and a rail spur leading from the south border to the south boundary of the Food Lion distribution center. The Parcel contains three areas of wetlands totaling about 37 acres. The wetlands are at the south and west side of the Parcel, the middle of the Parcel, and the east side of the Parcel. The wetlands are contiguous and convey water to the upper part of the Howell Branch, which empties into the South Prong of the Alafia River. The Alafia River runs west through Hillsborough County and empties into Hillsborough Bay or upper Tampa Bay. The record provides no basis to infer that the railroad track running along the southern boundary of the Parcel has impounded stormwater runoff. To the contrary, the presence of culverts and elevated tracks suggest that the spur crossing the Parcel and ending at the Food Lion property does not cut off the flow of surface water. However, the record does not contain much detail as to the level to which the onsite wetlands function as natural drainage or habitat. The economic value of the Parcel would be enhanced if its designation were Industrial rather than Suburban Density Residential. However, the record does not permit the inference that development would take place sooner in the event of such a redesignation. Jim Johnson Road is scheduled to be expanded to four lanes from a point to the north down to nearly the south end of the Food Lion parcel. At this point, Jim Johnson Road, which continues farther south as a two-lane road, intersects the eastern terminus of the four-lane extension of Alexander Street. The Parcel is not presently served by central wastewater, but, by 2000, such service should be extended to within one-half mile of the Parcel. The nearest lift station operated at only nine percent of capacity in 1988. The unadopted text accompanying the Plan states that Plant City, which is about 20 miles east of Tampa and 10 miles west of Lakeland, has experienced "steady industrial growth over the past years with almost total utilization of its industrial park . . .." Plan, Future Land Use Element, p. 20. The central business district of Plant City is at the intersection of State Road 39 and U.S. Route 92. When this central business district began to form over 100 years ago, it occupied the intersection of important rail lines traveling north-south and east-west--the two lines that continue to operate in the vicinity of the Parcel. Decades later, the interstate highway system added to Plant City's industrial development. Interstate 4, which runs east-west, passes just north of the central business district. Interstate 75, which runs north-south, is a little over 10 miles west of Plant City. In the 1970s, Respondent annexed the land in the southwest part of the city for the mixed-use planned residential development known as Walden Lake. In the same decade, Respondent annexed the land in the western part of the city for industrial uses in the vicinity of the city airport. Ensuing industrial development in the Walden Woods Business Center, of which the Parcel is a part, has resulted in the location of a distributor of bottled detergents on a two-acre parcel, a boxmaker on a 20-acre parcel, and an automated operation to upgrade used cars on another 20-acre parcel. In the 1980s, as the western industrial lands developed, Respondent facilitated the industrial development of land in the eastern part of the city. Recent industrial development has shifted toward the east, absorbing land between Plant City and Lakeland. The unadopted text in the Plan predicts strong industrial growth in the future: Recent events have indicated that Plant City will have a significant expansion in its industrial base through the location of major industrial employers to the east of the city providing jobs and revenue to Plant City. This will, of course, have an effect upon the facilities of Plant City in maintaining current levels of service and the concurrent provision of facilities with the impacts of development as the City's currently adopted plan requires. Due to the impact that industrial developments have upon adjacent land uses, including residential areas, the City will require all future industrial developments to be planned development. Plant City is expected to maintain a suburban, commuter and local job market through the planning period. Job growth in the reserve area will create more nearby employment opportunities for the city's residents with the workforce travelling shorter distances to employment centers in the immediate area. Plan, Future Land Use Element, p. 20. The testimony at the hearing established that Plant City occupies the I-4 technology corridor. Aided by the efforts of the University of South Florida, in Tampa, and the University of Central Florida, in Orlando, this corridor is designed to attract high-tech manufacturing. Plant City and Lakeland are important segments of this corridor because they have sufficient utilities to serve such manufacturers. Persons involved in the marketing and developing of industrial land contend that, from a marketing standpoint, there is a shortage of affordable, usable industrial land in Hillsborough County. Land in Tampa is expensive, and relatively little land exists in unincorporated Hillsborough County. One broker/developer estimated that there has not been so little land of this type in this area since the early 1980s--a situation exacerbated by the conversion of some industrial office parks to office and residential uses. Respondent has enjoyed favorable newspaper publicity concerning its industrial growth. In its Responses to Petitioner's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments, dated March 23, 1998 (ORC Response), Respondent's staff summarized numerous newspaper articles noting the number of high-paying jobs attracted to Plant City by its proximity to Interstates 4 and 75, the Tampa port and railroad lines, 75 percent of all food- distribution sites in Florida, a new technical-education center, major universities in Tampa and Orlando, and Respondent's pro- industrial policies, including reduced fees on new construction to pay for infrastructure. ORC Response (part of Petitioner Exhibit 4), pp. 9-12. The unadopted text in the Plan analyzes the relationship of allocations to future needs by residential and nonresidential categories. As of 1990, the projected population for Plant City for 2010 was 27,700, and the residential designations on the FLUM accommodated a buildout population of 29,921. For nonresidential calculations, Respondent determined the potential employment-generating capacity of Respondent's available Commercial and Industrial land by considering square feet per acre, vacancy rates, and employees per square foot. Respondent concluded that the Commercial and Industrial future land use designations could accommodate an additional 36,694 employees to its employment base by 2010. Referring to the employment capacity stated in the preceding paragraph, the unadopted text concludes: This capacity is significantly greater than the estimated employment growth potential for the city and could potentially contribute to a dramatic change in the city's future socio- economic profile. Plan, Future Land Use Element, p. 32. As Petitioner considered the subject FLUM amendment, it became readily apparent that Petitioner and Respondent differed as to the extent of analysis required to support the conversion of 198 acres of Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. In its REAR, Respondent updated its acreage allocations by future land use category, showing 1989 and 1995 acreages. From 1989 to 1995, Suburban Density Residential increased from 1215 acres, or 9.8 percent of the City, to 2272, or 15.7 percent of the City. (Annexations raised the total acreage in the City from 12,344 acres to 14,452 acres.) During the same period, Industrial increased from 3573 acres, or 28.9 percent, to 4385 acres, or 30.2 percent. After Suburban Density Residential, the largest percentage change during this period was Environmentally Sensitive, which decreased from 1958 acres, or 15.9 percent, to 1433, or 9.9 percent. Addressing wetlands-protection issues, the REAR states that the Conservation Element in the Plan, "as implemented through the City's Land Development Code and the requirements and processes of the Environmental Protection Commission," is "consistent with the new State requirements." Petitioner Exhibit 8, p. 9. The REAR asserts that the Conservation Element protects wetlands through discussion in the unadopted text of the Plan and "outlines wetlands protection strategies in the adopted portion of the [Conservation Element], Objective C and Policies C.1-C.9. Wetlands protection is also addressed in the FLUE [Future Land Use Element]." Petitioner Exhibit 8, p. 9. However, the REAR promises an expanded Conservation Element with mapping of the wetlands on the FLUM. The REAR contends that: [u]pon adoption of revised [Plan] provisions, all wetlands in the City will be protected by the [P]lan, by existing or revised Land Development Code provisions, by the [Environmental Protection Commission's] Wetlands Rule (which includes more stringent protection for more types and sizes of wetlands than that available at any other level of government), by the state through its Environmental Resources Permit (ERP) process, and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and various other laws and procedures. The City believes that this system will ultimately offer an extremely high level of [P]lan-based wetlands protection. Petitioner Exhibit 8, pp. 9-10. The REAR contains a table showing proposed changes to the Plan. Among the proposed changes is FLUE Policy 6.B.4, which was proposed to provide: The City may allow wetland encroachment as a last option only when other options to avoid wetland impacts are unavailable. When this occurs, the City in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, shall ensure the permitted activities are compatible with maintaining the area as a viable productive vegetative and wildlife habitat that protects its natural function based on the following criteria: allow only minimum impact projects such as piers, docks, walkways in wetlands; require development to be transferred to adjacent uplands outside wetland areas; restrict density in wetland areas to one residential unit for each identified wetland area. Petitioner Exhibit 8, p. 32. Petitioner determined that the REAR was in compliance, although on the condition that Respondent agree to work on the issues of wetlands, urban sprawl, and transportation. The Plan amendments adopted on October 13, 1997, did not address many of the issues discussed in the EAR and REAR. Notably, the Plan amendments did not include the revised FLUE Policy 6.B.4, quoted above. Following Respondent's transmittal of the subject Plan amendment, Petitioner submitted objections, recommendations, and comments. In its ORC Response, Respondent stated: The consideration of this plan amendment does not rest on a need to show a demand generated by residents of the City for more industrial land. The City has shown that it has provided for, and can continue to provide for, adequate provision of residential and other uses. ORC Response, p. 3. Using updated figures, the ORC Response states that Respondent had an excess residential designation of over 12,000 persons by 2015. The designation change of the Parcel would still leave an excess residential capacity of 10,443 persons. Using an updated population projection of 36,300 persons by 2015, the removal of the Parcel from Suburban Density Residential reduces Plant City's residential overallocation, in 2015, from 33.1 percent to 28.77 percent--which is still in excess of Petitioner's 25-percent guideline for residential overallocations. Addressing wetlands-protection issues, the ORC Response states that a developer could not develop Industrial land until it showed that "environmental damage would not occur" and compliance with the requirements of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, County Environmental Protection Commission, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. ORC Response, p. 5. Citing a provision of Respondent's land development regulations, the response adds that Respondent would require a "detailed site plan." Id. The ORC Response acknowledges that Petitioner was seeking the adoption of additional Plan provisions, in accordance with Rule 9J-5.013, Florida Administrative Code, to "exclude future land uses which are incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland function." ORC Response, p. 5. The ORC Response assures that Respondent will propose language requiring the developer to document the environmental conditions at the time of a proposed Plan amendment, rather than at the time of the issuance of a development permit, as the Plan reportedly provides at present. The ORC Response adds that, at the time of the issuance of a development permit, the new language will require that "an environmental review would ensure than the proposed development, under the applicable land use category, does not impact any natural resources located on the site. The protection rests with the site plan review process, detailed in the City's Land Development code." ORC Response, p. 5. Addressing transportation issues, the ORC Response relies on the concurrency provisions of the Plan to ensure that adequate traffic capacity will exist to serve the industrial development of the Parcel. Addressing buffering issues, the ORC Response assures that adequate buffering with nearby residential areas will result from the requirement, in the land development regulations, that the developer provide adequate buffering through a "detailed site plan." The Plan The definitions define Industrial as: The future land use plan category used to designated geographically on the Future Land Use Map and/or textually in the Future Land Use Element those areas in the City that are potentially suitable for industrial activities that create a minimal degree of impact to the surrounding area, particularly in terms of non-objectionable levels of noise, vibration, dust, and/or odor, and for convenience commercial uses that are limited to serving the development. All new development and major expansions of existing uses are subject to site plan review with the intent to integrate and minimize adverse impacts upon adjacent land uses. No new residential development is allowed. Development in these areas is subject to the Goals, Objectives and Polices of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations pursuant thereto which allows [sic] up to a floor area ratio (FAR) of .50 and a maximum commercial area limited to 10 [percent] of the planned development industrial building square footage. Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-21. The definitions define Suburban Density Residential as: The future land use plan category generally used to designated geographically on the Future Land Use Map and/or textually in the Future Land Use Element those areas that are best suited for single family detached residential uses although other housing approaches and compatible related uses such as churches and public utilities serving the neighborhood can be integrated in the area, subject to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable development regulations pursuant thereto. A density range of 0-4 dwelling units per gross acre may be achieved within SDR. Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-39. The definitions section defines "Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Areas (E), Future Land Use Category" as: The future land use plan category is generally used to designate, geographically on the Land Use Map and/or textually in the Future Land Use Element, those areas in the City that are potentially environmentally sensitive and thereby subject to classification as Conservation or Preservation areas under the provisions of the Conservation . . . Element The Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Areas future land use plan category on the Future Land Use map is generalized and not exhaustive of all environmentally sensitive sites. Therefore, actual on-site environmental evaluations must occur for any specific project review, and development of any lands containing environmentally sensitive areas is restricted by applicable federal, state, and/or local environmental regulations and by the applicable Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (Refer also to the definitions of Preservation Area and Conservation Area and to the polices, land use category description, and density computation provisions related to environmentally sensitive areas). In conjunction with on- site environmental evaluation, the adjacent land use designation shall provide guidance as to the development potential that may be considered once environmentally sensitive areas are surveyed and mapped on site. Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-16. The definitions define "Environmentally Sensitive" as: Descriptive of lands which, by virtue of some qualifying environmental characteristic (e.g., wildlife habitat) are regulated by either the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), or any other governmental agency empowered by law for such regulation. Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-15. The definitions do not define "Preservation Area," except to refer to "Conservation Area." Petitioner Exhibit 13, B9-31. For "Conservation Area," the definitions state: Means land designated to: protect the following preservation areas from any further development, except in extreme cases of overriding public interest: --Critical habitat for species of endangered, threatened, or rare status; --Class I and II waters; --Unique environmental features such as springs, steep natural slopes, cavernous sinkholes, and major natural rock outcrops. be environmentally sensitive areas in the Comprehensive Plan and the City's Land Development Code. Development of these areas is limited to conservation uses. be set aside specifically for the protection and safekeeping of certain values within the area, such as game, wildlife, forest, etc. Preserved areas may or may not be outdoor recreation areas, depending on the use allowed therein. Petitioner Exhibit 13, pp. B9-10 and 11. The definitions define "Conservation Uses" as: Activities within the land areas designated for the purpose of conserving or protecting natural resources or environmental quality and includes areas designated for such purposes as flood control, protection of quality or quantity of groundwater or surface water, floodplain management, fisheries management, or protection of natural vegetative communities or wildlife habitats. [F.A.C. 9J-5.003(30)] Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-11. The definitions define "Wetlands" as: those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and a duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances, do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils. Soils present in wetlands generally are classified as hydric or alluvial, or possess characteristics that are associated with reducing soil conditions. The prevalent vegetation in wetlands generally consists of facultative or obligate hydrophytic macrophytes that are typically adapted to areas having soil conditions described above. These species, due to morphological, physiological, or reproductive adaptations, have the ability to grow, reproduce or persist in aquatic environments or anaerobic soil conditions. Florida wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bayheads, bogs, cypress domes and strands, slough, wet prairies, riverine swamps and marshes, hydric seepage slopes, tidal marshes, mangrove swamps and other similar areas. Florida wetlands generally do not include longleaf or slash pine flatwoods with an understory dominated by saw palmetto. The delineation of actual wetland boundaries may be made by any professionally accepted methodology consistent with the type of wetlands being delineated but shall be consistent with any unified statewide methodology for the delineation of the extent of wetlands ratified by the legislature. [F.A.C. 9J-5.003(149)] Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-43. The definitions define "Planned Development" as: "Development governed by the requirements of a site plan zoning district." Petitioner Exhibit 13, p. B9-31. FLUE Policy 1.C.3 states: Higher intensity non-residential land uses that are adjacent to established neighborhoods shall be restricted to collectors and arterials and to locations external to established and developing neighborhoods. FLUE Goal 2 is: To sustain the viability of existing and emerging commercial and industrial park areas to achieve an integrated land use fabric which will offer a full range of employment, shopping, and leisure opportunities to support the city's residential areas. FLUE Policy 2.A.3 provides: Buffer residential uses from the negative impacts of non-residential development (physical, visual, or auditory), through the use of walls, berms, landscaped areas. FLUE Objective 2.E is: Support the downtown, stadium, community college, hospital, airport and the industrial areas of the city as the major employment and regional attractors of the Plant City area. FLUE Policy 2.E.1 states that Respondent will ensure that "adequate transportation, water, sewer, solid waste, and drainage facilities will be provided concurrent with the impacts of development " FLUE Policy 6.A.4 provides: The City shall regulate land use and development in all areas subject to flooding by prohibiting all development within the 100 year floodplain which is not in strict conformance with the provisions of the City of Plant City Flood Hazard Ordinance. FLUE Policy 6.A.6 is: The City shall investigate incentives to encourage the clustering of development away from environmentally sensitive lands. FLUE Objective 7.A states: In all actions of the City, urban sprawl shall be discouraged and a compact urban pattern of development shall be provided for in a manner which will promote the full utilization of existing public infrastructure and allow for the orderly extension and expansion of municipal facilities in a fiscally responsible manner. FLUE Policy 7.A.3 provides: The City shall permit new development which lies contiguous to existing urbanized lands only if public facilities are available or can be provided concurrent with the impacts of the development. All development shall be consistent with and maintain the adopted levels of service. FLUE Objective 7.B restates the concurrency requirement at the time of "approving new development and redevelopment." FLUE Policy 7.B.1 prohibits the issuance of "development orders or permits" that would result in "a reduction of the level of service (LOS) established for public facilities as adopted in the Capital Improvements Element." FLUE Objective 7.E restates the commitment to serve all new development and redevelopment with public facilities at or above the adopted LOS standard. FLUE Objective 7.F again restates this commitment, as it pertains to roads. The Goal of the Conservation Element is to: Preserve, conserve, restore, and appropriately manage the natural resources of the City of Plant City, in order to maintain or enhance environmental quality for present and future generations. Acknowledging the role of land-use planning in protecting natural resources, the Conservation Element states: In past decades, land use decisions were based primarily upon socio-economic and demographic factors, with little consideration given to preserving or conserving the natural attributes of the land. As a result, urban land uses were often allowed to replace or permanently alter environmentally sensitive lands and natural systems. With a better understanding of the ecological impacts of land uses, it has become clear that the natural carrying capacity of the land must be carefully considered in land use decisions if the natural attributes and functions of the environment are to be maintained for future generations. Policies and regulations that appropriately preserve or conserve valuable natural resources, while allowing for orderly economic growth, are needed. Petitioner Exhibit 22, Conservation Element, pp. 63-64. The Conservation Element contains 12 objectives under eight categories--air quality, surface water, soil, hazardous materials, flora and fauna, natural preserves, land uses, and minerals. The objectives are specific and measurable. However, the policies in the Conservation Element are vague and unlikely to contribute significantly to the attainment of the Conservation objectives. Only 11 policies (A.7, B.1, B.7, C.2, E.2, E.6, E.7, F.6, H.2, H.4, and L.1) specifically describe a program or activity that will assist in the attainment of any objective. The remaining policies require Respondent only to "cooperate" (14 times), "promote" (9 times), "participate" (5 times), "request" (4 times), "support/encourage" (4 times), "assist" (3 times), and even "consider requiring" (1 time). Other policies promise compliance with the law, public education, and recommendations. Six policies promise some action in the land development regulations or the "land use planning process"-- evidently referring not to the preparation of the Plan, but to some part of the permitting process that may be described in the land development regulations, but is not described in the Plan. Several of the Conservation provisions more directly affect the present case. Acknowledging that "more stringent regulations for stormwater discharges should be considered," Conservation Objective B states: By 1990, discharges to all natural surface water bodies in the City of Plant City shall meet or exceed State water quality standards . . .. Cognizant that increased growth will continue to pressure wetlands, a "significant percentage" of which have already been lost, Conservation Objective C states: "By 1992, no net loss of natural wetland acreage and 100-year floodplain storage volume shall occur in the City." However, Conservation Policy C.3 implements this promise through reliance on the activities of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission and the previously described, unspecified permitting process that appears to be part of Respondent's land development regulations. Conservation Policy C.4 defers to "appropriate environmental regulatory agencies" the responsibility of developing a comprehensive wetland mitigation and restoration program. Conservation Policy C.9 states that Respondent will cooperate with Hillsborough County and the Southwest Florida Water Management District to develop comprehensive floodplain management regulations for the 100-year floodplain. In the restated 1990 plan, Public Facilities Element (PFE) Objective 1.C provided: By 2000, the City will implement mandatory requirements for discontinuing the use of all septic tanks[,] providing sanitary sewer facilities for the affected residents is available. In the 1987 amendments, Respondent weakened this objective by substituting for it the following: The City shall encourage the discontinuance of all on-site wastewater systems and private water wells upon the availability of public sanitary sewer facilities and public water utilities for the affected residents. However, PFE Policy 1.C.1, also part of the 1987 amendments, somewhat limits the circumstances under which landowners may continue to use onsite wastewater disposal systems. PFE Objective 1.A states: By February 1, 1990, the City . . . will implement procedures to ensure that at the time a development permit is issued, capacity consistent with the level of service standards is available or will be available when needed to serve the development. PFE Policy 1.A.1 adopts LOS standards of 89 gallons per capita per day for residential sewer, 7 gallons per employee per day for commercial sewer, and 43 gallons per employee per day for industrial sewer. Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) Policy A.1 adopts LOS standards for city roads. TCE Objective B requires Respondent to adopt land development regulations to ensure that transportation improvements further the provisions of the FLUE. TCE Policy D.1 is to provide transportation infrastructure to accommodate the impacts of growth consistent with the requirements of the provisions of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE). CIE Objective 1 is to set LOS standards for each public facility and identify the capital improvements needed to ensure that the adopted LOS standards are met. CIE Objective 2 is to provide needed public facilities that are within Respondent's ability to fund. CIE Policy 2.B attempts to allocate the costs of additional public facilities between existing and new development; ensuing policies largely assign the responsibility for curing deficiencies to existing development and adding capacity to new development. CIE Objective 3 is to provide needed public facilities to compensate for depletion and to accommodate new development and redevelopment. Ultimate Findings of Fact Adequacy of Ordinance On its face, Ordinance 5-1998 provides no basis whatsoever for inferring that it implements a change in the Parcel's designation on the FLUM. The contents of the ordinance presumably emerges only upon examination of the original ordinance file kept in the City Clerk's office. Supporting Data and Analysis--General Need for Conversion from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial Designation As for the need for more Industrial land, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis fail to support this Parcel's redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. Petitioner contends that this change in designation is not supported by the data and analysis because it results in an overallocation of Industrial. This argument fails for several reasons. First, Petitioner failed to prove any standards by which to determine an overallocation of Industrial, at least given the circumstances of this case. Already characterized by considerable industrial development, Respondent has successfully promoted more industrial development. Perhaps most important, Respondent's unique locational advantages promise more industrial development, given Respondent's proximity to the major population areas of East Central Florida, the Tampa Bay area, and Southwest Florida and its proximity to the large-scale transportation facilities of two major interstates, two rail lines, the Tampa port, and the airports of Tampa and Orlando. Second, under these unique circumstances, Petitioner failed to prove that market demand coupled with the need for larger blocks of land do not justify the new Industrial designation for the Parcel. Third, Petitioner failed to prove that the redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial is not supported by the data and analysis because this redesignation reduces an overallocation of residential land while adding to employment opportunities for present and future residents of Plant City. 2. Wetlands and Conversion from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial Designation As for the protection of wetlands, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis fail to support the Parcel's redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial. This finding is not based on the strength of the wetland-protection provisions in the Plan. To the contrary, the Plan is remarkably free of such provisions. Rather, this finding is based on the lack of evidence that an Industrial designation would more greatly imperil the wetlands than does the Suburban Density Residential designation. The record provides little basis to compare the effects on the wetlands of the Industrial intensity of .5 FAR as opposed to the Suburban Density Residential density of 4:1. Respondent's contentions that it permits only light industrial are more notable for their recurrence, rather than their support, in the record. The Plan contains no such limitation. In fact, the Plan's definition of Industrial minimally limits uses only in terms of common-law nuisance--e.g., noise, vibration, sound, and dust; nothing in the definition or elsewhere in the Plan limits Industrial uses in terms of effects on wetlands or other natural resources. Perhaps Respondent's land development regulations may further restrict industrial uses, but such easily-amended land use restrictions are irrelevant to a Plan case. Respondent also contends that Industrial requires site- planning. The Plan permits Respondent to require site-plan review, but does not require it to do so. Presumably, Respondent would be free to do so for a large-scale residential development, even though its Plan does not expressly mention the possibility. Although the Plan does not prohibit Industrial use of septic tanks, it is more likely that 4:1 residential development would rely on septic tanks than would .5 FAR industrial development. The three wetlands in question would likely fare better in the absence of a proliferation of nearby septic tanks, as would be permitted under Suburban Density Residential. Internal Inconsistency Future Land Use Element Petitioner failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Objectives 7.A, 7.B, 7.E, and 7.F, and the policies supporting these objectives, as well as FLUE Policies 2.A.3 and 2.E.1. These Plan provisions address buffering residential uses from nonresidential uses, urban sprawl, the efficient provision of public facilities, conformance to adopted LOS standards, and concurrency. As for buffering, the buffering requirement of FLUE Policy 2.A.3 is sorely tested by the presence of a railroad line running through the Parcel. Converting the designation of the Parcel from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial, to the railroad track, serves the purpose of this policy. The problem here is not the railroad track, but the Suburban Density Residential designation; if anything, FLUE Policy 2.A.3 militates for the elimination of an arguably inappropriate residential designation immediately south of the railroad line. As for urban sprawl, the redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial does not encourage the kind of inefficient land uses targeted by the Plan provisions discouraging urban sprawl, nor does the redesignation encourage an inefficient or costly extension of infrastructure. This recommended order has already found a viable functional relationship between the Parcel, if designated Industrial, and the larger region of which the Parcel and Plant City are a part. This is the key finding on the urban-sprawl issue. This order cites Petitioner's rule as it identifies the indicators and relevant development controls that are relevant to an urban-sprawl analysis. Although the Plan is nearly free of useful development controls, all of the urban- sprawl indicators suggest either that the new Industrial designation, as compared to the Suburban Density Residential designation, will discourage urban sprawl or have no effect on urban sprawl. The greater weight of the indicators suggests that the new designation will discourage urban sprawl. These indicators are the encouragement of a functional mix of uses, absence of excessively large areas of single use, absence of Industrial uses in excess of demonstrated need, absence of development forms (such as leapfrog and radial) suggestive of premature development, absence of poor accessibility among related uses, and achievement of a separation of rural and urban uses. Inconclusive indicators involve the protection of natural resources, agriculture, and open areas, the effective use of existing and future public facilities, and the discouragement of infill development. The commitment of FLUE Objectives 7.B, 7.E, and 7.F and FLUE Policy 2.E.1 to provide each public facility at its adopted LOS concurrent with new development is not compromised by either designation. A designation of Suburban Density Residential or Industrial is merely a future land use designation; it is not a development order. When Respondent issues a development order for the Industrial Parcel, the Plan's adequate concurrency provisions ensure that public facilities must be available at the time of the impacts of development. However, Petitioner correctly contends that concurrency is no substitute for the correlation or coordination of future land uses with the planned availability of public facilities. If Respondent's planning strategy were to rely on concurrency to time the issuance of development orders for the Parcel, then Respondent would be inviting a sudden and possibly catastrophic disruption of its real estate market and economy. At its worst, such a planning strategy would probably cause the plan to fail to achieve consistency with the criterion of financial feasibility, but Petitioner makes no such allegation in this case. On the present record, though, it is equally possible that Respondent will timely revisit its schedule of capital improvements in order to serve the Parcel with the necessary public facilities, such as roads, or Respondent may timely exact money from its taxpayers, the developers, or the ultimate purchasers through the wide variety of means available to fund infrastructure. In any event, Respondent's planning strategy for public facilities is not, to the exclusion of fair debate, internally inconsistent with the cited Plan provisions under the present circumstances, including the unambiguous requirements of the Plan's concurrency provisions, relatively small area involved (198 acres), economic likelihood in a tight market for industrial land that Respondent can exact from the developer and/or purchasers sufficient contributions to meet the demands of concurrency, and planned extension of central wastewater into the general area by 2005. Another distinguishing factor is that, according to Respondent's unrebutted analysis, only a worst-case development scenario would violate the traffic LOS standards and trigger concurrency. 2. Conservation Element Petitioner failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with Conservation Objectives C and J, and the policies supporting these objectives. Conservation Objective C is to ensure no net loss of natural wetlands or 100-year floodplain storage, and Conservation Objective J is to ensure the protection of the functions of the natural environment. The policies under these objectives are so vague as to be irrelevant. The focus in this case is not on the Plan itself, but on the Plan amendment; the sole question is therefore whether Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the redesignation from Suburban Density Residential to Industrial is inconsistent with objectives to ensure no net loss of natural wetlands or floodplain and to ensure the protection of the functions of the natural environment. As already noted, despite clear deficiencies in the Plan in its treatment of these natural resources, Petitioner has failed to prove how this redesignation negatively impacts any of these natural resources. 3. Traffic Circulation and Capital Improvements Elements For the reasons already discussed, Petitioner failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with TCE Objective B, the TCE policies supporting this objective, TCE Policy D.1, CIE Objectives 1, 2, and 3, or the CIE policies supporting these objectives. Inconsistency with Other Criteria Future Land Use Map Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of depicting on the future land use map conservation uses (Rule 9J-5.006(4), Florida Administrative Code) and wetlands and floodplains (Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code). The FLUM does not depict any conservation uses or floodplains. As for wetlands, the FLUM, according to its legend, depicts only those larger than 40 acres. Placing these omissions in the context of the entire Plan does not alter this inconsistency finding. When not omitted, Plan provisions addressing natural-resources criteria are vague. Many of such Plan provisions repeatedly relegate to the land development regulations or delegate to federal, state, regional, or local agencies the responsibility for protecting wetlands and other natural resources. Especially for a relatively small municipality like Respondent, the entire FLUM must contain these required natural resources. Even if Respondent had added the missing natural resources to the 198-acre area subject to this amendment, the omission of these natural resources from the rest of the FLUM would have rendered the Plan amendment inconsistent with the criteria covered in this section. The requirement of depicting on the FLUM wetlands, floodplains, and conservation uses includes the requirement that FLUM graphically inform as to their size, scale, and proximity--relative to all other items required to be depicted on the FLUM and relative to the site that is the subject of a plan amendment. Provisions Protecting Wetlands and Floodplains Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of an objective ensuring the protection of natural resources (Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)4, Florida Administrative Code), an objective protecting and conserving the natural functions of floodplains and wetlands (Rule 9J-5.013(2)(c)6, Florida Administrative Code), and a policy protecting wetlands (Rule 9J- 5.013(3), Florida Administrative Code). Although stronger Plan provisions protecting natural resources might have saved this flawed FLUM amendment, a FLUM amendment does not raise issues concerning the consistency of other Plan provisions, as such. As already noted, Conservation Objectives C and J ensure the protection of wetlands and floodplains and their natural functions. Although no policy provides effective protection of wetlands, this is a deficiency of the Plan, not the Plan amendment. The failure of the Plan to contain the required policy protecting wetlands does not affect the change in designations. 3. Urban Sprawl Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of supporting data and analysis because it fails to discourage urban sprawl, establish an efficient land use pattern, coordinate land uses with the availability of facilities and services, protect agriculture and natural resources, ensure a separation between urban and rural land uses, promote a mixed-use development or compact urban form, and avoid the designation of vast areas of single-use development, overallocation of Industrial land, and leap-frog development of rural areas at great distances from urban areas. Petitioner has alleged that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of objectives to discourage urban sprawl (Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)8, Florida Administrative Code) and to use innovative land development regulations and mixed uses (Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)10 and (4)(c), Florida Administrative Code) and a policy to provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses (Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)2, Florida Administrative Code). Petitioner has alleged that the Plan amendment does not discourage urban sprawl (Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code). For the reasons already discussed, the Plan amendment is not inconsistent with these urban-sprawl provisions. 4. Transportation Facilities Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the failure to update the Capital Improvements and Traffic Circulation elements at the time of adopting the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the criteria of basing the Plan amendment on a land use suitability analysis (Rule 9J-5.006(2), Florida Administrative Code); including all of the required elements in a future land use map (Rule 9J-5.006(4), Florida Administrative Code) (except with respect to the omitted items already found to result in an inconsistency); basing the Plan amendment on data concerning needed transportation improvements (Rule 9J-5.016(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code); basing the Plan amendment on analysis concerning the fiscal implications of public-facility deficiencies and a prioritization of needed public facilities by type of facility (Rule 9J-5.016(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code); including objectives to use the capital improvements element to accommodate future growth (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)1, Florida Administrative Code), to coordinate land use decisions and available or projected fiscal resources with a schedule of capital improvements that maintains adopted level of service standards and meets the existing and future facility needs (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)3, Florida Administrative Code), to demonstrate the ability to provide or require the provision of the improvements identified as necessary elsewhere in the Plan and to manage the land development process so that public facility needs created by previously issued development orders or future development do not exceed Respondent's ability to fund and provide or require provision of the needed capital improvements (Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code); and to coordinate the transportation system with the FLUM and ensure that existing and proposed population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services proposed to serve these areas (Rule 9J-5.019(4)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code); and including a policy to set peak-hour LOS standards to ensure that adequate facility capacity will be provided to serve the existing and future land uses (Rule 9J-5.019(4)(c)1, Florida Administrative Code). For the reasons already discussed, the Plan is not inconsistent with these provisions. Inconsistency with State Comprehensive Plan For the reasons already discussed, Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with the cited provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is not in compliance due to the omissions of conservation uses, wetlands, and floodplains from the future land use map and the failure of the adoption ordinance to comply with Section 166.041(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen R. Fowler Assistant General Counsel David Jordan Deputy General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Kenneth W. Buchman City Attorney City of Plant City 212 North Collins Street Plant City, Florida 33566 Steven M. Seibert Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Administration Commission Growth Management and Strategic Planning 2105 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Carla Brice, has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to a vested rights certificate to develop certain real property located in Alachua County, Florida without complying with the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 111"), consists of approximately 6 acres of real property located in Alachua County, Florida. Lot 111 is currently owned by the Petitioner, Carla Brice. Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111 through inheritance from her father, Carl L. Brice. Ms. Brice acquired the property in approximately January of 1993. Early History of the Development of Arredonda Estates. During the 1950s Mr. Brice acquired a platted subdivision in Alachua County known as Arredonda Estates Unit 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 1"). Approximately 100 acres of property located adjacent to Unit 1 were also acquired by Mr. Brice. Unit 1 met the existing plat law of Alachua County. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 1 and the sale of lots therein. Part of the 100 acres acquired by Mr. Brice was subsequently platted and developed for sale as residential lots as Arredonda Estates Unit 2A (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2A"). Arredonda Estates Unit 2B (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2B") was to be located to the north of Unit 2A. Because of the lack of access out of Unit 2B, the then County engineer of the Alachua County, Roy J. Miller, informed Mr. Brice that he would not allow Mr. Brice to proceed with Unit 2B until Mr. Brice completed development of approximately 33 acres of real property located to the east of Unit 1. Mr. Miller believed that there would be better access from the various phases of Arredonda Estates if the 33 acres were developed first because there would be access out of the 33 acres onto County Road 24 and onto Broken Arrow Road to the east of the 33 acres. Mr. Miller, as the County engineer, wielded a great deal of influence in the development of property in Alachua County at the time Mr. Brice developed Units 1 and 2A and at the time he was beginning development of the 33 acres. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Miller could have legally required Mr. Brice to develop the 33 acres before developing Unit 2B, the uncontroverted evidence proved that it was believed that Mr. Miller's approval was necessary in order to complete a development. The 33 acres surround Lot 111 on the east, west and north. The south boundary of Lot 111 is County Road 24, Archer Road. One of the two access roads to County Road 24 from the 33 acre development was located to the immediate east of Lot 111 and the other was located to the immediate west of Lot 111. Lot 111 is bounded on the south by County Road 24. The 33 acres were to be developed as Arredonda Estates (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 4"). The Development of Unit 4. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller that he was concerned about developing Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B because Mr. Brice planned to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. He did not plan to build the shopping center until all phases of Arredonda Estates were completed, including Unit 2B. In agreeing to develop Unit 4 before Unit 2B, Mr. Brice was concerned about making expenditures for larger drainage facilities and obtaining additional easements necessary for the development of Lot 111 before he planned to begin actual development of the shopping center. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller of these concerns. The shopping center Mr. Brice planned to develop was to consist of 296,000 square feet of paved surface and 50,000 square feet of roof area. These plans required a redesign of the drainage for Unit 4. In particular, the following modifications were necessary: In conclusion I find it necessary to change the diameter of pipe #7 from an 18 inch diameter to a 21 inch diameter, placed at a 0.15 percent slope pipe grade. Some necessary amendments are required at this point. The larger size pipe in place will cost $9.20 per linear foot. Some sixty-two feet are needed, therefore the total cost will be $570.40. Brice exhibit 9. Despite Mr. Brice's concerns, Mr. Miller continued to insist on the development of Unit 4 before Unit 2B and Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Unit 4 was platted on July 19, 1970. The plat was recorded in Plat Book H, Page 30, Official Records of Alachua County. The initial design of Unit 4 provided for one point of ingress and egress on to State Road 24 from Unit 4. Mr. Miller required that two points of ingress and egress be provided and Mr. Brice agreed. The evidence failed to prove that this requirement was agreed to in exchange for any representation from Alachua County that Mr. Brice would be allowed to develop the shopping center. The final plat provided two means of ingress and egress to State Road 24 and one means of ingress and egress to County Road Number Southwest 24-C (Broken Arrow Road). Lot 111 is contained on the plat. No intended use for Lot 111 was designated on the plat of Unit 4. The plat simply identifies the lot. See Brice exhibit 5. The plat identifies the development of residential lots only. The 33 acres was initially zoned as "A" (agriculture). In order to develop Unit 4 it was necessary to obtain approval of re-zoning of the property as R1C, residential use. The re-zoning of the 33 acres was sought and approved. Lot 111 was also zoned for agricultural use when acquired. On February 11, 1969, 4.27 acres of Lot 111 were re-zoned from "A" (agriculture) to "BR" (retail sales and service). On July 1, 1969, a special use permit allowing a mobile home trailer sales agency was issued for use of 1.1 acres contiguous to the 4.27 acre parcel of Lot 111 by Alachua County. On July 7, 1975, the 1.1 acres, which the special use permit had been issued for, was zoned from "A" to "BR." Construction plans for site improvements for Unit 4 were subsequently prepared, filed with Alachua County and were approved. See Brice exhibit 10. Included on the plans is a rectangular shape identified as "Proposed Shopping Center" containing indications of measurements representing 50,000 square feet of building space. The "Proposed Shopping Center" designation is located on Lot 111. Mr. Brice was subsequently informed that the site improvements for Unit 4 were approved by Alachua County. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Alachua County specifically considered or approved the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in approving the site improvement plans for Unit 4. The approved site improvements for Unit 4 were ultimately made and accepted by Alachua County in September of 1970. Government Action Relied Upon. Mr. Miller intended to allow Mr. Brice to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center "as he had planned." Mr. Miller's approval was conditioned on the completion of development of Units 2B and 4 and the sale of lots thereon. The shopping center to be approved was to be limited to what Mr. Brice "had originally proposed" which was a shopping center of 50,000 square feet. Mr. Brice complied with Mr. Miller's condition that he complete development of Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B. The evidence failed to prove that it was reasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the approval of Mr. Brice's intended development of a shopping center on Lot 111 would last indefinitely. It was also unreasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that the representations of Mr. Miller would survive indefinitely beyond the time that Mr. Brice completed development of Arredonda Estates. In July of 1970, Alachua County Zoning Regulations contained the following site plan approval requirement for shopping centers: No permit shall be issued for construction of a shopping center until the plans and specifications, including the design of ingress and egress roads, parking facilities, and such other items as may be found of importance have been approved by the zoning commission. Based upon this provision, Mr. Miller did not have the authority to approve the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in July of 1970. If the representations made by Mr. Miller to Mr. Brice concerning construction of the shopping center had been made in July, 1970, it would be unreasonable for Mr. Brice to rely upon Mr. Miller's representation because of the Alachua County Zoning Regulations quoted in finding of fact 31. If the representations were made before July, 1970, it would be reasonable for Mr. Brice to rely on Mr. Miller's approval of the shopping center because the evidence failed to prove that Alachua County Zoning Regulation quoted above was in effect before July, 1970. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Miller's representations were made before July, 1970. Detrimental Reliance. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Roads and drainage facilities associated with Unit 4 were constructed by 1971. The cost of these improvements was approximately $68,989.54. The total cost of improvements associated with Unit 4 was $121,947.54. Mr. Brice also had to obtain a drainage easement but the evidence failed to prove the cost of doing so. The exact amount expended on Unit 4 attributable to work performed just for Lot 111 and the shopping center was not proved by Ms. Brice. One method of allocating costs associated with the development of Unit 4 to Lot 111 suggested by Ms. Brice is to determine the percentage of acreage Lot 111 represents of the whole of Unit 4: approximately 17.9 percent. Applying this percentage to the total costs equals $21,828.61. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that $21,828.61 was actually incurred in association with Lot 111. The evidence failed to prove that it would be reasonable to attribute any part of the expenditures listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 or 12 of Brice exhibit 30 as attributable to Lot 111. Based upon evidence presented by Alachua County, the total expenditures made by Mr. Brice associated with Lot 111 and the shopping center were approximately $1,005.50. Subsequent Events. Mr. Brice caused preliminary plans for a shopping center for Lot 111 to be developed. Brice exhibit 14. Those plans were never submitted for approval and no building permit was issued approving the construction of a shopping center for Lot 111. The preliminary plans for the shopping center indicate a substantially different configuration for the shopping center than indicated on the site improvement plans for Unit 4. Brice exhibit 14. No final development plan or plat approving a shopping center on Lot 111 was issued by Alachua County. Efforts were made during the 1970s to market Lot 111 for development as a shopping center. These efforts were not successful. As a part of this effort, Mr. Brice incurred $7,000.00 for the construction of a three dimensional model of the proposed shopping center evidenced on the preliminary plans. It has been suggested that Mr. Brice did not proceed with the development of the shopping center during the 1970's and into the 1980's for a number of reasons: A dispute between Mr. Brice and Alachua County arose in 1976 concerning the road in Unit 2A; A dispute also arose concerning the water system in the area of Arredonda Estates; The state of the economy was not conducive to development. The evidence, however, failed to prove why the shopping center was not developed. In 1973, Alachua County created a development review committee. Final site plans for commercial sites were required to be approved by the committee. Mr. Brice did not obtain approval for the proposed shopping center or seek assurances from Alachua County that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the shopping center on Lot 111 were still valid. During 1982 and 1983, Mr. Brice became aware of proposed revisions to the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brice met with Alachua County officials concerning the revisions and followed the progress of the revisions. In 1984 Alachua County adopted a comprehensive plan. Under this plan commercial use of Lot 111 was not allowed except for a neighborhood convenience store with square footage of 10,000 square feet. In 1985, during a meeting with Alachua County personnel, Mr. Brice and his attorney were informed that Lot 111 could not be developed as a shopping center without a comprehensive plan amendment. No amendment was applied for. In 1989, offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. Those offers were continent upon the property being developed consistent with the BR zoning. Ms. Brice's name, then known as Carla B. Sutton, first appears in connection with Lot 111 in 1989 when offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. The evidence, however, failed to prove that she was owner of Lot 111 at that time. In 1989 or 1990, a conceptual site plan review was applied for by David Miller, Mr. Brice's representative, concerning Lot 111. Brice exhibit 21. The application was considered at an Alachua County Development Review Committee meeting on March 22, 1990. Consideration of the application was deferred for two weeks. The development Review Committee met on April 19, 1990 and considered the application for conceptual site plan review for Lot 111. The Committee was concerned about how the fact that Lot 111 had been zoned BR before the comprehensive plan had been adopted impacted the fact that development of Lot 111 as a shopping center was prohibited by the comprehensive plan. A decision was delayed for a month and staff was asked to prepare a report dealing with similarly situated parcels. By January 1991, proposed language providing for vesting of certain zoning had been drafted by Alachua County. Brice exhibit 24. By letter dated January 30, 1991, Kurt Larsen, Director of the Office of Planning and Development of Alachua County, informed all affected property owners that Alachua County was "considering" allowing a period of time during which existing zoning would be honored. Brice exhibit 25 Comments were invited. By letter dated February 15, 1991, counsel for Ms. Brice responded to Mr. Larsen's January 30, 1991 letter. Brice exhibit 26. A Transmittal Draft of the Future Land Use Element of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan dated April 1991 was sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review. See Brice exhibit 27. The Draft provided a two- year period during which undeveloped parcels zoned for a use that was otherwise inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be allowed to be developed essentially in accordance with existing zoning. This policy was ultimately rejected by the Department of Community Affairs. Alachua County informed Ms. Brice of the action of the Department of Community Affairs by letter dated September 18, 1991. Brice exhibit 28. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Alachua County adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1991. The following policy was agreed to in a compromise between Alachua County and the Department of Community Affairs concerning commercial enclaves: Policy 3.4.3. Commercial Enclaves are designed within the Urban Cluster on the Future Land Use Map. These sites shall be subject to the following location and compatibility standards: Development of Commercial Enclaves shall be required to meet all concurrency requirements. Development shall be required to minimize access from arterials and collectors. Whenever possible, driveways shall use common access points to reduce potential turn movements. A maximum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable area shall be permitted within each enclave. Uses may include neighborhood convenience centers consistent with Policy 3.8., offices consistent with Policy 3.9.1. and sit-down restaurants. The land development regulations for this land use category shall specify performance standards required to mitigate any adverse impact of such development on adjacent land uses and affected public facilities. Such performance standards shall include buffering and landscaping provisions, site design measures to locate such uses away from less intensive adjacent land uses, signage and parking restrictions, and intensity provisions (e.g. height and bulk restrictions). In the interim, until land development regulations consistent with these policies are adopted, the standards and criteria governing Commercial Enclaves shall be implemented through the County's Development Review Committee process. This policy shall be reviewed by 1993 to determine the effectiveness of the land use category. Mr. Brice was informed, after contacting the Alachua County Growth Management Department, that his development of Lot 111 was limited by the commercial enclave policy. Pursuant to the commercial enclave policy, development of Lot 111 is limited to a size of 20,000 square feet and the uses to which Lot 111 may be put are less than would be allowed under BR zoning. Carla Brice's Reliance and Detriment. The evidence in this case failed to prove that Ms. Brice, the current owner of Lot 111 and the applicant in this case, was aware of any representations made by Mr. Miller. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice in any way reasonably relied upon the representations made to her father. The evidence also failed to prove that Alachua County made any representations to Ms. Brice that she would be allowed to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. In fact, Alachua County has indicated just the opposite to Ms. Brice since she became the owner of Lot 111. In light of the amount of time that passed after Mr. Miller's representations were made to Mr. Brice and the intervening events concerning development in Alachua County before Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111, any reliance by Ms. Brice on Mr. Miller's representations would not be reasonable. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice detrimentally relied upon any representation of Alachua County concerning the development of Lot 111. Only Mr. Brice, Ms. Brice's father, made expenditures related to the development of Lot 111 as a shopping center. I. Procedural Requirements. On June 9, 1993 Ms. Brice filed her Application seeking an equitable vested rights certificate or a statutory vested rights certificate. On September 22, 1993 Kurt Larsen, Director, Department of Growth Management, Alachua County, informed Ms. Brice that the Application was denied. Ms. Brice appealed the decision to deny the Application by letter dated September 28, 1993. The Division of Administrative Hearings was requested by letter dated January 18, 1994, from Alachua County to assign a hearing officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. The formal administrative hearing of this matter was conducted on March 14, 1994.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Environmental Coalition of Broward County, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Coalition"), is a Florida corporation. The Coalition has offices located in Broward County. The Coalition has approximately 500 members, most of whom reside in Broward County. A substantial number of the Coalition's members own property in Broward County and/or operate businesses within Broward County. The Coalition is a not-for-profit corporation, chartered for educational and scientific purposes. The primary purpose of the Coalition is to present objections and recommendations to local governments concerning planning issues on behalf of its membership. The Coalition is authorized to participate in actions of this type and to represent its membership in administrative proceedings. The Coalition presented oral and written objections to Broward County during the review and adoption process concerning the plan amendment at issue in this proceeding. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of implementing the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Among other things, the Department is required to review local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto for compliance with the Act. Respondent, Broward County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the local government with the authority pursuant to the Act and the Broward County Charter to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan. The County has adopted the 1989 Broward County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The Broward County Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as the "County Commission"), is the local planning agency for the County. The County Commission is advised on land use planning issues by the Broward County Planning Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Council"). The Planning Council was created by the County Charter. Intervenors, Miramar Lakes, Inc., d/b/a Miramar Rock, Robert A. Whitcombe, Trustee, and the South Broward Trust own or have under contract virtually all of the property affected by the Plan amendment which is the subject of this proceeding. These Intervenors have entered into a joint venture agreement with Intervenor Atlantic Gulf Communities Corporation to develop the subject property. Intervenors applied for the amendment that is the subject of this proceeding and presented oral or written comments, recommendations and objections during the period of time between the transmittal hearing and adoption of the subject Plan amendment. The County's Plan. The County adopted a comprehensive plan as required by the Act in 1989. The planning horizon of the plan is 2010. The Plan includes two volumes of text, two volumes of support documents and associated maps. See Petitioner's exhibit 8. Volume One is text and is effective countywide. Volume Three contains support documents for the Plan. The Plan also includes the 1989 Broward County Future Land Use Plan Map (Series) (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"). The FLUM depicts the proposed distribution, extent and location of categories of land uses allowed under the Plan. Among others, those land uses include "residential" at various densities and "agricultural". Pursuant to the Plan, the eastern approximately one-third of the County may be developed. The developable area consists of approximately 400 square miles of land area. The western approximately two-thirds of the County are designated as water conservation areas and are separated by a levee from the developable one- third. Future land use elements of municipal comprehensive plans in the County must be in substantial conformity to the Plan. The Subject Property. The property which is the subject of the Plan amendment at issue in this case consists of 1,280 acres of a total of 1,965 acres (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). The Property is located in the City of Miramar, in southwest Broward County, Florida, Sections 25, 26, 27 and 36, Township 51 South, Range 39 East. The Property is located in the southwestern portion of the developable one-third of the County. See Map 1 of Broward County exhibit 1. The Property is bounded on the east by S.W. 184th Avenue and on the north by Honey Hill Road. It is east of U.S. Highway 27. Part of the Property is vacant. Part of the Property is being used as cattle pasture and for a rock mining, batching, mixing and crushing operation. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the Property include vacant land, rock mining and some development to the north, single-family residential development to the east, rock mining and vacant land to the south, in Dade County, Florida. Residential development immediately to the east in a development known as "Silverlakes" is being developed at a density of three dwelling units per acre. Further to the west of the Property is the eastern boundary of the water conservation areas of the Everglades. These areas are separated from the rest of Broward County by a levee. The land use designation of the Property and other property in the surrounding area is "agricultural". Under the Plan, the land use designation allows agricultural uses and residential development of one dwelling per 2.5 acres. Under its current land use designation, a total of 786 dwelling units may be developed on the Property. The First Amendment Requested by the Intervenors. In early 1994 Intervenors filed an application with the County seeking an amendment of the FLUM to modify the future land use designation of all 1,965 acres of the Property to "Low (2) Residential". "Low (2) Residential" allows the development of two dwelling units per acre. The Planning Council conducted a review of the proposed amendment. The Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection raised objections to the proposed amendment because the Property is located in an area of water recharge and wetlands. The area is identified as within a general wetlands area on the "Southwestern Generalized Wetlands Map" of the Plan. 30 Based upon the objections of the County Department of Natural Resource Protection, the staff of the Planning Council recommended denial of the proposed amendment. The South Florida Water Management District (hereinafter referred to as the "SFWMD"), an agency with broad regional responsibility for water management in southeast Florida, raised objections with the Planning Council concerning the location of the property in an area which was being considered for use as part of a project to restore the Everglades. The SFWMD was concerned that the Property is located within an area which has come to be known as the "East Coast Buffer". In early 1994, at the time of the initial review of the proposed amendment, the East Coast Buffer was a study area abutting the eastern water conservation areas of southeast Florida. The SFWMD was studying the East Coast Buffer for use in water conservation efforts in southeast Florida. At the time of the first review of the proposed amendment, the portion of the East Coast Buffer in which the Property is located was being considered for preservation as a reservoir site. The Planning Council transmitted the proposed amendment to the County Commission without recommendation. The County Commission decided not to transmit the proposed amendment to the Department for its review, ending review of the initial application. The Initial Review of the Subject Amendment. A second application on the Property was resubmitted by the Intervenors in March of 1994. The application was designated Application PC 94- 15. Application PC 94-15 sought an amendment of the FLUM to modify the future land use designation of all 1,965 acres of the Property to "Irregular 1.5 Residential". "Irregular 1.5 Residential" allows 1.5 dwelling units per acre. The amendment sought by Intervenors would have allowed an increase from 786 dwelling units to 2,947 dwelling units on the Property. An increase of 2,161 units. Application PC 94-15 was again reviewed. The same comments about, and objections to, the proposed amendment were raised concerning groundwater and aquifer recharge. The staff of the Planning Council again recommended denial of the proposed amendment. 41 The Planning Council recommended transmittal of the application, subject to the Intervenors satisfying the concerns raised by the SFWMD. On August 17, 1994, the County Commission transmitted Application PC 94-15 to the Department, conditioned upon the Intervenors satisfying the concerns of the SFWMD. The SFWMD objected to Application PC 94-15 because of its conclusion that the proposed future land use designation was not compatible with the East Coast Buffer then under evaluation by the SFWMD. SFWMD had developed data and conducted computer modeling concerning the utilization of a buffer for a variety of purposes, including reducing seepage of water from the Everglades, increasing groundwater recharge into aquifers and creating a natural buffer to protect the Everglades from the impacts of development. The SFWMD had commissioned a worldwide engineering firm, CH2M Hill to prepare a report on the East Coast Buffer. The SFWMD recommended that Application PC 94-15 not be approved until it had completed its study of the East Coast Buffer because the land use designation being sought might be incompatible with the conclusions reached from the SFWMD's and CH2M Hill's evaluation. The Department reviewed Application PC 94-15 and, based upon comments from the SFWMD similar to those raised before the County Commission, issued an Objections, Recommendations and Comments report concerning Application PC 94-15. The Department raised objections consistent with the adverse comments from the SFWMD. Modification of the Proposed Amendment. Parts of southwestern Broward County and northwestern Dade County were designated "Management Unit 5" by the SFWMD. Management Unit 5 was being considered, as recommended by CH2M Hill, as a reservoir area. Development of the Property was, therefore, not considered to be a use comparable with the concept of the East Coast Buffer being considered by the SFWMD at the time of the County's and Department's decision to reject Application PC 94-15. Intervenors worked with the SFWMD in an effort to find a way of modifying Application PC 94-15 to satisfy the SFWMD's concerns. SFWMD utilized computer modeling to simulate groundwater and surface water flows in Management Unit 5 to determine the impact of allowing development of the Property. The SFWMD concluded that Management Unit 5 was more suitable as a recharge area rather than as a reservoir. This conclusion was based, in part, of the transmissibility of the soil and other site conditions which were not conducive to storing water above ground for long periods of time. Use of Management Unit 5 as a recharge area and not a reservoir requires less surface area. Therefore, it was concluded that development in the area might be compatible with the SFWMD's East Coast Buffer concept. The SFWMD modeled four development alternatives for Management Unit 5 and analyzed the impact of each alternative on the efforts to retard seepage, provide groundwater recharge and enhance wetland benefits: (a) retaining the Property as a recharge area and allowing no development; (b) retaining the entire western two-thirds as a recharge area and allowing development of the eastern one-third; (c) retaining the western one-third as a recharge area and allowing development of the eastern two-thirds; and (d) allowing development of the entire management unit. Alternatives (b) and (c) assumed that a berm would be constructed between the recharge area and the developed area. After meeting with Intervenors and discussing the results of the modeling, Intervenors indicated willingness to remove the western portion of the Property from the proposed development. The SFWMD then conducted a more detailed, computer analysis of the following alternatives: (a) continuing existing conditions; (b) constructing a berm around Management Unit 5 and utilizing the entire area as a recharge area; (c) constructing a berm between the eastern and western sections of the Management Unit 5 and utilizing the western section for recharge with no development in the eastern section; and (d) alternative "(c)" with development of the eastern section. As a result of computer modeling of the alternatives, it was concluded that alternatives (b), (c) and (d) could significantly reduce seepage from the Everglades and increase groundwater recharge in to the aquifers when compared to development under the agricultural land use designation of alternative (a). As a result of the more detailed analysis, the SFWMD concluded that essentially all of its goals could be achieved for Management Unit 5 if the western section of Management Unit 5 is preserved even if development is allowed in the eastern section. The SFWMD concluded that the eastern two-thirds of the Property, consisting of approximately 1,280 acres, could be developed as "Irregular 1.5 Residential" if the western one-third, consisting of approximately 685 acres, was utilized as a recharge area. Intervenors agreed to preserve the western third of the Property (685 acres) and grant the SFWMD a flowage easement, consistent with the East Coast Buffer and at a savings of $43 million. On December 14, 1994, the staff of the SFWMD presented the results of the computer modeling to the SFWMD. On December 15, 1994, the SFWMD withdrew its objection to Application PC 94-15, conditioned upon the deletion of the 685 acres from the application and the granting of a flowage easement. The County and the Department were informed of the decision of the SFWMD. Approval of Application 94-15. On December 20, 1994, the County Commission adopted by Ordinance 94-55 an amendment to the Plan, Amendment PC 94-15 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment"), subject to the conditions suggested by the SFWMD, which resolved the SFWMD's objections. The Amendment included modifications to the FLUM and text amendments. The Amendment, in relevant part, modifies the future land use designation of approximately 1,280 acres of the Property from "Agricultural" to "Irregular 1.5 Residential". This will allow the construction of a total of 1,920 dwelling units on the Property, or an increase of 1,408 dwelling units over the number of dwelling that may be constructed under the current future land use designation for the Property. In light of Intervenor's modifications of the application, the removal of the SFWMD's objections and the approval of the application by the County, the Department found the Amendment to be in compliance with the Act. On February 14, 1995, the Department issued a notice of intent to find the Amendment in compliance. The County and the Department accepted and relied upon the data and methodology employed by the SFWMD and the conditions for removal of the SFWMD's objections. Petitioner's Challenge. On or about March 8, 1995, Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department challenging the Amendment. Petitioner filed an Amended Petition on April 25, 1995. At the commencement of the final hearing, Petitioner withdrew all issues it had raised in the Amended Petition except the issues of: (a) whether the data and analysis available supports a conclusion that there is a need for additional residential development; and (b) whether the Amendment is supported by data and analysis in light of an ongoing study of the East Coast Buffer. Residential Housing Need. The Plan includes the following Goal and Objective concerning the provision of adequate areas for residential use: Goal 01.00.00 Provide residential areas with a variety of housing types and densities offering convenient and affordable housing opportunities to all segments of Broward County's population while maintaining a desired quality of life and adequate public services and facilities. Objective 01.01.00 Accommodate the projected population of Broward County by providing adequate areas on the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) intended primarily for residential development, but which also permit those non-residential uses that are compatible with and necessary to support residential neighborhoods. The Plan, including the methodology utilized to determine residential need, was found to be in compliance by the Department. The residential need methodology of the Plan utilized the Broward County Population Forecasting Model to project the population of southwest Broward County in 1994 to be 225,489 people. This projected population formed the basis for the allocation of residential housing units for Subregion 5 under the Plan. The Property is located in an area of southwest Broward County designated as Subregion 5 in the Plan. In reviewing the Amendment, the County conducted an analysis of the need for additional residential development in southwest Broward County. This analysis utilized, and was consistent with, the residential need methodology of the Plan. A summary of the data and analysis utilized by the County was provided to the Department. The County's analysis indicated that the population of Subregion 5 has exceeded the population projections for the Subregion of the Plan. By 1994, there were 284,361 people living in Subregion 5 or 17,872 more than projected in the Plan. The increased population rate of growth in Subregion 5 was projected to represent an increase in projected demand for approximately 6,847 residential units in excess of the projected demand expected under the Plan. The analysis also took into account amendments to the Plan which have resulted in a reduction of 1,087 residential units for Subregion 5. When combined with the increased population, the data and analysis supports a conclusion that there is a need for 7,934 additional residential units in Subregion 5. The Amendment increases residential housing in Subregion 5 by 1,134 dwelling units (1,920 units allowed under the Amendment, less 786 dwelling units allowed under the current agriculture classification), well below the projected need for additional residential units for Subregion 5. The data and analysis relied upon by the County and submitted to the Department supports the conclusion of the County that there is need for the proposed additional residential development approved by the Amendment. The data and analysis relied upon by the County and the Department was professionally acceptable and adequate to support the Amendment. The evidence presented by Petitioner failed to prove that the data and analysis relied upon by the County and the Department was not professionally acceptable and adequate. Rather than attempting to prove that the County's methodology was not professionally acceptable or was flawed, Petitioner utilized a methodology based upon an annualized population growth rate for Subregion 5. Petitioner offered evidence that there is sufficient residential housing approved under the Plan to meet the projected population for 15.6 years, beyond the remaining life of the Plan. The methodology utilized by Petitioner was, by the admission of the Petitioner's own witness, not a professionally acceptable methodology. The evidence failed to prove that the data and analysis relied upon by the County does not support its conclusion that there is sufficient need for the additional residential housing authorized for the County by the Amendment. The East Coast Buffer Zone. Efforts to restore the Everglades have been initiated and are ongoing. As a part of these efforts a group of technical and scientific staff members of various federal agencies involved in the restoration efforts were formed as the "Science Sub Group." The Science Sub Group was formed as an advisory group to provide guidance towards ecosystem restoration efforts. The Science Sub Group had no implementing authority. It issued at least one report in late 1993 which included an East Coast Buffer concept. The East Coast Buffer identified by the Science Sub Group included the area in which the Property is located. The Science Sub Group relied upon data obtained from the SFWMD and various computer models developed by the SFWMD, and SFWMD personnel contributed to the preparation of the report. The East Coast Buffer concept generally includes a series of interconnected water flow-ways along the eastern edge of the water conservation areas necessary to restore the Everglades. The federal government has also instituted a study known as the "Central & South Florida Project: Comprehensive Review Study" (hereinafter referred to as the "Restudy"). The United States Corps of Engineers is the lead agency of the Restudy. The first phase of the Restudy's efforts has resulted in a "Reconnaissance Report", also known as the "Recon Study". The second phase of the Restudy's efforts will be the feasibility phase. The feasibility phase will begin in the summer of 1995 and will be completed several years later. The purpose of the Restudy is to bring together the interested federal agencies to review the current management of the Everglades and identify strategies for altering management practices and systems to improve the Everglades. The Recon Study was completed in late 1994. It describes various conceptual strategies for restoring the Everglades. The determination of the feasibility of the strategies has not, however, been started, much less completed. Therefore, although the East Coast Buffer concept is considered in the Recon Study, the actual identification of the area which will constitute the Buffer has not been identified. Nor has the area which should constitute the East Coast Buffer been recommended in the Recon Study. The Recon Study identifies problems and opportunities, formulates alternative plans, evaluates conceptual alternative plans and recommends further study. The Recon Study is advisory. It does not identify, recommend or implement a plan of action. The Coalition presented evidence concerning the ongoing analysis of Everglades restoration efforts. That evidence proved that the Property is located within a very large area, which completely surrounds the Everglades, which is being considered as part of the Everglades restoration effort because of the impact of this large area on restoration efforts. The evidence presented by the Coalition, however, failed to prove that the Property has been, or will be, determined to be essential or even necessary for future Everglades restoration efforts. At the time of the approval of the Amendment and, even at the time of the final hearing of this case, no such determination had been made. Nor had any determination been made as to what will be necessary for the restoration of the Everglades or whether decisions will be made to carry out the necessary restoration efforts. As recognized by the Coalition in its proposed order: 52. The study necessary to make [a determination of the water levels needed] for the areas which are implicated by this amendment will be done in the next two years or three years. * * * 55. There is no way of telling, based on the data and analysis available at this point, how much water will be necessary in order to fully restore the Everglades. . . . Coalition proposed findings of fact 52 and 55. The Coalition also recognized the following: The Reconnaissance study has not reached the point where conclusions can be drawn about parcel specific uses. The next step is the feasibility planning phase, which is a much more detailed phase which will run for several years. . . . Coalition proposed finding of fact 107. Instead of attempting to prove that the data and analysis at the time of adoption of the Amendment indicated that development of the Property authorized by the Amendment would be detrimental to restoration efforts, the Coalition attempted to prove that development of the Property should be delayed until data and analysis is available indicating conclusively what the impact of development of the Property will be on restoration efforts. The Act does not require such delay. In addition to failing to prove what the impact of development of the Property will be on restoration efforts, the evidence presented by the Coalition also failed to prove that the conclusions reached by the Science Sub Group and the Restudy will even be implemented. The evidence presented by the Coalition failed to prove that the conclusions of the SFWMD with regard to the impact of the Amendment are not supported by data and analysis or were not arrived at by professionally acceptable methods. While the evidence proved that there will be some reduction in the amount of groundwater recharge function and seepage control function as a result of the Amendment, the evidence failed to prove what ultimate impact the reductions in recharge and seepage control will be or that the SFWMD's conclusions are not reasonable. While the Coalition proved that the SFWMD's conclusions were not based upon a consideration of what should be done to restore the Everglades, the evidence failed to prove that the information available was sufficiently conclusive that the SFWMD should have objected to the Amendment. The data and analysis relied upon by the County in approving the Amendment was collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. None of those agencies charged with responsibility to review the Amendment raised objections to its approval. The evidence failed to prove that the state of the data and analysis available to the County from the Science Sub Group and the Restudy or any other source concerning the area referred to as the East Coast Buffer and the Property is such that it proved that the data that was relied by the County upon was inadequate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department dismissing finding the Amendment "in compliance" and dismissing the petition in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Coalition's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1-2. Accepted in 2. 3-4 Accepted in 3. Accepted in 4. Accepted in 5 Accepted in 4. Accepted in 5. Accepted in 4-6. Accepted in 5-6. Accepted in 6. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12 14-15 Not relevant. 16-18 Not relevant. See 81-84. 19-25 Not relevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 81-84. Accepted in 29. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 26 and hereby accepted. 30-31 See 24. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 36 and 62. Accepted in 62. 35-41 Hereby accepted. 42-48 These proposed findings are generally correct. They are not, however, relevant to the ultimate determination in this case. 49-50 Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The last sentence is not relevant. See 96. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is accepted in 96. The last sentence is not relevant. Hereby accepted. 57-63 Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 64-65 Not relevant. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 89 and 91 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 90 and 92. See 86 and 92. Hereby accepted. Although generally true, the evidence failed to prove that this finding specifically applies to the Property. Except for the first sentence, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 31-33. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 76-87 Although generally correct, these findings were too broad and the evidence failed to prove that they specifically apply to the Property. 88-90 Although generally correct, these proposed findings are not relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally correct, these proposed findings are not relevant. Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 94-97 Although generally correct, these proposed findings are not relevant. 98 Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 99-100 Not relevant. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally correct, these proposed findings are not relevant. 104-105 Not relevant. Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 97. Accepted in 90. Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 111-114 Too speculative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The County's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Accepted in 1. 2 Accepted in 7. 3 Accepted in 8. 4 Accepted in 11. 5 Hereby accepted. 6 Accepted in 12. 7 Accepted in 13. 8 Accepted in 14. 9 Accepted in 15. 10 Accepted in 9-10. 11 Accepted in 18. 12 Accepted in 16. 13 Accepted in 17. 14 Accepted in 61. 15 Accepted in 60. 16 Accepted in 19-20, 26 and 62. 17 Accepted in 23. 18 Accepted in 21-22 19-20 Accepted in 24. 21 Hereby accepted. 22 Accepted in 37. 23-24 Hereby accepted. 25 Accepted in 68. 26 Accepted in 65-67. 27-28 Accepted in 67. 29-30 Hereby accepted. 31-32 Accepted in 28. 33 Accepted in 29. 34 Accepted in 30. 35 Accepted in 34. 36 Accepted in 31 and hereby accepted. 37 Accepted in 32-33. 38 Accepted in 31. 39 Accepted in 33. 40 Accepted in 35. 41 Accepted in 316. 42 Accepted in 37. 43 Accepted in 39. 44 Accepted in 40. 45 Accepted in 41. 46 Accepted in 42. 47 Accepted in 72. 48-49 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 73-77 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 76-77. Accepted in 38. Accepted in 79-80 Accepted 58 and 62. 55-57 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 82. Hereby accepted. 60-61 Accepted in 81-84. 62 Hereby accepted. 63-65 Accepted in 46 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 43 and 45. Accepted in 88. Accepted in 89-90. 69-70 Accepted in 85-86. 71 Accepted in 90 and 92-93. 72-77 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 32 and 44. Hereby accepted. None proposed. Accepted in 33. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 50. Accepted in 51. Accepted in 49 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 87-88 Accepted in 52. 89-90 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 53 and 58 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 54. Accepted in 56. Accepted in 58. 95-96 Accepted in 59. Accepted in 60. Accepted in 61. The Department's and Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 7. Accepted in 8. Accepted in 11. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 9-10. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 16. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 61. Accepted in 11 and 19-20. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 24-25. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 27. Accepted in 36-38. 22-37 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 43. Accepted in 88. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 31. 42-43 Accepted in 44. Accepted in 43 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 42. Accepted in 42 and 46. Accepted in 46 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 46. Accepted in 50. Accepted in 46. 52-53 Accepted in 48. Accepted 49. Accepted in 49, 52 and 54. Accepted in 50. Accepted in 51. Accepted in 54 and 57. 59-60 Accepted 54. 61-63 Accepted in 54 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 55. Accepted in 56-57. 66-67 Accepted in 58. 68-70 Accepted in 59. Accepted in 64. Accepted in 58 and 62. Accepted in 60 and 62. Accepted in 63. Accepted in 67. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 67 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 37 and hereby accepted. Not relevant. Accepted in 86. Hereby accepted. 82-83 Accepted in 86. Accepted in 87. Accepted in 89 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 90. Accepted in 90 and 92-93. Accepted in 93. 89-90 Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 72-78. Accepted in 69-71. Accepted in 70. Accepted in 73-74 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 75. Accepted in 76. Accepted in 77. Accepted in 78. Accepted in 79-80. 101-102 Accepted in 82. Accepted in 83. Accepted in 83-84. Accepted in 81 and 84. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dan Stengle, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Brion Blackwelder, Esquire Jack Milbery, Esquire 8751 West Broward Boulevard, #206 Plantation, Florida 33324 Sherry A. Spiers Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Tracy Lautenschlager, Esquire Broward County Attorney's Office 115 South Andrews Avenue Suite 423 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Glenn Smith, Esquire Michael A. Cohn, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 200 East Broward Boulevard Post Office Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Honorable Gerald F. Thompson Chairman, Broward County Board of County Commissioners Governmental Center 115 South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue Whether the small-scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of St. Petersburg's (the City) Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan), adopted by Ordinance 739-L (Ordinance) on August 13, 2020, is "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2020).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Property Petitioner, PGSP, is a membership organization, with 118 members. It is registered with the State of Florida as a not-for-profit corporation located in St. Petersburg, Florida. PGSP's stated mission is to promote healthy urban development throughout St. Petersburg; it was formed to promote development and growth compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. It works with the City and residents to ensure new development is cohesive with existing and planned environmental and infrastructural demands. Respondent, City of St. Petersburg, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida that is subject to the requirements of chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The subject property is located at 635 64th Street South, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida (Property). It is owned by Grace Connection of Tampa Bay, Inc., operating as Grace Connection Church (Church). The Church was the applicant for the Amendment at issue but is not a party to this action. The Property is triangular in shape with a total of 4.66 acres. To the north and west, the Property is bounded by Bear Creek, a natural water feature. To the east, the Property is bounded by 64th Street South, a "Collector, City Road." To the south, the Property is bounded by an undeveloped 40-foot right-of-way. A portion of the Property that abuts Bear Creek is located in a Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA).3 Respondent has not sought changes to the portion of the Property that is within the CHHA. 3 The Property is also within the projected storm surge in Hurricane Evacuation Level "D," which is a Pinellas County emergency management designation, and not a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Property is currently categorized for Neighborhood Suburban (NS-1) zoning (which is separate from its Future Land Use Category). A substantial number of PGSP members live within the City, in close proximity to the Property and allege they will be adversely affected by the concomitant impacts of increased densities in the community as addressed in these proceedings. The Ordinance The Church's application sought to amend the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. The application divided the non-portion of the CHHA into three portions and sought to make the following changes to the Future Land Use categories: A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (APPROX. 4.33 ACRES), FROM I (INSTITUTIONAL) TO RM (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM); A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (APPROX. 0.21 ACRES), FROM I (INSTITUTIONAL) TO RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN); AND A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (APPROX. 0.04 ACRES), FROM RU (RESIDENTIAL URBAN) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM). On August 13, 2020, the City Council had a public hearing on the Church's appeal of the denial of its application by the Planning Commission. At this hearing, PGSP members submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections to the City. At the August 13 meeting, the City Council adopted the Ordinance. This had the effect of adopting the Amendment and changing the Future Land Use categories to the Property. The Ordinance instituted a small-scale amendment to the FLUM, as defined by section 163.3187(2). Maximum Density Petitioner argues the Ordinance is not "in compliance," as defined in sections 163.3184(1)(b) and 163.3187(4). Specifically, PGSP attacks the Amendment because it does not (1) direct "population concentrations" away from areas designated as a CCHA; (2) provide for compatible land use transitions; and (3) preserve the existing character of the surrounding areas. Each of these claims are either partially or wholly dependent on the increased maximum density for the Property after the Amendment. As such, the threshold issue of density must be addressed. This dispute involves the 4.37 acre that are changed from the Residential Urban (RU) and Institutional land use categories to Residential Medium (RM) made up of approximately 4.33 acres from Institutional to RM and approximately 0.04 acres from RU to RM. The "Institutional" designation allows a density of 12 dwelling units per acre but limits residential use as an accessory to the primary institutional use, which in this case is a church.4 The Church submitted the application for the FLUM amendment because it ultimately seeks to sell the Property for multi-family housing development, which would not be a proper use in an area designated "Institutional." The Future Land Use categories for the area to the north and east of the Property are RU, which have a density of 7.5 units per acre. See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.1A.2. This area is primarily made up of single-family homes. The southern boundary of the property is also the municipal border between St. Petersburg and an unincorporated portion of Pinellas County. This area is governed by the Pinellas County FLUM and Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent property to the south is a mobile home park development which has a residential density of 20.4 units per acre. 4 Pursuant to section 16.10.020.2 of the City's Code, Institutional uses include, "government buildings and grounds, and cemeteries, hospitals, houses of worship and schools." In between the RU and RM categories is a category labeled "Residential Low Medium" (RLM). The RLM category allows low to moderately intensive residential development with a density not to exceed ten dwelling units per acre. See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.1A.3. As stated above, the Ordinance would categorize the portion of the Property at issue as RM. The RM category allows medium density residential development and has a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre, with a possible maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre with the qualification of a density bonus. See Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.1A.4. PGSP argues the density of the areas designated as RM by the Ordinance will have a maximum possible density of 30 dwelling units per acre. The City argues the maximum density is calculated using the actual density that can be built in the RM areas. As explained below, the practical allowable density of 15 dwelling units per acre with a Workforce Housing Bonus of six, or 21 dwelling units per acre. Petitioner relies on a "Missing Middle Housing" density bonus allowable in Neighborhood Traditional Mixed Residential (NTM) zoning category. This bonus allows up to 30 units per acre as an incentive to develop housing that is lacking in the area. While NTM is an available zoning category for RM, the Plan specifically states that 30 dwelling units per acre is only "permitted in accordance with the Land Development Regulations [LDRs]." Per the LDRs, the NTM designation could not be placed over this parcel because the designation is used as a transitional zoning category in St. Petersburg's traditional neighborhoods. While PGSP's planning expert considered the neighborhood surrounding the Property to be traditional, he admitted his opinion was not based on standards in the Comprehensive Plan or LDR definitions regarding what is considered a traditional or suburban neighborhood. In contrast, Derek Kilborn, a manager in the City's Planning Department, testified about the different characteristics of traditional versus suburban neighborhoods and opined that the neighborhood surrounding the Property is "suburban" according to the terms in the Comprehensive Plan. This determination is bolstered by the existing zoning of the surrounding neighborhood being largely NS-1. The City established it would be impossible for the Property to qualify for the Missing Middle Housing bonus, because the parcel at issue is not in the NTM zoning category. Rather, as explained by Mr. Kilborn's testimony and based on the LDRs and the Comprehensive Code, the RM category only allows a maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre. The Church has not applied to rezone the Property. The Planning Department's director testified, however, that if the Church had applied for a rezoning for the Property to NTM, the maximum number of dwelling units would be less than the numbers asserted by Petitioner due to the requirements for spacing, alleyways, and height restrictions required in NTM zones. The Property is eligible for a Workforce Housing density bonus. This bonus would increase the maximum density by six dwelling units for workforce housing. The City's final density calculation incorporated the Workforce Housing bonus and determined the maximum density for the RM portion of the Property to be 21 dwelling units per acre. PSGP did not prove beyond fair debate that the actual density of 21 units per acre is an erroneous calculation or contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with Objective CM 10B and Policy CM 10.65 Comprehensive Plan Objective CM 10B states: The City shall direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element. The phrase "Population concentrations" is not defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The only policy referring to "directing" related to Objective CM 10B is Policy CM 10.6, which states: The City shall direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas by not locating water line extensions in the coastal high hazard area, beyond that which is necessary to service planned zoning densities as identified on the Future Land Use Map. The remaining policies related to this Objective involve the placement of transportation and infrastructure, expenditures for flood control, and the operation of roads in a CHHA; none of these issues were raised in these proceedings. In fact, other than the reference to placement of water line extensions in Policy CM 10.6, there is no provision establishing standards for what would constitute direction away from a CHHA. The only area on the Property designated a CHHA is near Bear Creek.6 The Ordinance does not increase density in any part of the CHHA portion of the Property. PGSP's planning expert, Charles Gauthier, equated a population concentration as an area with high density. He argued the Ordinance 5 "CM" means Coastal Management in the Comprehensive Plan. 6 Mr. Kilborn testified that in reviewing the property for compliance with the Plan related to CHHA, there was no study or analysis provided to the City by Petitioner or others showing flooding or hazard impacts for the non-CHHA portion of the Property. violated Policy 10.6 because it increased the density of the area on the Property adjacent to the CHHA. At one point, Mr. Gauthier seemed to say this policy encourages higher density future land use categories only in the "central core or spine of the City." Mr. Gauthier maintained the increase in density on the non-CHHA portion of the Property frustrated this policy because only land in the central part of St. Petersburg should experience density increases. PGSP's reasoning would imply any increase in density near any CHHA and not near the "central core" would violate Policy CM 10.6. Elizabeth Abernethy, Director of the Planning Department, testified that "population concentrations" as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan are not simply increases in density. Rather, the City core had a concentration of high-density categories yielding approximate 80 to 120 dwelling units per acre; she would not characterize 15 or even 30 units per acre as a "high density" much less a "population concentration." Although she concurred that there are "population concentrations" in St. Petersburg centered in its urban core, she disagreed with Petitioner's expert that increased density on the Property created a "population concentration" near the CHHA or Bear Creek area. There was no competent evidence as to where any water line extensions would be located if the Property's Future Land Use Category were to change from RU and Industrial to RM. The City's interpretation of "population concentration" as used in CM 10.6 is reasonable, and therefore, the City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance with CM 10.6 is fairly debatable. Consistency with LU 3.47 Comprehensive Plan Policy LU 3.4 states: The Land Use Plan shall provide for compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement, proper buffering, and the use of physical and natural separators. 7 "LU" refers to Future Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner focuses on compatible land use transition as only a function of density. PGSP argues a parcel categorized as RM (15 unity density) cannot abut an RU (7.5 unit density) categorized parcel because it violates Policy LU 3.4. Rather, it argues the RLM (10 unit density) category should have been used instead. It claims the City "leap-frogged" categories instead of using a "one step" up or down approach. PGSP's expert admits that a direct step down between plan categories is not explicitly required under the Comprehensive Plan language but argues other language related to "limited variation" required the single step. The plain language of Policy LU 3.4, however, simply requires an "orderly land use arrangement." It does not explicitly or implicitly state that the City must use a "step up" approach when determining the appropriate Future Land Use category. Furthermore, PGSP relied on its density calculation of 30 dwelling units per acre to argue that with the surrounding adjacent land density of 7.5 units per acre, there would be a 400% increase in planned residential density. As stated above, the maximum possible density under the Amendment is 21 dwelling units per acre. Moreover, the City points out that that the mobile home park to the south of the Property has an actual density of approximately 20 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the transition from 20 to 21 is an orderly land use arrangement as contemplated by Policy LU 3.4. The FLUM also does not reflect a perfect one up or down transition pattern throughout St. Petersburg. Rather, it shows areas categorized RM abutting areas categorized RU and RLM. In fact, there is an area designated RM which abuts RU parcels within 800 feet of the Property. The City presented adequate evidence establishing the change from Institutional to a residential category fits with surrounding residential use. Moreover, it established that natural and physical barriers on the Property, including creeks and right of ways, provide transition as contemplated by Policy LU 3.4. PGSP does not explain why these barriers are inadequate. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is inconsistent with Policy LU 3.4. Consistency with Objective Policy LU 3.6 Policy LU 3.6 states: Land use planning decisions shall weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas where changes of use or intensity of development are contemplated. PGSP argues the increase in density as a result of the change in categories from RU to RM is inconsistent with the "character" of the surrounding neighborhood, which is made up of single-family homes. Again, PGSP's argument relies heavily on the density calculation of 30 units per acre. As stated above, this density is only available with a change to the underlying zoning to NTM, which was not sought by the Church in its application. The maximum density applicable to the RM portions of the Property is 21 dwelling units per acre. As stated above, the City established there are other instances of RM abutting RU in the same neighborhood, approximately 800 feet from the Property. Ms. Abernathy testified that, based on the City's historic development pattern, RM is the appropriate transitional category next to RU on a major street (such as 64th Street South) under the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Abernethy further testified that residential single-family use adjoining either residential multi-family or commercial uses in the City is a "very common development pattern." Therefore, the RM designation is not inconsistent with Policy LU 3.6. Moreover, the RM designation provides for a primary residential use, which the Institutional designation does not. Although PGSP focused solely on density as the grounds for evaluating the "established character of the neighborhood," the City established that several other considerations go into its analysis related to Policy LU 3.6. Beyond looking at existing and proposed densities of the Future Land Use categories, City staff considers the occurrences and relationships between the uses of the property (i.e., residential versus institutional; or residential versus residential) and the existence of similar patterns in the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, the surrounding areas included other areas designated RM and the mobile home park. Determination of the character of the neighborhood was also based on a study of the existing road network and the potential impacts on traffic due to the Amendment. The street classification of 64th Street South as a Future Major was a key consideration in determining whether the changes in the Property were consistent with the character of the surrounding area because that street is the Property's frontage and only access point. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is inconsistent with Policy LU 3.6. Data and Analysis PGSP also claims the City did not rely on relevant and appropriate data and analysis in adopting the Ordinance and Amendment. PGSP, however, did not conduct or provide the City with any studies.8 Daniel Porter, PGSP's expert in real estate, did not provide a comparative market analysis of the neighborhood or any other industry- recognized report. He proffered only opinion testimony based on email responses from four nearby residents, only one of which alluded to any issues with selling a home in the area. 8 PGSP retained Mr. Gauthier for this administrative proceeding; he did not testify or prepare a report to the Planning Commission or the City Council. Petitioner's members presented no opposing reports or studies beyond lay opinion testimony during the public hearing. Mr. Gauthier testified that in calculating his density and formulating his opinions, he used the City's map set and GIS data from the City's website.9 In contrast, the City relied on several data sources in reaching its conclusions regarding compliance in the Staff Report, in the presentations at the City Council meeting, and at the final hearing. These sources include the Comprehensive Plan and maps; LDRs; GIS aerials and maps; application materials; a narrative from the property owner; plat records; the Pinellas Countywide Plan Rules; and an outside Traffic Impact Statement by a traffic engineering firm, Kimley-Horn. In addition to the Kimley-Horn report, Tom Whalen, the City's transportation planning expert, performed an analysis related to 64th Street South, which was included in the Staff Report. He also testified at the final hearing regarding his sources for that data, including a City-conducted traffic count, use of the Florida Department of Transportation's level of service tables, and the Forward Pinellas Countywide Rules. At the final hearing, the City also presented demonstrative exhibits in the form of enlarged maps illustrating the surrounding neighborhood, the Property, and similar development patterns of RM and RU designations across the City. Regarding the density calculation, the City introduced and explained the reasons and sources supporting its maximum density figure of 21 dwelling units per acre. This included the Pinellas Countywide Plan Rules, the Comprehensive Plan, and LDRs.10 The City established the Ordinance and Amendment are based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the character of the land. 9 "GIS" is Geographic Information Systems. 10 Moreover, Mr. Kilborn explained that exact density calculations would be finalized during the site plan review process, which involves further surveys and engineering measurements. Petitioner failed to prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not supported by data and analysis, and/or that the City's response to that data and analysis was not appropriate. Ultimate Findings PGSP did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City has provided a preponderance of the evidence, which is both competent and substantial, which supports the findings in the Staff Report and the City Council's adoption of the Ordinance. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining the City of St. Petersburg Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Ordinance 739-L, is "in compliance" as that term is defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert N. Hartsell, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Jacqueline Kovilaritch, Esquire City of St. Petersburg Florida One 4th Street North, 10th Floor St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-2842 Michael J. Dema, Esquire City of St. Petersburg Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Sarah M. Hayter, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Shai Ozery, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Heather Judd, Esquire City of St. Petersburg Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Dane Eagle, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the amendments to the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan (“the Comp Plan”) adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County by Ordinance No. 14-030 (“Proposed Amendments”) are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Alerts of PBC, Inc. (“Alerts”), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation doing business in Palm Beach County. Alerts made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Patricia Curry is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Ms. Curry made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Robert Schutzer is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Mr. Schutzer made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Karen Schutzer is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Ms. Schutzer made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Respondent Palm Beach County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted the Comp Plan, which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184. Intervenor Minto is a Florida limited liability company doing business in Palm Beach County. Minto is the owner of all of the 3,788.6 acres (“the Property”) which are the subject of the Proposed Amendments, with the exception of two parcels totaling 40.04 acres, which are owned by the Seminole Improvement District. Minto appointed the board of supervisors of the Seminole Improvement District pursuant to state law. Background FLUE Objective 1.1 establishes a unique Managed Growth Tier System “to protect viable existing neighborhoods and communities and direct the location and timing of future development.” The Property is located in the County’s Rural Tier and is bounded by Exurban Tier to the north and east. North of the Property is a large subdivision known as the Acreage, which was described by Respondents as “antiquated” because it was developed in a manner that was common decades ago before modern community planning concepts and growth management laws. The Acreage is dominated by 1.25-acre residential lots, laid out in a grid pattern with few other uses. Although the residents of the Acreage have a strong sense of community, it is apparently a matter of aesthetics, familiarity, and social intercourse, because the Acreage is not a community in the modern planning sense of providing a mix of uses where residents can live, shop, work, and play. It is a development pattern that is now discouraged by state law and the Comp Plan, because it is inefficient with respect to the provision and use of public services. The Property and the Acreage are within a 57,000-acre area known as the Central Western Communities (“CWC"). The CWC has been the subject of extensive planning efforts by the County for many years to address land use imbalances in the area. There are many residential lots, but few non-residential uses to serve the residents. In 2008, the previous owner of the Property, Callery- Judge Groves (“Callery”), obtained an Agricultural Enclave (AGE) future land use designation for essentially the same area as the Property. The Comp Plan was amended to establish an AGE future land use designation, AGE policies, a conceptual plan of development, and implementing principles (“the 2008 Amendments”). Under the 2008 Amendments, the site was limited to 2,996 residential units and 235,000 square feet of retail and office uses. No development has been undertaken pursuant to the 2008 Amendments. In 2013, the site was sold to Minto, which submitted a Comp Plan amendment application in November 2013, and a revised application in July 2014. On October 29, 2014, the County adopted the Proposed Amendments. The Proposed Amendments change the future land use designation of 53.17 acres (“the outparcels”) from RR-10 to AGE, and increase residential density to 4,546 units and increase intensity to two million square feet of non-residential uses, 200,000 square feet of civic uses, a 150-room hotel and a 3,000- student college, and revise the Conceptual Plan and Implementing Principles. The Proposed Amendments would also revise text in the Introduction and Administration, Future Land Use, and Transportation Elements. The Map Series would be amended to add 53.17 acres to the Limited Urban Service Area on Map LU 1.1 and Map LU 2.1, and to identify new Rural Parkways on Map TE 14.1. Petitioners’ Challenge Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are not “in compliance” because they fail to establish meaningful and predictable standards; do not comply with the agricultural enclave provisions of section 163.3164(4); are not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis; promote urban sprawl; are incompatible with adjacent communities and land uses; and create inconsistencies within the Comp Plan. Many of the issues raised and the arguments made by Petitioners fail to acknowledge or distinguish the 2008 Amendments that address future development of the Property. In several respects, as discussed below, the 2008 Amendments already authorize future development of the Property in a manner which Petitioners object to. In several respects, the types of impacts that Petitioners are concerned about are actually diminished by the Proposed Amendments from what is currently allowed under the 2008 Amendments. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioners contend that proposed FLUE Policies 2.2.5-d, 2.2.5-e, and 2.2.5-f, and Maps LU 1.1 and 2.1 fail to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and fail to provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations, in violation of section 163.3177(1). The Proposed Amendments add more detail to the standards that were adopted in the 2008 Amendments. The Proposed Amendments establish substantially more direction for the future development of the Property than simply a land use designation and listing of allowed uses, which is typical in comprehensive plans. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments lack adequate standards because they refer to the use of “appropriate new urbanism concepts,” which Petitioners say is vague. New urbanism refers to land use planning concepts such as clustering, mixed-use development, rural villages, and city centers. See § 163.3162(4), Fla. Stat. (2014). In land use planning parlance, new urbanism creates more “livable” and “sustainable” communities. The term “appropriate new urbanism concepts” used in the Proposed Amendments is the same term used in section 163.3162(4), dealing with the development of agricultural enclaves. There are many concepts that are part of new urbanism, which can be used in combination. Which concepts are “appropriate” depends on the unique opportunities and constraints presented by the area to be developed. Use of the term “appropriate new urbanism concepts” in the Proposed Amendments adds detail to the future development standards applicable to the Property. It does not create vagueness. Petitioners contend the proposed amendments of Maps LU 1.1 and 2.1 do not provide meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines. However, the maps are only being amended to show that 53.17 acres of outparcels within the Property are being added to the existing Limited Urban Service Area. The map amendments do not diminish the meaningfulness or predictability of any standards in the Comp Plan. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments establish meaningful and predictable standards. Agricultural Enclave Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments fail to meet the requirements for an agricultural enclave in section 163.3164. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, consistency with section 163.3164 is not a component of an “in compliance” determination. Furthermore, the Property is already designated Agricultural Enclave in the Comp Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend the amendment of the Limited Urban Service Area is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis as required by section 163.3177(1)(f). The inclusion of the outparcels is logical and reasonable. It is consistent with the Comp Plan policies applicable to Limited Urban Service Areas. It is supported by data and analysis. Petitioners contend the increases in density and intensity allowed by the Proposed Amendments are not supported by data and analysis showing a need for the increases. However, the increases are supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, including population projections and extensive analysis of the need for non-residential uses in the CWC. Population projections establish the minimum amount of land to be designated for particular uses; not the maximum amount of land. See § 163.3177(1)(f)3., Fla. Stat (2014). Petitioners make several claims related to the availability of public utilities and other services to the Property. The data and analysis show sufficient capacity for roads, transportation, schools, water supply, wastewater treatment, fire, emergency and police either already exists or is contemplated in the Comp Plan to accommodate the development authorized by the Proposed Amendments. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments are supported by relevant data and analysis. Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments do not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is defined in section 163.3164(51) as “a development pattern characterized by low density, automobile-dependent development with either a single use or multiple uses that are not functionally related, requiring the extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient manner, and failing to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses.” Petitioners contend the Property does not qualify for the presumption against urban sprawl under the criteria in section 163.3162(4), but Minto did not rely on that statutory presumption. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments create five of the 13 primary indicators of urban sprawl set forth in section 163.3177(6)(a)9.: Promotes, allows, or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses. Promotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while not using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The evidence presented on this issue by Petitioners was inconsistent with generally accepted land use planning concepts and principles. The Proposed Amendments do not promote urban sprawl. They go far to rectify existing sprawl conditions in the CWC. Findings relevant to the five indicators have already been made above. Compatibility with adjacent uses is discussed below. There are ample data and analysis which show the Proposed Amendments discourage urban sprawl. Respondents’ characterization of the Proposed Amendments as the opposite of urban sprawl is not unreasonable. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Compatibility Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are “incompatible with the lifestyle of the existing and surrounding communities and adjacent agricultural and other land uses.” Protection of Petitioners’ lifestyle cannot mean that surrounding areas must remain undeveloped or must be developed in a similar suburban sprawl pattern. Land use imbalances in the CWC are rectified by the Proposed Amendments while providing large buffers and a transition of land uses on the Property to protect adjacent land uses. The Acreage is more accurately characterized as suburban rather than rural. Moreover, the Proposed Amendments include a conceptual plan and development guidelines designed to create a clear separation between urban uses on the Property and less dense and intense external uses. Residential densities near the perimeter of the Property would correspond to the density in the Acreage. The proposed distribution of land uses and large open space buffers would not establish merely an adequate transition. They would provide substantial protection to adjacent neighborhoods. A person at the periphery of the Property would likely see only open space, parks, and low-density residential uses. The distribution of land uses and natural buffers in the Proposed Amendments provide more protection for external land uses than the 2008 Amendments. The more persuasive evidence presented indicates that Petitioners and other persons living near the Property would be beneficiaries of the Proposed Amendments because they could use and be served by the office, commercial, government, and recreational uses that will be available nearby. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments are compatible with adjacent land uses. Internal Consistency The Comp Plan’s Introduction and Administration Element and FLUE contain statements of intent. They are not objectives or policies. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with some of the statements. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with the Introduction and Administration Element statements discouraging growth to the west where services are not adequate, do not provide for orderly growth or the provision of facilities and services to maintain the existing quality of life in an economical manner, and do not recognize countywide growth management strategies or maintain the diversity of lifestyles. Findings that refute this contention have been made above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with several general statements in FLUE Sections I A, I B, and I C. regarding respect for the character of the area, protection of quality of life and integrity of neighborhoods, prevention of “piecemeal” development, and efficient provision of public services. Findings that refute this contention have been made above. Petitioners contend FLUE Policy 2.2.5-d allows land uses which are inconsistent with the policies applicable to the Rural Tier in which the Property is located. In the proposed policy, the County exempts the Project from any conflicting Rural Tier policies that would otherwise apply. Under the County’s Managed Growth Tier System, the tiers are the “first level” land use consideration in the FLUE. Therefore, it would have been helpful to amend the Rural Tier section of the FLUE to indicate the exceptions to Rural Tier policies for agricultural enclaves, in general, or for the Property, in particular. Instead, the Proposed Amendments place the new wording about exceptions in the section of the FLUE dealing with agricultural land uses. However, as stated in the Conclusions of Law, where the exception is located in the comprehensive plan is not a consistency issue. The County has shown there are unique considerations involved with the CWC that justify the exceptions. It also demonstrated that the Proposed Amendments would accomplish numerous objectives and policies of the Comp Plan that could not be accomplished without creating exceptions to some Rural Tier policies. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.1-3 because they encourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. That contention has been rejected above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.1-6 because they do not protect agricultural land and equestrian uses. The evidence shows that agricultural and equestrian uses are enhanced by the Proposed Amendments over the existing provisions of the Comp Plan. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-b, which addresses criteria re- designating a tier. This policy is not applicable because the Proposed Amendments do not re-designate a tier. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-c, which requires the review of the tier system as part of each Evaluation and Appraisal review. Evaluation and Appraisal Reviews are no longer required by state law. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-d, which states a tier shall not be re-designated if it would cause urban sprawl. This policy is not applicable because the Proposed Amendments do not re- designate a tier. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-a, which requires the County to protect and maintain the rural residential, equestrian, and agricultural areas within the Rural Tier. The Proposed Amendments and Conceptual Plan increase the level of protection for these uses over what is currently in the Comp Plan. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-d, which generally prohibits subdividing parcels of land within the Rural Tier unless certain conditions are met. The Proposed Amendments do not subdivide any parcels. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-k, which addresses the designation of “sending areas” for Transfer of Development Rights (“TDR”). This policy only applies to parcels with a RR20 future land use designation and there are no such parcels existing or that would be created by the Proposed Amendments. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-l, which requires the County to provide rural zoning regulations for areas designated Rural Residential. The Property does not have any Rural Residential designations. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.4-b, which provides that the TDR program is the required method for increasing density within the County. The County applies this policy only to density increases in urban areas, because they are the only areas authorized to receive TDRs. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 2.1 and some related policies, which promote balanced growth. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments will further this objective and its policies because they correct the current imbalance of land uses in the CWC and provide for a balanced mix of residential, agricultural, commercial, light industrial, office, recreation, and civic uses. Petitioners presented no evidence to support their claim that Proposed Amendments would exceed the natural or manmade constraints of the area. Petitioners presented no credible evidence that transportation infrastructure and other public services could not be efficiently provided to the Property. The data and analysis and other evidence presented show otherwise. Petitioners contend there is no justification for the increased density and intensity authorized by the Proposed Amendments. There was ample justification presented to show the increases were needed to create a sustainable community where people can live, work, shop, and play. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 2.2 and some related policies, which require development to be consistent with land use designations in the Comp Plan. Petitioners’ evidence failed to show any inconsistencies. The Proposed Amendments are compatible with and benefit adjacent land uses, as found above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments fail to include “new urbanism” concepts as required by section 163.3164(4) and Policy 2.2.5-i. The evidence presented by Respondents proved otherwise. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 3 and some related policies, which address the provision of utilities and other public services. Petitioners presented no credible evidence to support this claim. The data and analysis and other evidence presented show that public services are available or planned and can be efficiently provided to the Property. Petitioners argued the Proposed Amendments were inconsistent with several other FLUE policies generally related to compatibility with adjacent land uses and the provision of public services, all of which Petitioners failed to prove as explained above. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments would not create internal inconsistency in the Comp Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity issue a final order determining the Proposed Amendments adopted by Palm Beach County Ordinance No. 2014-030 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2015, 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 17th day of April, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire 1217 East Coral Parkway, Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (eServed) Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green and Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Tara W. Duhy, Esquire Lewis Longman and Walker, P.A. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire Palm Beach County Attorney's Office 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Jesse Panuccio, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Katie Zimmer, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether City of Miami Ordinance 12911, which amends the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), is a small-scale development amendment, as defined by Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) whether Ordinance 12911 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (Statutes refer to the 2007 codification.)
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following facts are determined: The Property Subject to the FLUM Amendment TRG-MH Venture, LTD. (TRG-MH), is a Florida limited partnership formed for the purpose of purchasing and developing a parcel of property in the southeast corner of a larger, 40- acre parcel owned by Mercy Hospital, Inc. (Mercy). TRG-MH and Mercy have executed a purchase and sale agreement for this corner parcel, which is located at approximately 3663 South Bayshore Drive in the Coconut Grove area of Miami, Florida (the Site). TRG-MH hired an architectural firm, Arquitectonica, to design on the Site a proposed residential development named 300 Grove Bay Residences (the Project). The Site, which currently serves as a paved parking lot for Mercy Hospital employees, measures 6.72 acres. The Site is abutted on the north, northwest, and northeast by the rest of the 40-acre parcel owned by Mercy and used for its hospital, professional offices, and patient and visitor parking. The tallest of these buildings is 146 feet. To the north of Mercy's property and medical complex is another 30-plus acre parcel owned by the Catholic Diocese of Miami and used for La Salle High School and a religious facility, Ermita de la Caridad. Abutting the northern boundary of the La Salle High School property is Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. To the west of the Site are a small convent, an administration building, and a modest-sized assisted living facility. To the west of these buildings is South Bayshore Drive, which is a four-lane road. Single-family residential neighborhoods are west of South Bayshore Drive. The Site is abutted on the southwest, south, southeast and east by Biscayne Bay. Grove Isle, a three-building, 18- story condominium/hotel/marina complex, is located on a small, man-made island (Fair Isle) in the Bay to the south of the Site. It is located approximately 1,300 feet from the Site and is separated from the Site by Bay water. Grove Isle has a future land use designation of Medium Density Multifamily Residential (M/D Residential) and is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-3). However, Grove Isle is a legal nonconformity because it exceeds the densities allowed in M/D Residential and R-3. To the southwest of the Site, but separated from the Site by Bay water, are single-family and medium-density dwellings, including several multifamily structures. Petitioners Bloch and Steen reside in this neighborhood. No property zoned single-family residential (R-1) abuts the Site. Currently a paved parking lot, the Site has no archeological, environmental, or historical significance. Miami-Dade County had designated all of the City as an "Urban Infill Area." This designation is made in the County's Comprehensive Plan and is implemented in Policy LU-1.1.11 of the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The Parties The Vizcayans, Inc. (The Vizcayans), is a not-for- profit Florida corporation of volunteer members and a paid staff consisting of: an executive director, a membership director, and a controller. The purpose of the organization is to support the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens (Vizcaya), a publicly-owned and operated museum, through contributions and fundraising events. The Vizcayans' office at 3251 South Miami Avenue is located on the grounds of Vizcaya. The Vizcayans submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM Amendment and appeared in person and through lawyers at the City Commission hearings. The Respondent and Intervenors stipulated that The Vizcayans have standing as affected persons under Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to challenge the small-scale development amendment in this proceeding based on allegations that The Vizcayans operate a business in the City. Miami-Dade County owns Vizcaya. By contract, The Vizcayans provides funds annually to Miami-Dade County for use in maintaining Vizcaya's properties and conducting educational programs. Any funds in excess of those owed to the County under the contract are used to pay staff and host fundraisers or are invested for future use. Vizcaya is governed by the County through the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, which is an agency of Miami-Dade County. Jason Bloch and Constance Steen reside in the City and own properties to the southwest of the Site. Glencoe is a not- for-profit corporation of homeowners in the Glencoe neighborhood to the southwest of the Site. Mr. Bloch formed the corporation during the pendency of the application proceedings for the primary purpose of opposing the proposed development of the Site. Bloch, Steen, and Glencoe submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. Grove Isle is a not-for-profit Florida corporation of condominium owners. Grove Isle submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. The City and Intervenors stipulated to Grove Isle's standing in these proceedings. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City adopted its Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, including its FLUM, in 1989. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM have been amended from time to time as allowed by law. TRG-MH is a joint venture limited partnership. Its direct and indirect participants include Ocean Land Equities, Ltd., and The Related Group. TRG-MH contracted to purchase the Site from Mercy and applied to the City for the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. TRG-MH also submitted applications for a change of zoning and MUSP on the Site. The zoning and MUSP applications, and the resulting City ordinance and resolution arising from their approval, are not at issue in this proceeding. Mercy is a not-for-profit Florida corporation that owns and operates Mercy Hospital. Mercy has contracted to sell the Site to TRG-MH. The FLUM Amendment In June 2007, TRG-MH applied to the City for a small- scale development amendment to change the Site's land use designation on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities (M/I) to High Density Multifamily Residential (H/D). TRG-MH submitted its application concurrently with its applications for a zoning change from G/I to R-4 and for a MUSP. According to the FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH was seeking a map amendment for a 6.723-acre parcel of real property. With its FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH submitted a survey prepared and certified by surveyors Fortin, Leavy & Skiles. The survey depicted: the Site, as a parcel with a "net lot area" of 6.723 acres; a Proposed Road, measuring 1.39 acres, that wrapped around the Site on its west and north sides (the Perimeter Road); and a Private Road, also known as Tract "C" or Halissee Street, measuring .95 acres, which accesses the Site and Perimeter Road from South Bayshore Drive. Accompanying the survey was a legal description for the Site, which included a description for the proposed new Perimeter Road abutting the Site. The legal description covered an area comprising 8.11 acres. Also accompanying the application was a traffic analysis showing the impact to existing road networks of traffic resulting from the proposed MUSP application, which sought to build 300 residential units on property currently having no existing residential units. TRG-MH's applications were reviewed by the City's Planning Department and its Planning Advisory Board (PAB). The City's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use designation change. The PAB's 3-3 tie vote operated as to deny the request for a change of the land use designation recommendation. On April 26, 2007, the City Commission voted to approve the FLUM amendment application and, with modifications, the accompanying zoning and MUSP applications. (The City Commission approved the zoning change and MUSP subject to the condition that the size and scale of the Project be reduced by 25 percent across the board. Thus, for example, the height of the tallest of the three condominium buildings was reduced from approximately 411 feet to 310 feet.) The FLUM change was adopted by Ordinance 12911, which the Mayor signed on May 7, 2007. Ordinance 12911 amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation "for the property located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated." Exhibit A to the ordinance was the legal description included on the Fortin, Leavy, Skiles survey. The section of the MCNP entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various future land use categories in the Plan. It describes the Major Institutional future land use category as follows: Major Institutional Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities: Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, and major transportation facilities and public utilities. Residential facilities ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) at 21 (June 2006). The same section describes the H/D Residential, in pertinent part, as follows: Areas designated as "High Density Multifamily Residential" allow residential structures to a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. MCNP at 20 (June 2006). (By way of comparison, M/D Residential is described similarly except that the maximum density is 65 dwelling units per acre.) According to the MCNP, the FLUM land use designations "are arranged following the 'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion, whereby subsequent categories are inclusive of those listed previously, except as otherwise noted." Ordinance 12911 was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required for text changes and large- scale FLUM changes to a comprehensive plan. On June 4 and 6, 2007, Petitioners filed their petitions challenging the FLUM Amendment. Generally, the Petitioners alleged that the FLUM Amendment did not qualify for treatment as a "small-scale" development amendment; was internally inconsistent with other provisions of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; was not supported by adequate data and analysis; and was not "in compliance" with Florida's Growth Management Act and its implementing regulations. Scale of the FLUM Amendment A small-scale development amendment may be adopted if the "proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." § 163.3187(1)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. According to the survey and architectural plans on file with the City, the "net lot area" of the Site measures 6.72 acres. The City Zoning Code defines "net lot area" as "[t]he total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights-of- way or other required dedications." § 2502, City Zoning Code. In determining how large (in square feet of floor area) the planned Project could be, the architects were permitted, under the City's zoning regulations, to multiply the "floor area ratio" (FAR) for the High Density Multifamily Residential zoning classification by an area larger than the "net lot area." See § 401, City Zoning Code. The Zoning Code allows the maximum square footage to be calculated using the Site's "gross lot area." Id. The City Zoning Code defines "gross lot area," in pertinent part, as "[t]he net area of the lot, as defined herein, plus half of adjoining street rights-of-way and seventy (70) feet of any other public open space such as parks, lakes, rivers, bays, public transit right-of-way and the like." § 2502, City Zoning Code. If the "gross lot area" to be used to calculate the maximum square footage involves properties under different ownership, either the owners must apply jointly for a MUSP, or they must enter a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title. Properties joined by a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title need not have the same land use designation or zoning classification. If a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title is required, it need not be submitted to the City until building permits are sought. At present, no covenant-in-lieu of unity of title has been prepared or executed for the Site. The "gross lot area" used to calculate the Project's maximum square footage of floor area measured 11.44 acres. Thus, the Petitioners argued that the FLUM Amendment "involved a use" of more than 10 acres. But the application requested a land use designation change on only 6.72 acres of land. Because High-Density Multifamily Residential use will not be made of the proposed Perimeter Road, the access road known as Halissee Street, or the proposed Bay Walk, a land use designation change was not required for that acreage. Indeed, according to the amended FLUM, there is no land use designation applied to Halissee or to the northern part of the Perimeter Road. Moreover, use of Halissee Street, the Perimeter Road, and the Bay Walk is not exclusive to the 6.72 acres but will remain shared with Mercy Hospital, its patients and employees, as well as with the public. The Petitioners attempted to prove that a marina was planned to serve the development, which would involve a total use of more than ten acres for residential purposes. Even if a marina was initially contemplated, the application on file with the City does not include one, and there are no approved plans for a marina to be incorporated into the proposed residential development. No marina is required to be developed in connection with the 300 Grove Bay project. Moreover, there was unrebutted evidence that it is highly unlikely that a marina would ever be permitted under the statutes now regulating Biscayne Bay. There is no evidentiary support for including any part of Biscayne Bay in the acreage subject to the small-scale FLUM Amendment because of a possible marina so as to support the Petitioners' claim that Ordinance 12911 should not have been processed as a small-scale amendment. Suitability and Compatibility of FLUM Amendment The Site is a parking lot. It is not environmentally sensitive and has no significant natural or archeological resources that would make it unsuitable for High Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Major Institutional accommodates the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the Mercy Hospital complex, which are compatible with and actually part of Coconut Grove. However, as pointed out by the City and the Intervenors, Major Institutional also allows future land uses that could be less compatible with the surrounding land uses, including the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the residential neighborhoods of Coconut Grove. While a lower density residential future land use would be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding uses, the issue in this case is the density allowed by H/D Residential--up to 150 residential units per acre, which Petitioners contend is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and inconsistent with previous efforts to protect Vizcaya and Coconut Grove from the intrusion of high- density residential development. The Petitioners also contend that the FLUM Amendment is not suitable on the bayfront. Suitability on the Bayfront The Petitioners contend that H/D Residential is not suitable on the bayfront for reasons related mostly to aesthetics and views. While it certainly would be possible and reasonable for a community to decide not to allow dense and intense development on significant water bodies, it was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the City has done so, or that H/D Residential is unsuitable on the Site for that reason. 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report The City's 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("2005 EAR") focused on two citywide issues relevant here: (1) the preservation and enhancement of historic and similar resources; and (2) neighborhood integrity and the need to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development. Vizcaya Museum Gardens Industrialist James Deering built Vizcaya in 1916 as a winter home. The land Deering purchased in the early 1900s was developed into a 180-acre estate that included his Mediterranean-style home, Italianate gardens, farms, orchards, and lagoons. The mansion and gardens were designed by three well-known architects and designers and constructed using local materials. When Deering died nine years later in 1925, Vizcaya was left to his heirs, who eventually sold the south gardens and western agricultural fields to the Catholic Diocese. The southern acreage (which included the Site) was later developed into a church (Ermita de la Caridad), a school (La Salle), and medical and hospital facilities (Mercy). The Diocese sold the western acreage, which was eventually developed into single- family-home subdivisions. In the 1950s, the Deering heirs sold the remaining property, consisting of the mansion, gardens, and farm buildings, to Dade County. In 1952, Dade County opened Vizcaya to the public. Since then, the County has operated Vizcaya as a museum, which has welcomed thousands of visitors annually and is a popular site for tourists, social functions, and photo shoots. The Vizcaya mansion and gardens have historical, architectural, and botanical significance. The mansion is an "architectural masterpiece" and an "outstanding example of Italian Renaissance Revival architecture." Vizcaya has been on the National Register of Historical Places since 1977; it was designated as a City Heritage Conservation District in 1984; and, in 1994, it was designated a National Historical Landmark-- one of only three in Miami-Dade County. The southernmost part of Vizcaya's gardens is approximately 1,600 feet from the FLUM Amendment Site, and the mansion is approximately 2,300 feet from the Site. For the specific purpose of objecting to the 300 Grove Bay project, The Vizcayans commissioned the Vizcaya Viewshed Impact Assessment, which is referred to as the "balloon" study, and the Vizcaya View Corridor Study. According to the balloon study, the 300 Grove Bay condominiums would be visible from the balcony on the south side of the mansion. Although the balloon study was based on the original Project building heights and not re-done using the reduced heights in the zoning and MUSP approvals, the Petitioners' witnesses said that the Project would still be visible through the existing landscape, even at the reduced height. The Petitioners' witnesses opined that the development of 300 Grove Bay would "overpower and overshadow" the gardens on the south side of the mansion. No federal, state, or local statutes, rules or ordinances, including those relevant to this proceeding, protect the view corridors of Vizcaya's gardens. Coconut Grove The area known as Coconut Grove was settled in the late 1800s and was considered "off the beaten path" from the City which was incorporated in 1896. Coconut Grove was incorporated as a separate municipality in 1919, but in 1925 it was annexed to the City, as were five other municipalities. Petitioners' witnesses observed that Coconut Grove is the only one of these towns that has continued to retain a unique and recognizable character. Vizcaya and Mercy Hospital, including the parking lot site, are located in the northern area of Coconut Grove. Coconut Grove is primarily, but not entirely, a residential community. Coconut Grove has an active "downtown" business, commercial, and hotel district. The Petitioners maintained that the northern area of Coconut Grove is primarily single-family residential. However, it also includes a non- conforming high-density development (Grove Isle), medium-density residential, Mercy Hospital and its professional buildings, an assisted living facility, a school, a church, and governmental office buildings, as well as two museums (Vizcaya and the Museum of Science). A Coconut Grove Planning Study was commissioned and printed in 1974, but the City never adopted it; therefore, it has no official status. The Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District In 2005, the City adopted by ordinance the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3). See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. According to the Code, a Neighborhood Conservation District is an "umbrella land use designation overlay," which allows for the tailoring of a master plan or of design guidelines for any area that meets certain criteria. See § 800, City Zoning Code. The intent of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District is to "[p]reserve the historic, heavily landscaped character of Coconut Grove's residential areas and enhance and protect Coconut Grove's natural features such as tree canopy and green space." § 803.1, City Zoning Code. NCD-3 does not specify the High-Density, Multifamily Residential (R-4) zoning classification. But that does not mean that NCD-3 does not allow R-4. NCD-3 is enabling legislation that imposes greater restrictions within a geographic "overlay" for the zoning classifications addressed in Section 803.3. So far, NCD-3 has not addressed G/I and R-4 but only Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial Districts. See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. For that reason, the ordinance does not apply to the Site. The "Grovenor Ordinance" The so-called Grovenor Ordinance was the City's response in July 2004 to the construction of a high-density residential project on property in Coconut Grove zoned "G/I Government and Institutional." The Grovenor Ordinance amended subsection of Section 401 of the City's Zoning Code to provide in pertinent part: G/I Government and Institutional Intent and Scale: The government/institutional category allows the development of facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious, or educational activities, major transportation facilities, public utilities, and public and private cemeteries. Uses ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, subject to the same limiting conditions. Intensity: For residential uses: As for the least intense abutting zoning district. . . . * * * Permitted Principal Uses: Governmental and institutional uses as described in the City of Miami Comprehensive Development Plan designation of "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities", however for accessory non-governmental or institutional uses-only such uses as may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense abutting zoning district . . . . § 401, City Zoning Code. The Grovenor Ordinance applies to property that is zoned G/I. The City's and Intervenors' witnesses testified that it applies only if G/I-zoned property ceases to be used for governmental or institutional purposes and is used instead for residential purposes. However, from the language of the ordinance itself, it is beyond fair debate that it also applies to G/I-zoned property that is used both for government or institutional uses and for ancillary residential uses. Clearly, without a FLUM change to a higher-density residential zoning category, in Coconut Grove the residential use on the Site would be restricted to the zoning classification of the "least intense abutting zoning district." Since it pertains to zoning, the Grovenor Ordinance does not directly apply to the issue of whether a FLUM amendment is "in compliance." However, it has some bearing on the proper interpretation and application of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP's future land use designations, which is important to the issues for determination in this case. The Pyramid Concept The City and the Intervenors rely heavily on their interpretation of the MCNP's pyramid concept of cumulative future land use designations to support the FLUM Amendment in this case. According to them, the FLUM Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses because high-density multi-family residential use already is a permitted use as a matter of right for land designated "Major Institutional." Similarly, they maintain that, under the "pyramid" concept, high-density multi- family residential use is permitted as a matter of right in all of the commercially designated land in Coconut Grove. But it is beyond fair debate that their interpretation of the "pyramid concept" is incorrect. As indicated, the "'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion" applies "except as otherwise noted." In the Major Institutional future land use category, it is noted that residential facilities with densities equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" (i.e., up to 150 units per acre) are permitted only if "ancillary" to the listed major institutional uses. Similarly, in the General Commercial future land use category, it is noted that high-density residential uses "are allowed by Special Exception only, upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents." If the "pyramid concept" authorized high- density multi-family residential use as a matter of right on land designated either Major Institutional or General Commercial, there would be no reason to limit those uses by notation. Under the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, free-standing high-density multi-family residential use of up to 150 units per acre is not already permitted as of right in either the Major Institutional or the General Commercial land use categories. Compatibility Notwithstanding the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that High Density Multi Family Residential future land use on the Site is incompatible with the surrounding uses or is inappropriate. The lower density residential and other less intense future land uses in the MCNP are buffered from the Site by Biscayne Bay and by Medium Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Vizcaya is buffered from the Site by Mercy Hospital and related medical facilities and by La Salle High School. The compatibility of a specific density of residential development on the Site with less dense residential use in Coconut Grove and with Vizcaya, including issues regarding building height and intrusion into Vizcaya's view corridors, can be addressed through zoning and MUSP proceedings. Data and Analysis Data and analysis is another matter. Because of their incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the City and the Intervenors took the position that the FLUM Amendment constitutes "down-planning" and that the City was not required to perform the same level of analysis as it would have if the amendment sought a designation that permitted uses of greater impact, density, and/or intensity. The experts disagreed on whether "down-planning" is a concept in land use planning that can eliminate or minimize the requirement for data and analysis. In any event, the FLUM Amendment in this case could not be characterized as "down- planning." See Findings 57-59, supra. The MCNP's pyramid concept does not dispense with the need for data and analysis, and the data and analysis in this case was minimal and inadequate. The primary data and analysis in this case was the "Analysis for Land Use Change Request" (Analysis) that resulted from the City staff's review. After identifying the proposed land use designation and the uses permitted on it the Analysis recommended "Approval" of the FLUM Amendment and made four findings in support of "the position that the existing land use pattern in this neighborhood should be changed. These findings are as follows: It is found that the subject property is part of the Mercy Hospital and do [sic] not front South Miami Avenue. It is found that the "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation & Utilities" category allows 150 residential units per acre and the requested "High Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow a maximum density of 150 residential units per acre. It is found that the requested change to "High-Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow greater flexibility in developing the property at the above described location and therefore should be changed as part of the MUSP. It is found that MCNP Goal LU-1 maintains a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods, and (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts. Id. (Emphasis in original.) As to the City’s third finding, a particular developer's flexibility is irrelevant to the determination of whether the land use change is consistent with the MCNP. To the extent that flexibility in general could be relevant to the inquiry, the finding was incorrect. While allowing a free- standing high-density residential project that would not otherwise be possible, the FLUM Amendment eliminates all of the non-residential uses permitted within the "Major Institutional" category. The second finding was based on the City's incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP, which led the City to wrongly equate a primary use with an ancillary use and to simply assume no population increase would result from the FLUM Amendment, and that the FLUM Amendment would result in "down-planning." Attached to the City's Analysis was a separate "Concurrency Management Analysis," which addressed in summary form the data and analysis generated by the applicant and by the City's staff to address the "impact of [the] proposed amendment to land use map within a transportation corridor." The "Concurrency Management Analysis" also was predicated on the assumption that the FLUM change to HD Residential would not increase population. Essentially, it assumed without any data or analysis that infrastructure was available for 1,008 people living on the Site, even though the Site is being used as a parking lot at this time. This data and analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. As to transportation, there was additional evidence of a traffic analysis performed by the City in support of the Project’s MUSP. This MUSP traffic analysis utilized a proper starting point of zero population on the Site at this time. It then projected the impact of the addition of 300 units. This was more than the 225 units ultimately approved in the MUSP but did not analyze the much larger potential increases in traffic that would be allowed under the FLUM Amendment, which is not limited to 300 units. There also was no data or analysis to show that limiting the analysis to 300 units was reasonable. It also only looked two years into the future. The MUSP traffic analysis also did not address the 2005 EAR finding that Bayshore Drive will be at level of service F by year 2025, without even any development on the Site. In short, the MUSP traffic analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. The City and Intervenor took the position that the designation of the entire City as an urban infill area meant that every parcel is appropriate for high-density multi-family residential development. This is not correct. It is still necessary to look at comprehensive plan to determine which areas are appropriate for that kind of future land use and to have data and analysis to support it. See Payne et al. v. City of Miami et al., 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885, *10-13 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2007) (on motion for rehearing). For these reasons, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment were inadequate. Inconsistency with City's Comprehensive Plan The Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with any MCNP goals, objectives, or policies. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners did not prove that the FLUM Amendment at issue is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order that the FLUM Amendment adopted by City of Miami Ordinance 12911 is not "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jason Gonzalez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney City of Miami Miami Riverside Center, Suite 945 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Patrick J. Goggins, Esquire Patrick J. Goggins, P.A. Sun Trust Building, Suite 850 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2811 John Charles Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A. 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6616 H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Stephen J. Darmody, Esquire Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP Miami Center - Suite 2400 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-4339 Lewis W. Fishman, Esquire Lewis W. Fishman, P.A. Two Datran Center, Suite 1121 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7848 John K. Shubin, Esquire Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 Southwest First Street, Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130-1610
