The Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the amendment of the boundaries of The Crossings at Fleming Island Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge recommends that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, amend the boundaries of The Crossings at Fleming Island Community Development District as requested by the Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report of Findings and Conclusions as Exhibit 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 22nd day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Bradley, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 2101 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Elizabeth C. Bowman, Esquire Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams and Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 David Schwartz, Esquire Office of the Governor Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mid-Keys Development Corporation (Mid-Keys), is the owner of Lot 98, Stirrup Key Subdivision, Monroe County, Florida; a property located on Florida Bay, a natural waterbody, and within that part of Monroe County designated as an area of Critical State Concern. On September 12, l989, Monroe County issued to Mid-Keys building permit No. 8920001017 to construct a single-family home on Lot 98. As permitted, the home would be constructed 20 feet landward of the top of a dike or berm which runs along the rear of the property, as well as approximately 20 feet landward of a mangrove fringe which parallels the shoreline of the property. 1/ Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department) pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, appealed the issuance of the subject permit, and contends that, as permitted, construction of the home would violate Monroe County's comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Succinctly, the Department contends that under existent regulations the proposed home must be set back 50 feet from the landward limit of the mangrove fringe. Central to the dispute in this case are the provisions of Section 9.5- 286, Monroe County Land Development Regulations (MCLDR) which provide: Sec. 9.5-286. Shoreline setback. All buildings and structures, other than docks, utility pilings, walkways, non- enclosed gazebos and fences and similar structures shall be set back twenty (20) feet from the mean high tide lines of man-made waterbodies and/or lawfully altered shorelines of natural waterbodies. All buildings other than docks, utility pilings, walkways, non-enclosed gazebos and fences and similar structures shall be set back fifty (50) feet from natural waterbodies with unaltered shorelines or unlawfully altered shorelines, measured from the landward limit of mangroves, if any, and where mangroves do not exist from the mean high tide line. (Emphasis added) The regulations do not, however, expressly define the location of the shoreline for purposes of assessing whether it is altered or unaltered, and thereupon rests the basis for the parties' dispute. In this regard, Mid-Keys contends that the development of Stirrup Key legally altered the shoreline, which it suggests a extends to the higher high tide line, and the Department contends that such development did not alter the shoreline, which it a suggests extends to the mean high tide line. The creation of Stirrup Key Subdivision. Stirrup Key is an island in Florida Bay, a natural waterbody, comprising approximately 50 acres. Currently the key is platted as Stirrup Key Subdivision; a residential community which is attached to Key Vaca by a short causeway. The character of Stirrup Key as it exists today is, however, decidedly different from what existed less than two decades ago. In March 1972, when Stirrup Key was purchased by William T. Mills, it was a low-lying island with an average elevation of two feet or less mean high water (MHW) and it was virtually untouched by man. Portions of its shoreline were covered with red mangroves, followed upland by transitional a species such as black mangrove, white mangrove, and buttonwood, and portions of its higher elevations contained some hammock. Following his acquisition of Stirrup Key in 1972, Mr. Mills, consistent with regulations existent at that time, sought and obtained the approval of all governmental agencies necessary to develop the key as it currently exists. Pertinent to this case, the Florida Department of Pollution Control (currently known as the Department of Environmental Regulation) on June 24, 1974, issued to Mr. Mills a dredge and fill permit and water quality certification to excavate on Stirrup Key an upland lagoon to minus 5.0 feet mean low water, together with an access channel, with the spoil from the excavation to be placed on upland, landward of mean high water. As a condition, the permit provided that "[n]o spoil below MHW but in upland spoil area diked along shoreline" and "[m]angrove fringe along shoreline will be preserved." Notably, the plans which were submitted to the Department of Pollution Control by Mr. Mills, and which were attached to the permit, established the boundary of the island at the mean high water line and designated the mean high water line as the shoreline. Also pertinent to this case, the State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, on July 22, 1974, issued to Mr. Mills a permit to dredge 72,265 cubic yards of material (1,265 cubic yards from sovereignty submerged land) from a proposed upland boat basin, together with an access channel and two circulation channels, with the spoil to be deposited on the uplands, and to construct a dike around the entire perimeter of Stirrup Key above the mean high water line. The Trustee's permit also provided that "[n]o spoil shall be deposited below mean high water but in upland spoil area diked along shoreline" and "[t]he mangrove fringe along shoreline will be preserved." Consistent with the foregoing permits, Mr. Mills undertook the development of Stirrup Key. In so doing, he constructed a dike around the entire perimeter of the island, with the toe of the dike landward of MHW, removed the transitional vegetation landward of MHW, and filled the area landward of MHW with limestone fill to an elevation of 4 to 9 feet MHW. Also consistent with his permits, Mr. Mills preserved the mangrove fringe along the shoreline. 2/ While the wetlands system of Stirrup Key has been altered by the removal of the upland transitional vegetation and the filling of the area lying landward of MHW, the function of the shoreline mangrove fringe has not been altered by the development of the island. That fringe, which extends approximately 3,000 feet along the shoreline and which measures from 60 to 100 feet in width at Lot 98, continues to provide, among other things, wildlife habitat for numerous species of birds; fisheries habitat for food, cover and refuge; shoreline stabilization; and storm surge abatement. In 1976 the plat of Stirrup Key Subdivision, which encompassed all the lands of Stirrup Key, was approved by Monroe a County and filed of record. That plat, as well as the survey of Lot 98, demonstrate that the boundaries of Stirrup Key follow the mean high water line. The Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. The Monroe County comprehensive plan, effective September 15, 1986, provides: 11. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Sec. 2-101. Introduction. A fundamental component of any comprehensive land management program is a series of discrete policy statements by which individual land use decisions will be judged in the future. Indeed, a basic tenet of contemporary land management theory and the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, Sections 163.3161 et seq., Fla. Stat. is that land use decisions shall be consistent with a comprehensive plan. After a comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof has been adopted in conformity with this act, all development undertaken by, and all actions taken in regard to development orders by, governmental agencies in regard to land covered by such plan or element shall be consistent with such plan or element as adopted. All land development regulations enacted or amended shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof. 163.3194(1), Fla. Stat. The Comprehensive Plan for Monroe County contemplates that the land use policy element and implementing regulations will be closely coordinated and designed to ensure fair and consistent land use decision-making. Incorporating the policy statements into the implementing regulations will go a long way toward overcoming many of the due process deficiencies that plague land use decision- making. Under this Plan, a request for development approval will be judged, not on the basis of an intuitive perception of the County's needs, the identity of the applicant, or the clamor of opponents, but on the adopted policies set out in the Plan. If the requested approval is inconsistent with these adopted policies, it should be denied, or the policies should be changed through the established procedure for amendments. If the proposed development is consistent with the Plan, it should be approved. Linking individual decisions to adopted policies will help to bring consistency, fairness, and a comprehensiveness to the development review process. The purpose of this element of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan is to establish official land use policies that will guide future land use decisions in the County . . . . Sec. 2-102. General. A. OBJECTIVES 1. To establish a land use management system that protects the natural environment of Monroe County. Sec. 2-103. Natural Environment. The Florida Keys constitute a unique and irreplaceable natural resource of local, regional, state, national and international value. The Florida Keys are an island archipelago constituting a tropical experience accessible by automobile from the a continental United States. As such, the Keys are a vacation and residential resource unmatched in beauty, character and security in the continental Untied States. The natural environment of the Florida Keys -- uplands, wetlands, and nearshore waters -- is the central element of this distinctive character. In the Florida Keys, a distinct visual character, native and tropical vegetation, water-dependent recreation, distinct culture and an oceanic experience come together to make a desirable place to live and visit. It is essential, therefore, that the natural environment of Monroe County be conserved, and where appropriate, enhanced and restored. All future actions, both public and private, should be carried out in a way so as to ensure that the essential ingredients of Monroe County character are preserved and protected for existing and future generations. OBJECTIVES To manage and control the use of land so that the natural environment of Monroe County is protected. POLICIES To protect natural, undisturbed lands from significant disturbance. To protect threatened and endangered species and their habitats from human activities that would expose such species to displacement or extinction. To conserve the habitat of endemic species of plants and animals. Sec. 2-115. Enforcement A major component of any future land use element is the need to strictly enforce implementing regulations. If Monroe County is to achieve the promise of this Plan, it is essential that all persons involved in the land development process adhere to the requirements of this Plan and that the integrity of the development review process be protected. Marine Resources The great value attributed to Monroe County's marine resources is due to their crucial role in the local economy, and in providing a wide range of natural amenities and services. Health and integrity of the marine system is a fundamental prerequisite if these resources are to continue to provide social, economic, and environmental benefits that we have at times taken for granted. Mangroves, seagrass, and coral reefs, all of which are susceptible to pollution and dredging, are extremely important in providing food and shelter for myriad forms of marine life, providing storm protection, and maintaining water quality. If uses and activities such as dredge and fill, destruction of natural vegetation, use of pesticides and fertilizers, improper sewage and solid waste disposal continue indiscriminately and uncontrolled; the ability of the marine system to function effectively will deteriorate, thereby resulting in the loss of many natural services and socioeconomic benefits to society. Therefore, it is imperative that such uses and activities be carefully regulated so as to insure conservation and protection of resources and long-term maintenance of their productivity. Marine Resources Management Policies Recognizing the crucial role that the marine environment plays in the local economy, the protection, conservation, and management of marine resources will be viewed as an issue requiring the County's utmost attention. In an effort to protect and conserve marine resources, emphasis will be placed on protecting the entire marine ecosystem. To this end, maintenance of water quality; protection of marine flora and fauna, including shoreline vegetation; and preservation of coral reefs will be regarded as being absolutely essential to maintaining the integrity of the marine system. Generic Designations All marine grass beds in waters off the Florida Keys. All patch reef coral and other reef formations found in the surrounding waters off the Keys. All shore-fringing mangrove and associated vegetation extending up to 50 feet laterally upland from the landward limit of the shoreline mangrove. Management Policies These biotic communities will be preserved to the fullest extent possible. The Monroe County land development regulations, likewise effective September 15, 1986, provide: Sec. 9.5-3. Rules of construction In the construction of the language of this chapter, the rules set out in this section shall be observed unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the board of county commissioners as expressed in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, or an element or portion thereof, adapted pursuant to chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes (1985). The rules of construction and definitions set out herein shall not be applied to any section of these regulations which shall contain any express provisions excluding such construction, or where the subject matter or context of such section is repugnant thereto. A. Generally: All provisions, terms, phrases and expressions contained in this chapter shall be liberally construed in order that the true intent and meaning of the board of county commissioners may be fully carried out. Terms used in this chapter, unless otherwise specifically provided, shall have the meanings prescribed by the statutes of this state for the same terms. In the interpretation and application of any provision of this chapter, it shall be held to be the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Where any provision of this chapter imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than a general provision imposed by the Monroe County Code or another provision of this chapter, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling. f. Nontechnical and technical words: Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language, but technical words and phrases and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law shall be constructed and understood according to such meaning. m. Boundaries: Interpretations regarding boundaries of land use districts on the land use district map shall be made in accordance with the following, as partially illustrated in figure 1 [following this section]: Boundaries shown as following or approximately following the shorelines of any key or causeway or other island shall be construed as following the mean high water line of such island or key. In many instances, the boundary lines have been intentionally drawn seaward of the shoreline so that the shoreline itself will be visible. Sec. 9.5-286. Shoreline setback All buildings and structures, other than docks, utility pilings, walkways, non- enclosed gazebos and fences and similar structures shall be set back twenty (20) feet from the mean high tide line of man-made waterbodies and/or lawfully altered shorelines of natural waterbodies. All buildings other than docks, utility pilings, walkways, non-enclosed gazebos and fences and similar structures shall be set back fifty (50) feet from natural waterbodies with unaltered shorelines or unlawfully altered shorelines, measured from the landward limit of mangroves, if any, and where mangroves do not exist from the mean high tide line. (Emphasis added) The shoreline, altered or unaltered? While the Monroe County land development regulations do not expressly define the term "shoreline" with reference to a specific point for purposes of determining whether a shoreline has been lawfully altered or unaltered, a reading in pari materia of the rules of construction and the shoreline setback requirements compels the conclusion that such determination is made by reference to the mean high water line of Stirrup Key when it was developed. This definition of shoreline is consistent with Section 177.28(1), Florida Statutes, which defines the legal significance of the mean high water line as: Mean high-water line along the shores of land immediately bordering on navigable waters is recognized and declared to be the boundary between the foreshore owned by the state in its sovereign capacity and upland subject to private ownership . . . . It is likewise consistent with the peculiar and appropriate meaning in law that has established the shoreline at the mean high water line. See: Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 14 S.Ct. 548 (1894), Borax Consolidated v. City of Los Angeles, 296 U.S. 10, 56 S.Ct. 23, reh. denied 296 U.S. 664, 56 S.Ct. 304 (1935), Axline v. Shaw, 35 Fla. 305, 17 So. 411 (1895), Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Walker Ranch General Partnership, 496 So.2d 153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), and Helliwell v. State, 183 So.2d 286 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1966). It is also consistent with the expressed intent of the developer of Stirrup Key and the governmental agencies that permitted such development, and it is consistent with Monroe County's land development regulations which define boundaries of islands which are shown as following the shoreline to be at the mean high water line. 3/ Accordingly, the shoreline of Stirrup Key, and more particularly Lot 98, is unaltered and a 50-foot setback from the landward limit of existing mangroves is mandated by the MCLDR.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order reversing Monroe County's decision to issue permit number 8920001017, and deny Mid-Keys' application for such permit. It is further recommended that such final order specify those items set forth in paragraph 8, Conclusions of Law, as the changes necessary that would make Mid-Keys' proposal eligible to receive the requested permit. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of June 1990. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 25th day of June 1990.
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: The City of Islandia: General Description and Location The City of Islandia is a municipality situated within the jurisdictional boundaries of Dade County, Florida. It was incorporated in 1961. The City is located in an environmentally sensitive area in the southeastern corner of the county several miles east of the mainland. The City is separated from the mainland by Biscayne Bay and is accessible only by boat, seaplane, or helicopter. The City consists of 42,208 acres of submerged and non-submerged land, 41,366 acres of which are owned by the federal government and are part of Biscayne National Park. Biscayne National Park Biscayne National Park was established as a national monument in 1968. Twelve years later it was designated a national park. The park was established because of the unique natural resources within its boundaries. Its designation as a national park promotes the preservation and protection of these valuable resources. The park attracts visitors who engage in passive, marine-oriented recreational activities, such as fishing and snorkeling. Some development has taken place within the park. Among the structures currently standing are the buildings that house the park rangers who work and reside in the park and the docks that are used by those who travel to and from the park by boat. The City's Privately Held Land The remaining 842 acres of land in the City are owned by twelve private landowners, five of whom serve on the Islandia City Council. This land contains no infrastructure and is almost entirely undeveloped. As a result, it is in virtually pristine condition. Because the privately held land in the City is part of the same ecosystem as Biscayne National Park, the development of the privately held land will necessarily have an impact on the activities in the park. Of the 842 acres of privately held land in the City only approximately three acres consist of uplands. These uplands, at their highest elevation, are only four feet above sea level. The other 839 acres of privately held land are submerged bottom lands of Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. The privately held land in the City is located in an area of coastal barrier islands known as the Ragged Keys. These islands lie between Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. They are separated from one another by surge channels, through which the ocean waters enter the bay. Because of their location and low elevation, these islands are extremely vulnerable to the threat of storm surges and coastal flooding. It therefore is imperative that individuals on the islands evacuate to safety as soon as possible in advance of any storm or hurricane. 2/ The Coast Guard, which assists in the early evacuation of coastal residents, removes its assets from the water when wind speeds reach 35 miles per hour. This heightens the need for those on the islands to leave before the weather takes a turn for the worse. There are five Ragged Keys in private ownership. Ragged Key One, the northernmost of these islands, is surrounded by an old, breached bulkhead. Tidal waters enter where the bulkhead is breached. Coastal wetland vegetation is the only vegetation found on the island. Ragged Key Two is totally submerged and has no uplands. Mangroves are scattered throughout the island. Unlike Ragged Key Two, Ragged Key Three includes some uplands. Its shoreline, however, is fringed with white, red and black mangroves, vegetation associated with wetlands. Mangroves play a vital role in maintaining the health of the Biscayne Bay ecosystem. They contribute a leafy matter, known as detritus, to the nutrient budget of the bay. In addition, mangroves help filter upland runoff and protect against shoreline erosion. Most of Ragged Key Four is covered with mangroves. Red mangroves dominate, but there are also white and black mangroves. A narrow band of uplands, approximately 30 to 50 feet in width, runs through the center of the island. The island's upland vegetation consists of an unusual, and therefore ecologically significant, tropical hardwood hammock species not found on the mainland. Ragged Key Five, the southernmost of the privately owned Ragged Keys, is completely inundated by tidal waters twice a day. The vegetation on the northern one-half to two-thirds of the island consists almost exclusively of mangroves, with white mangroves dominating. Mangroves are also found on the island's southeastern perimeter. Less than an acre of uplands lies toward the center of the island. The dominant vegetation on these uplands is Australian pine. The privately held bottom lands in the City that are on the ocean side of the Ragged Keys consist of a number of species of hard coral as well as soft coral and sponges not found further to the north. Consequently, these hard- bottom communities are very significant ecologically. The privately held bottomlands in the City that are on the bay side of the Ragged Keys are covered almost entirely with seagrass beds. These seagrass beds are an essential component of the bay's ecosystem. They help to maintain water quality by stabilizing and filtering sediment and serve as habitat and food for fish and other marine organisms. This is significant from not only an environmental perspective, but from an economic perspective as well, inasmuch as commercial fishing is an important industry in the area. Seagrasses depend on light for their survival. If they are beneath, or otherwise shaded by, a structure, such as a "stilt home" or dock, or deprived of light as a result of construction-related turbidity, they will die. Water depths in the City on both the ocean and bay side of the Ragged Keys are extremely shallow. In most areas, the depth of the water never exceeds four feet. Consequently, one has to be a competent boater to navigate in these areas without running aground. Boats that travel in these shallow waters, even if piloted by competent navigators, are likely to scrape and scar the ocean and bay bottom and damage the seagrass and hard-bottom communities that exist there. Furthermore, these boats are likely to leave behind in the waters they have traversed bilge waters, oils, greases and metallic-based paints from their undersides. This has the effect of lowering water quality. Fortunately, boating activities in these waters have been limited to date and, consequently, these activities have resulted in only minor environmental damage. Substantial damage will occur, however, if boat traffic on these waters increases significantly. Comprehensive Plan Preparation and Adoption The City's comprehensive plan was drafted by the staff of Robert K. Swarthout, Inc., a consulting firm that specializes in land use planning. Before retaining the services of the Swarthout firm, the City's governing body, the City Council, voted that, in the plan, all of the privately held land in the City would be designated for "residential" use and that the allowable density would be six units per acre. Sound planning dictates that such decisions be made only after the character of the land and its suitability for development are analyzed. A proposed plan for the City was developed by the Swarthout firm. Following a vote of the City Council, the proposed plan was transmitted to DCA. Upon its receipt of the proposed plan, DCA distributed copies to other governmental agencies, including Dade County, and solicited their comments. After receiving these comments and conducting its own review, DCA sent to the City a report containing DCA's objections, recommendations and comments regarding the City's proposed plan. In response to this report, the Swarthout firm drafted certain modifications to the proposed plan. The proposed plan, as so modified, was adopted by the City Council on January 13, 1989, and thereupon transmitted to DCA. The City Council held public hearings before transmitting the proposed plan and the adopted plan to DCA. The twelve private landowners in the City were notified of these hearings by mail. No one else, including any park ranger residing in the City or any other representative of the federal government, was given direct, individual advance notice of these hearings, nor were the hearings advertised in any newspaper or other publication. In failing to provide advance notice of these hearings to any one other than the City's twelve private landowners, the City Council relied upon the opinion of its attorney that no additional notice was necessary to meet the requirements of the law. Format of the City's Adopted Plan The City's adopted plan focuses upon the 842 acres of privately held land in the City. It does not discuss in great detail the future of Biscayne National Park, which comprises more than 98% of the City's land area. The plan consists of nine elements: future land use; transportation; housing; infrastructure; coastal management; conservation; recreation and open space; intergovernmental; and capital improvements. Each element contains goals, policies and objectives. In addition, the future land use element includes a future land use map and the capital improvements element includes both an implementation section and a section prescribing monitoring, updating and evaluation procedures. The document containing the City's adopted plan also describes and discusses the data and analysis upon which the plan is purportedly based. According to the document, however: Only the following segments of this document were adopted by the City Council: Goals, Objectives and Policies Capital Improvements Element Implementation section Future Land Use map Monitoring, Updating and Evaluation Procedures Future Land Use Element The future land use element of the City's adopted plan sets forth the following goals, objectives and policies: Goal 1 To provide for minimal residential development compatible with the natural resources of the National Park and balance of the islands. Objective 1.1 By 1994, achieve first phase new development sited appropriately for the topographic/flood conditions and infrastructure compatible with soil conditions. Policy 1.1.1 As the residential development occurs, require acceptable private paths, drainage, water and sewer systems through the development code; special care is needed due to limited wellfield and soil absorption areas. Policy 1.1.2 Private automobiles shall not be permitted; adequate boat or aircraft access facilities shall be required by the development code. Policy 1.1.3 Development permits shall be issued only if facilities meeting the following levels of service can be made available concurrent with the impacts of development: -Sewage disposal: septic tanks 3/ or package treatment plants providing a treatment capacity of 300 gallons per residential unit per day -Water: wells providing 300 gallons per residential unit per day -Drainage: on-site retention and drainage systems that can accommodate a one-day storm that occurs once in ten years (statistically) -Solid waste: off-island disposal by individual homeowners or other property owners 4/ -Circulation: pedestrian and golf cart paths -Open space: public and private of 175 acres per permanent resident Objective 1.2 Ensure reasonable protection of historic and natural resources (particularly) mangroves as development occurs. See policy for measurability Policy 1.2.1 Within one year of transmitting this plan, a development code will be prepared to assure adequate protection of the vegetative communities (particularly mangroves) as well as sensitive to hurricane considerations and the bay bottom ecology. Policy 1.2.2 The City shall consult with the National Park Service should any archaeological sites be found on the privately owned islands. Policy 1.3 Facilitate planned unit development projects through the 1989 adoption of a development code. Policy 1.3.1 Within one year of transmitting this plan, include Planned Unit Development provisions in the zoning provisions of a development code to help achieve residential development. Objective 1.4 By July 1989, adopt a development code to implement land use policies that correspond to the category on the Future Land Use Plan and minimize hurricane evacuation. Policy 1.4.1 The following land use densities, intensities and approaches shall be incorporated in the land development code; development will be required to use these densities in a mixed use Planned Unit Development format -Residential: Single-family detached and attached units at a density of 6 units per acre or less in a PUD mixed-use format. -Commercial: Supporting boat clubs/marinas, restaurants and light convenience retail; this would either be in the residential PUD or the National Park Recreation category i.e. not shown on the map. -Recreation and Open Space: This category includes primarily the National Park. The future land use map depicts only two future land uses: "recreational," which is described on the map as constituting lands of the "National Park and City Park;" and "residential," which is indicated on the map as constituting "[l]ess than 6 units per acre in Planned Unit Developments with supporting service commercial." Because Policy 1.4.1 of the future land use element permits a maximum "residential" density in the City of "6 units per acre" whereas the future land use map reflects that the City's maximum permissible "residential" density is "less [emphasis supplied] than 6 units per acre," these two provisions of the City's adopted plan are inconsistent. On the future land use map, only Ragged Keys One through Five are designated for "residential" use. The remaining land in the City, including the privately held bay and ocean bottom surrounding these islands, is designated on the map for "recreational" use. There are statements in the plan document that reflect that "residential" development is contemplated not just for the five Ragged Keys, but for the entire 842 acres of privately held land in the City. Such statements include the following which are found in the discussion of the data and analysis allegedly underlying the future land use element: Residential Capacity- The islands under municipal jurisdiction have not been developed, and there are only 842 acres of suitable vacant land for the development of residential units. Based on the Land Use Plan PUD density of six units per acre, this would suggest a build-out of 5,000 housing units. * * * Needs Assessment: Not Applicable and Other Issues- There are no incompatible or blighted uses. Some private redevelopment might be involved in upgrading the boat dock and several recreational housing units. Rather than an analysis of the land required to accommodate the projected population, this is a case where the 842 acres of buildable private land can accommodate a build-out population of about 5,000 although 720 is projected for the year 2000 based upon a projected private market demand for development at five units per acre requiring 78 acres. * * * Future Land Use Plan: Land Use Category- As indicated above, all non-Park Service land and bay bottom (842 acres) is designated "Residential Planned Unit Development With Supporting Commercial;" this will accommodate the projected population. * * * Future Land Use Plan: Impact- It is important to note the minimal impact that the private development area (842 acres), will have on the total area of the City which encompasses 42,208 acres. * * * Future Land Use Plan: Density- Approximately 842 acres, at a density of less than six units per acre, are proposed for development of the recreational units. These statements, however, are not included in those portions of the plan document that were adopted by the City Council and therefore are not part of the City's adopted plan. In addition to depicting future land uses, the future land use map also shows shoreline areas. Beaches, wetlands, and flood plains, however, are not identified on the map. Transportation Element The transportation element of the City's adopted plan contains the following goals, objectives and policies: Goal 1- To meet the unique circulation needs of Islandia. Objective 1.1- As development occurs, achieve an internal circulation system that uses paths for pedestrians, bicycles and golf carts but not automobiles. Policy 1.1.1- By July 1989, enact a development code that requires developers to provide such a path system, a) concurrent with development, and b) that connects with other adjacent developments and the boat dock facilities. Policy 1.1.2- Include development code provisions that require adequate access to the development from the mainland i.e. either by boat or aircraft facilities. Housing Element The following goals, objectives and policies are set forth in the housing element of the City's adopted plan: Goal 1- To provide recreational housing units compatible with the unique locational and environmental character of Islandia. Objective 1.1- Achieve and maintain quality housing with supporting infrastructure. Policy 1.1.1- By July 1989, enact a development code that provides an expeditious review process yet assures concurrent adequate private infrastructure. Policy 1.1.2- Include building and property maintenance standards that will assure that units are maintained in sound condition. Policy 1.1.3- To assure environmentally sound design, City codes shall include building standards (sensitive to hurricanes) and site plan review. Infrastructure Element As evidenced by the following goals, objectives and policies set forth in the infrastructure element of the City's adopted plan, the City intends that infrastructure needs will be met by private developers, rather than by the City through the expenditure of public funds: Goal 1- To provide adequate private infrastructure to serve the projected limited recreational residential development. Objective 1.1- Assure provision of adequate, environmentally sensitive private infrastructure concurrent with development through a 1989 development code. Policy 1.1.1- By July 1989, enact a development code that requires City site plan review with engineering design standards in the areas of water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, solid waste, groundwater recharge and wellfield protection plus incentives for the use of solar energy and solid waste recycling (to reduce disposal quantities by 30 percent). Policy 1.1.2- Require all development to meet the following level of service standards: -Sewage disposal: package treatment plants providing treatment capacity of 300 gallons per residential unit per day 5/ -Water: wells providing 300 gallons per residential unit per day -Drainage: on-site retention and drainage systems that can accommodate a one-day storm that occurs once in ten years (statistically) -Solid waste: off-island disposal by individual homeowners or other property owners. Objective 1.2- Encourage multi-unit water and sewer systems in order to protect the fragile environment through the 1989 development code. Policy 1.2.1- Include planned unit development provisions in the development code to be enacted by July 1989 thereby encouraging joint systems rather than individual wells and septic tanks. 6/ Policy 1,3- Protect wellfield aquifer recharge areas from development. Policy 1.3.1- By 1991, enact development code provisions that require developers to designate their wellfield aquifer recharge areas, and authorize the City to then prohibit development within said areas and related drainage systems. Objective 1.4- Each developer shall provide a mechanism for water conservation. Policy 1.4.1- At the time building permits are issued for the first development, the City and developer shall jointly prepare a water conservation plan for normal and emergency consumption. Coastal Management Element The City's adopted plan contains the following goals, objectives and policies relating to coastal management: Goal 1- To conserve, manage and sensitively use the environmental assets of Islandia's coastal zone location. Objective 1.1- Through the 1989 development code adoption, continue to protect the barrier island function and wildlife habitat. Policy 1.1.1- Retain the integrity of the islands by strictly regulating shoreline dredge and fill through the development code. Policy 1.1.2- Require common open space in conjunction with private development to retain wildlife habitats, wetlands and mangroves and assist in preservation of marine water quality and living resources. Objective 1.2- Through the 1989 development code adoption, include estuarine protection policies and thus assure environmental quality. Policy 1.2.1- The development code shall result in drainage, sewage disposal and shoreline setback policies that protect the estuary. Policy 1.2.2- As private development occurs, the City shall use the County's Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan as a basis for review and maintain liaison with the Biscayne Bay Management Committee's staff. This will also be the vehicle for coordinating with the City of Miami (which is some 10 miles to the north) in terms of estuarine. Objective 1.3- Continue the current pattern which is all uses, including shoreline uses, are water dependent. Policy 1.3.1- Use the development code to maintain a shoreline use pattern that is either park, natural private land or residential with supporting boat facilities; by definition, all Islandia uses are water dependent. Objective 1.4- Protect the current natural beach and dune configuration. Policy 1.4.1- Through the development code, require any private development to a) setback far enough from the beach to retain the dunes and b) retain the related vegetative cover and wetlands or mitigate on a fair value ratio. Goal 2- To minimize hurricane damage both to property and people. Objective 2.1- Continue the current City policy of not providing infrastructure unless public safety or natural resource preservation so requires. Policy 2.1.1- The City shall not program any municipal infrastructure; private development will provide its own circulation, water and sewer systems. Objective 2.2- Residential development will be limited in amount and density, and setback from the shoreline due to the coastal high hazard area location. Policy 2.2.1- Maintain density controls so that the City will experience only limited new residential development and thereby not jeopardize hurricane evacuation capabilities or undue concentration on the private islands which are the high hazard area. (Analysis explains why directing population away from the coastal high hazard area is not feasible.) 7/ Objective 2.3- By July 1989, adopt development code provisions that assure adequate boat evacuation capability by developers and occupants. Policy 2.3.1- The development code shall require, as a condition of development permit approval, an evacuation plan showing adequate boat or aircraft capability. Objective 2.4- By 1993, prepare an emergency redevelopment plan. Policy 2.4.1- By 1993, the first phase of residential development should be underway; that will permit preparation of a realistic post-disaster redevelopment plan. Currently there is little to "redevelop." Objective 2.5- Preserve both resident and general public access to the beach. Policy 2.5.1- Over 98 percent of Islandia's area is public land with shoreline access. However, the remaining two percent should be developed so as to maximize resident beach access through planned unit development requirements. 8/ Objective 2.6- The City's objective is not to provide any public infrastructure; private developers shall provide infrastructure in conformance with level of service standards, concurrent with development. Policy 2.6.1- Developers shall provide infrastructure, with a design sensitive to hurricane vulnerability, concurrent with the impact of development within a development code concurrency management system and in keeping with the following levels of service: -Sewage Disposal: package treatment plants providing treatment capacity of 300 gallons per residential unit per day. 9/ -Water: wells providing 300 gallons per residential unit per day. -Drainage: on-site retention and drainage systems that can accommodate a one-day storm that occurs once in ten years (statistically). -Solid Waste: off-island disposal by individual homeowners or other property owners. Conservation Element The following goals, objectives and policies are found in the conservation element of the City's adopted plan: Goal 1- To preserve and enhance the significant natural features of Islandia. Objective 1.1- Continue policies that help achieve compliance with State Department of Environmental Affairs [sic] air quality regulations; see policy for measurability. Policy 1.1.1- Continue to prohibit automobiles in the City. Objective 1.2- By July 1989, require drainage practices that avoid direct development runoff into the ocean or bay. Policy 1.2.1- By July 1989, enact development code provisions that require on-site runoff detention. Objective 1.3- By July 1989, achieve protection of existing vegetation and wildlife communities. Policy 1.3.1- By July 1989, enact development code provisions that require retention of a percentage 10/ of prime vegetative cover and wildlife habitat; particularly mangroves. Policy 1.3.2- These development regulations shall also address preservation/mitigation of the scattered island wetlands and related soils. Policy 1.3.3- Work with Federal park officials to assure that any National Park improvements are sensitive to the mangrove and other environmentally sensitive vegetative/wildlife/ marine habitats. Objective 1.4- By July 1989, have basis to avoid development activities that adversely impact the marine habitat. Policy 1.4.1- By July 1989, enact development code provisions that control dredge and fill activities, and boat anchorages in order to protect the marine and estuarine character, including the fish feeding areas on the Biscayne Bay side of the islands; special care must be taken to avoid any disruption of the tidal channels between the islands. Objective 1.5- When development occurs, achieve carefully located and designed well and sewage disposal systems. Policy 1.5.1- By July 1989, enact development code provisions that require City technical review of all well and sewage disposal systems to assure well water protections, groundwater conservation and sewage effluent control. Policy 1.5.2- When the first phase residential development permits are issued, develop an emergency water conservation program. This element of the City's adopted plan does not contain a land use and inventory map showing wildlife habitat and vegetative communities. Recreation and Open Space Element The recreation and open space element of the City's adopted plan prescribes the following goals, objectives and policies: Goal 1- To provide recreation facilities and open space which are responsive to the leisure-time needs of residents. Objective 1.1- By July 1989, achieve controls that achieve common access to the bay and the ocean. Policy 1.1.1- The City shall enact development code provisions that protect common access to the shoreline as development occurs. Objective 1.2- By July 1989, assure private recreational resources in the limited development projects to complement the National Park. Objective 1.2.1- The City shall enact development code provisions that require private recreational facilities for developments over a certain size, to complement the public National Park. Policy 1.3.1- The City shall urge Congress to retain the National Park thereby providing a Level of Service of at least 57 acres of public open space per permanent resident prior to the year 2000. 11/ Objective 1.4- Ensure the preservation of public and private open space. Policy 1.4.1- By July 1989, enact development code regulations to assure preservation of adequate private open space in conjunction with private development. Policy 1.4.2.- Work with Congress and National Park Service to assure preservation of this public open space resource. Policy 1.4.3- The City shall retain City Key in its ownership for potential use as a municipal park. Intergovernmental Element The following goals, objectives and policies in the City's adopted plan address the matter of intergovernmental coordination: Goal 1 - To maintain or establish processes to assure coordination with other governmental entities where necessary to implement this plan. Objective 1.1- By 1994, at least three of the seven issues listed in the Analysis shall be the subject of formal agreement, assuming development review has been initiated. Policy 1.1.1- The Mayor shall oversee the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the Analysis section of this element. Policy 1.1.2- In particular, the Mayor shall work with County Office of Emergency Management relative to hurricane warning and evacuation mechanisms. Policy 1.1.3- The City shall continue to work with the County and Regional planning agencies in an attempt to reach consensus on a mutually agreeable land use designation for the private islands. Policy 1.1.4- If necessary, the City shall use the South Florida Regional Planning Council to assist in the mediation of any major intergovernmental conflicts; the County land use plan is a potential example. Policy 1.1.5- After development is initiated, the Mayor shall annually issue a report outlining the services the City is providing and providing information on intergovernmental coordination. Policy 1.1.6- The City shall review all development applications in the context of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Management Plan and maintain liaison with the staff to the Committee responsible for this plan. Objective 1.2- The Mayor shall meet at least annually with the National Park Superintendent to coordinate the impact of the City's development upon adjacent areas. Policy 1.2.1- City officials shall maintain liaison with the National Park Service on any land use or development impacts along their common boundaries. Objective 1.3- By 1999, assure level of service standards coordination with the County relative to solid waste. Policy 1.3.1- As first phase development is completed, City officials shall work with County officials on the long range implications of solid waste disposal to determine adequacy and approach. The "seven issues listed in the [intergovernmental] Analysis" section of the plan document (reference to which is made in Objective 1.1) concern the following subjects: land uses and densities; historic resources; private holdings within the National Park; permitting for construction and related infrastructure; solid waste; Biscayne Bay water quality; and emergency evacuation. The "land uses and densities" issue raised in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document relates to the alleged inconsistency between the City's plan and Dade County's plan regarding the land use designation of the privately held land in the City. It is asserted in this section of the document that the "Metro-Dade Comprehensive Plan shows the privately owned land in Islandia as 'Parks and Recreation' rather than residential." The following recommendation to resolve this alleged conflict is then offered: To date, the coordination on this issue has been sporadic. 12/ If neither the County nor National Park Service are willing to acquire these islands at a fair price, then the County plan should be amended to show them as residential. The Regional Planning Council can serve as a mediator. Dade County's adopted plan provides the following explanation of the significance of a "Parks and Recreation" land use designation in terms of the development potential of the land so designated: Both governmentally and privately owned lands are included in areas designated for Parks and Recreation use. Most of the designated Privately owned land either possess outstanding environmental qualities and unique potential for public recreation, or is a golf course included within a large scale development. The long term use of such golf courses is typically limited by deed restriction. If the owners of privately owned land designated as Parks and Recreation choose to develop before the land can be acquired for public use, the land may be developed for a use, or at a density comparable to, and compatible with surrounding development providing that such development is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies of the CDMP (the County's plan). This allowance does not apply to land designated Parks and Recreation that was set aside for park or open space use as a part of, or as a basis for approving the density of, a residential development. Certain commercial activities that are supportive of the recreational uses and complementary to the resources of the park, such as marine supply stores, fuel docks or tennis and golf clubhouses may be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category. Other commercial recreational or entertainment, or cultural uses may also be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category where complementary to the site and its resources. Some of the land shown for Parks is also environmentally sensitive. These areas include tropical hardwood hammocks, high- quality Dade County pineland, and viable mangrove forests. Some sites proposed for public acquisition under Florida's Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) program are identified in this category on the LUP (Land Use Plan) map although they may be as small as ten acres in size. Many of these areas are designated on the LUP map as "Environmentally Protected Parks" however, some environmentally sensitive areas may be designated simply as Parks and Recreation due to graphic restraints. All portions of parkland designated Environmentally Protected Parks or other parkland which is characterized by valuable environmental resources is intended to be managed in a manner consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies for development of the applicable environmental resources or protection area. Because it is an environmentally sensitive area, the City of Islandia, including the five Ragged Keys, has been designated "Environmentally Protected" parkland on the County's future land use map. Under the County's plan, the maximum density permitted on land so designated is one unit per five acres. With respect to the issue of historic resources, it is stated in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the document containing the City's plan that the preservation of such resources within Biscayne National Park is the responsibility of the "National Park Service working with the State Bureau of Historic Preservation (within the Department of State) and the County Historic Preservation Division." Regarding the matter of private holdings within Biscayne National Park, the assertion is made in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document that "[a]lthough existing formal agreements exist relative to individual life estates and long-term leases by private owners within the Park, there is a need for a formal agreement relative to joint development review and agreements between the National Park Service and the City." As to permitting requirements, the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document acknowledges "the array of permits required [from federal, state and county agencies] for private development and related infrastructure" in the City. In view of the regulatory authority of these agencies, the recommendation is made that the "City development code should establish a systematic review process flow chart meshing with the concurrency management system." Concerning the issue of solid waste, it is suggested in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document that "once first phase development is completed, the off-island disposal of solid waste by residents should be monitored for effectiveness" and if "this system is not working, a City-County collection arrangement would have to be developed." With respect to the issue of the water quality of Biscayne Bay, it is noted in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document that the County's "Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan (Biscayne Bay Management Plan) can serve as a guide to intergovernmental estuary planning and protection as development occurs" and that therefore the "City should consult with the [County's Biscayne Bay Management Committee] staff when development proposals reach preliminary status." 13/ The Biscayne Bay Management Plan is codified in Chapter 33-D of the Metro-Dade County Code. It identifies guidelines and objectives designed to optimize the quality and quantity of marine life in the bay, to protect the bay's endangered and rare plants and animals, and to avoid irreversible and irretrievable loss of the bay's resources. The following are among the guidelines set forth in the plan: Coastal construction should be compatible with the Bay's natural features. . . * * * 8. Siting of new marinas and docking facilities should avoid use of shoreline areas containing viable submerged communities and near-shore areas of inadequate navigational depths. Such facilities should not negatively impact existing water quality. * * * The total impact from the many individual development or user activities along the Bay shoreline should not be allowed to negatively affect the Bay's biological, chemical or aesthetic qualities. Facilities in and over Bay waters and its tributaries should only be constructed if their development and use are water- dependent. Concerning the issue of emergency evacuation, the observation is made in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the document that the "City's hurricane vulnerability makes an effective early warning imperative." It is therefore recommended that "[w]hen development occurs, the City should formalize an arrangement with the County 14/ including formal contacts, evacuation route/shelter designations and boat monitoring mechanism." 15/ Capital Improvements Element The capital improvements element of the City's adopted plan establishes the following goals, objectives and policies: Goal 1- To undertake municipal capital improvements when necessary to complement private new development facilities, within sound fiscal practices. Objective 1.1- The Mayor shall annually monitor public facility needs as a basis for recommendations to the City Council. Policy 1.1.1.- Engineering studies shall form the basis for annual preparation of a five- year capital improvement program, including one year capital budget if and when such municipal projects are deemed necessary. This element shall be reviewed annually. Policy 1.1.2- Overall priority for fiscal planning shall be those projects that enhance residential development and the environment, as per Land Use Plan. Policy 1.1.3- In setting priorities, the following kinds of criteria will be used: -Public Safety implications: a project to address a threat to public safety will receive first priority. -Level of service or capacity problems: next in priority would be projects needed to maintain the stated Level of Service. -Ability to finance: A third criteria is the budgetary impact; will it exceed budget projections? -Quality of life projects: lowest priority would be those projects not in categories 1 or 2 but that would enhance the quality of life. -Priority will be given to projects on islands experiencing development. Policy 1.1.4- Pursue a prudent policy in terms of borrowing for major capital improvements; in no case borrow more than two percent of the total assessed value in any one bond issue or loan. Objective 1.2- By July 1989, the City shall adopt a development code containing a concurrency management system to integrate the land use plan, capital improvement element and levels of service. Policy 1.2.1- City officials shall use both the Future Land Use Plan and financial analyses of the kind contained herein as a basis for reviewing development applications, in order to maintain an adequate level of service; all except parks are expected to be private: -Sewage disposal: septic tanks or package treatment plants providing treatment capacity of 300 gallons per residential unit per day 16/ -Water: wells providing 300 gallons per residential unit per day -Drainage: on-site retention and drainage systems that can accommodate a one-day storm that occurs once in ten years (statistically) -Solid Waste: off-island disposal by individual homeowners or other property owners -Public open space: 57 acres per permanent resident Objective 1.3- Major future development projects shall pay their fair share of the capital improvement needs they generate. Policy 1.3.1- The proposed development code and related review process shall require on-site detention and drainage structures acceptable to regional environmental agencies plus private water and sewer systems. Policy 1.3.2- The development code preparation shall include the consideration of impact fees. Policy 1.3.3- Pedestrian paths shall be installed as a part of all new development. Objective 1.4- Achieve mechanisms whereby public and private facility requirements generated by new development are adequately funded in a timely manner. Policy 1.4.1- The development code shall specify that no development permit shall be issued unless assurance is given that the private (or possibly public) facilities necessitated by the project (in order to meet level of service standards) will be in place concurrent with the impacts of the development. The capital improvements element of the City's adopted plan also contains an Implementation section which provides as follows: Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements Not applicable; no deficiencies and no projects planned for 1990-1994 period. Programs For purposes of monitoring and evaluation, the principal programs needed to implement this Element are as follows: Initiate an annual capital programming and budgeting process as soon as warranted by prospective projects; use project selection criteria. Use engineering or design studies to pinpoint the cost and timing of any potential needs or deficiencies as they are determined. Amendments to the development code to a) assure conformance to the "concurrency" requirements relative to development orders, levels of service and public facility timing, and b) explore selected impact fees e.g. for park, boat dock and beach renourishment. Data and Analysis If a comprehensive plan is to be an effective tool in managing a community's future growth and development, it must be based, not upon unsubstantiated assumptions or wishful thinking, but rather upon appropriate data and reasoned analysis of that data. Typically, the first step in developing a comprehensive plan is to ascertain the projected population of the community. Once such a projection is made, the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population must then be determined. The analysis does not end there, however. Before any decision is made regarding how, and to what extent, the community's land will be used in the future to meet the needs of the projected population, the character of the land, including its soils, topography, and natural and historic resources, must be examined so that its suitability for development can be determined. Only after such a suitability determination is made and the carrying capacity of the land is evaluated is it appropriate to assign land use designations and densities. The City Council did not follow this conventional approach in developing its comprehensive plan. Instead, it used a methodology that is fundamentally flawed and not professionally accepted. Without collecting and analyzing available information concerning the amount of land needed to accommodate the City's future population and the character and suitability of the City's land to meet the needs of the population, it arbitrarily determined at the outset of the planning process that the privately held land in the City would be designated for "residential" use and that a maximum density of six units per acre would be allowed. It appears that the City Council simply assumed, based on nothing more than the fact that the land was in private ownership, that it was suitable for residential development at six units per acre. Had the City Council examined the information that was readily available to it concerning the character of the privately held land in the City, it undoubtedly would have realized that such land is actually unsuitable for such intense residential development. The City Council, through its consultant, the Swarthout firm, subsequently, but prior to the January 13, 1989, adoption of the City's plan, projected the population of the City and the amount of land needed to accommodate the anticipated population. It estimated that the City's population would be about 300 in 1994 and approximately 720 in the year 2000 and that 78 acres of land would be needed to accommodate the projected population in the latter year. These projections, however, were not made pursuant to a professionally accepted methodology inasmuch as they were based, at least in part, upon the preconceived notion that the City's plan should permit residential development of the privately owned land in the City at a density of six units per acre. In making these projections, the City Council assumed that all of the 842 acres of privately held land in the City would be subject to residential development. The future land use map adopted by the City Council, however, designates only a small portion of that land, the approximately 12 acres comprising the five Ragged Keys, for residential use. This is considerably less land than that the City Council projected would be needed to accommodate the City's population in the year 2000. The final land use decisions reflected on the future land use map were not the product of a thoughtful and reasoned analysis of issues that should have been considered before such decisions were made. The City Council failed to adequately consider and analyze, among other things, the following significant matters before making these decisions and adopting the City's comprehensive plan: the character of the five Ragged Keys and their suitability for residential development at a density of six units per acre, particularly in light of their location in a flood prone area; the adverse impact that such development, including related housing and infrastructure construction activities, would have on the area's natural resources and fragile environment; 17/ whether the potable water 18/ and sanitary sewer needs generated by such development can be met given logistical and environmental constraints; 19/ the financial feasibility of, and problems associated with, siting infrastructure on the land to be developed; 20/ whether the future residents of the City can be safely evacuated from the City in the face of a hurricane or tropical storm given the City's location in a coastal high-hazard area accessible from the mainland only by water and air; 21/ and the need for boat docking and other water-dependent facilities. The City's adopted plan therefore is not supported by appropriate data and analysis. The Regional Plan for South Florida The South Florida Regional Planning Council has adopted a Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan) to guide future development in Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties. The Regional Plan addresses issues of regional significance. Goal 51.1 of the Regional Plan provides as follows: By 1995 the amount of solid waste placed in landfills will be reduced by 30 percent over the 1986 volume. A local government's comprehensive plan must establish a level of service for solid waste disposal if it is to be consistent with, and further, this goal of the Regional Plan. The City's comprehensive plan does not do so. Goal 57.1 of the Regional Plan states as follows: New development will not be permitted in areas where public facilities do not already exist, are not programmed, or cannot be economically provided. The City's comprehensive plan contemplates new development in areas where there are no existing nor planned public facilities. Although the plan suggests that infrastructure will be provided by private developers, there is no indication that any consideration was given to the costliness of such a venture. Goal 58.1 of the Regional Plan imposes the following requirement: Beginning in 1987, all land use plans and development regulations shall consider the compatibility of adjacent land uses, and the impacts of development on the surrounding environment. The State Comprehensive Plan The State of Florida also has a comprehensive plan. The State Comprehensive Plan confronts issues of statewide importance. Among other things, it requires "local governments, in cooperation with regional and state agencies, to prepare advance plans for the safe evacuation of coastal residents [and] to adopt plans and policies to protect public and private property and human lives from the effects of natural disasters." It also reflects that it is the policy of the State to "[p]rotect coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development" and to "[e]ncourage land and water uses which are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources." Dade County Dade County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It has regulatory authority over the tidal waters, submerged bay bottom and coastal wetlands in the City of Islandia. It also has the authority under its Home Rule Charter to prescribe appropriate land uses and planning principles for the entire area within its territorial boundaries. Dade County municipalities, however, are free to deviate from the County's plan in fashioning a comprehensive plan of their own. If the residential development permitted by the City's adopted plan occurs, it will have a substantial adverse impact on areas within Dade County's jurisdiction, including Biscayne Bay, which have been designated as areas warranting protection and special treatment. Tropical Audobon Society The Tropical Audobon Society is a not-for-profit Florida corporation which engages in educational, scientific, investigative, literary and historical pursuits relating to wild birds and other animals and the plant, soil, water and other conditions essential to their development and preservation. On occasion, Tropical and its members engage in activity in the City of Islandia. They participate from time to time in census surveys of the City's bird population. In addition, they conduct tours through the City for people who want to observe the area's wildlife. The overwhelming majority of Tropical members are South Floridians. None of its members, however, reside or own land in the City of Islandia. Neither Tropical, nor anyone acting on its behalf, submitted oral or written objections during the City Council proceedings that culminated in the adoption of the City's comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED the Administration Commission issue a final order which: (1) dismisses the Tropical Audobon Society's petition to intervene; (2) finds the City of Islandia's adopted comprehensive plan not "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Conclusions of Law; (3) directs the City to remedy these specific deficiencies to bring the plan "in compliance;" and (4) imposes appropriate sanctions authorized by Section 163.3184(11), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of March, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1990.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 05-20 is "in compliance," as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005),1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and Statement of Intent filed by the Department of Community Affairs ("the Department").
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Lee County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Leeward is a Florida limited liability company that owns a portion of the real property that is the subject of the amendment at issue. The Amendment The amendment would change the future land use designation for 41.28 acres in the northeast quadrant of the Interstate 75 (I-75)/State Road 80 (SR 80) interchange from General Commercial Interchange to Urban Community, as shown on the FLUM. The General Commercial Interchange land use is described in the County Plan as “intended primarily for general community commercial land uses: retail, planned commercial districts, shopping, office, financial, and business.” It does not allow residential development. The Urban Community land use provides for a mix of residential, commercial, public, quasi-public, and limited light industrial uses. The standard density range for residential uses in the Urban Community category is one to six dwelling units per acre (du/a). The 41.28 acres affected by the amendment ("the amendment site") consist of 19.28 acres of lands along the Orange River owned by Leeward, a platted subdivision known as Dos Rios of approximately 11 acres, and the remaining acreage consists of right-of-way for SR 80 and I-75. Currently operating on Leeward's property is a vessel repair facility, a marina with wet and dry slips, and an ecotourism company. Leeward also has its office on the site. The Dos Rios subdivision includes 26 single-family lots. Apparently, only a few of the lots (the number was not established in the record) have been developed. Because residential land uses are not allowed in the General Commercial Interchange category, the Dos Rios lots were non-conforming uses. Maximum Allowed Density The County Plan provides residential density bonuses to promote various County objectives, such as the provision of affordable housing. With density bonuses, lands designated Urban Community can boost their density to a maximum of ten du/a. There was testimony presented by Leeward that the County has not often approved applications for density bonuses. Even if the practice of the County in approving density bonuses were relevant, the practice can change. It is reasonable for the Department to consider the maximum intensity or density associated with a future land use designation when determining whether a FLUM amendment is in compliance. Therefore, in this case, it is reasonable to consider the Urban Community land use designation as allowing up to ten du/a. The Department asserts that the amendment would allow the 41.2 acres affected by the amendment to have a total of 412 dwelling units (41.2 acres x 10 du/a). Leeward disputed that figure because the 41.2 acres includes road right-of-way and the Dos Rios subdivision. A hearing officer appointed to review a Lee County development order recently determined that right-of-way external to a development should not be included in calculating allowable units, and the County accepted the hearing officer's recommendation based on that determination. The definition of "density" in the County Plan supports the determination.2 Therefore, for the purposes of this case, the right-of-way in the northeast quadrant should not be included in calculating the maximum residential density that would result from the amendment. On the other hand, Leeward's argument that the Dos Rios subdivision acreage should not be included in the ten du/a calculation is rejected. For the purposes of an "in compliance" determination, it is reasonable for the Department to apply the maximum potential densities to all developable and re- developable acreage. Using 29 acres as the approximate acreage affected by the amendment when road right-of-way is subtracted, the amendment would create the potential for 290 residences in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. Adoption of the Amendment The amendment was initiated as part of the County's reexamination of the existing land use designations in the four quadrants of the I-75/SR 80 interchange. Following the County planning staff's completion of a study of the entire interchange, it recommended several changes to the County Plan, but no change was recommended for the northeast quadrant. Apparently, the amendment at issue was urged by Leeward, and, at a public hearing held on June 1, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt the amendment. Pursuant to Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment was forwarded to the Department for an "in compliance" review. Following its review, the Department issued its ORC Report on August 19, 2005. In the ORC Report, the Department objected to the proposed amendment based upon what it considered to be inappropriate residential densities in the coastal high hazard area (CHHA) and floodplain. The Department recommended that the County not adopt the proposed amendment. On October 12, 2005, another public hearing was held before the Board of County Commissioners to consider adoption of the amendment. At the public hearing, the County planning staff recommended that the land use designation in the northeast quadrant not be changed to Urban Community "due to the potential increase in density in the Coastal High Hazard Area." Nevertheless, the Board of County Commissioners approved the amendment. Representatives of Leeward appeared and submitted comments in support of the amendment at the public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. On December 16, 2005, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance, identifying three reasons for its determination: (1) inconsistency with state law regarding development in the CHHA and flood prone areas, (2) internal inconsistency with provisions of the County Plan requiring the consideration of residential density reductions in undeveloped areas within the CHHA, and (3) inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan regarding subsidizing development in the CHHA and regulating areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding. On January 5, 2006, the Department filed its petition for formal hearing with DOAH. Coastal High Hazard Area The Florida Legislature recognized the particular vulnerability of coastal resources and development to natural disasters and required coastal counties to address the subject in their comprehensive plans. [I]t is the intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans restrict development activities where such activities would damage or destroy coastal resources, and that such plans protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster. § 163.3178(1), Fla. Stat. The statute also requires evacuation planning. Until 2006, the CHHA was defined as the "category 1 evacuation zone." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In 2006, the CHHA was redefined as "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model."3 Ch. 2006-68, § 2, Laws of Fla. The County Plan defines the CHHA as "the category 1 evacuation zone as delineated by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council." Map 5 of the County Plan, entitled "Lee County Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)," shows the entire amendment site as being within the CHHA. Nothing on Map 5, however, indicates it was produced by the Regional Planning Council. Daniel Trescott, who is employed by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and is responsible for, among other things, storm surge mapping, stated that the Category 1 evacuation zone is the storm surge level for the worst case scenario landfall for a Category 1 storm. He stated that the Category 1 storm surge for Lee County was determined by the SLOSH model to be 5.3 feet. Mr. Trescott stated that the 5.3 foot contour (shown on Plate 7 of the Regional Planning Council's "Hurricane Storm Tide Atlas - Lee County") more accurately delineates the CHHA than Map 5 of the County Plan. Although Mr. Trescott's testimony suggests a conflict between the County Plan's definition of the CHHA and Map 5's depiction of the CHHA, the two can be reconciled by a finding that Map 5 is a gross depiction of the CHHA for general public information purposes, but the precise location of the CHHA boundary is the one delineated by the Regional Planning Council, and the latter is controlling. Using the 5.3 contour on the amendment site, Leeward's witness, Michael Raider, estimated that there are approximately 16 acres of the amendment site within the CHHA. Applying the maximum allowable residential density under the Urban Community land use designation (with bonuses) of ten du/a means the amendment would result in a potential for 160 dwellings in the CHHA. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)7., respectively, require each local government’s coastal management element to contain one or more specific objectives that "[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas” and limit development in these areas. The parties' evidence and argument regarding whether the amendment was "in compliance" focused on these rules and the following goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan related to the CHHA: GOAL 105: PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. To protect human life and developed property from natural disasters. OBJECTIVE 105.1: DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. Development seaward of the 1991 Coastal Construction Control Line will require applicable State of Florida approval; new development on barrier islands will be limited to densities that meet required evacuation standards; new development requiring seawalls for protection from coastal erosion will not be permitted; and allowable densities for undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduction. POLICY 105.1.4: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In the opinion of Bernard Piawah, a planner employed by the Department, the amendment is inconsistent with the goal, objective and policy set forth above because these provisions only contemplate possible reductions of residential densities in the CHHA and there is no provision of the County Plan that addresses or establishes criteria for increasing residential densities in the CHHA. Population Concentrations As stated above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. directs local governments to include provisions in their comprehensive plans to direct population concentrations away from the CHHA. The term "population concentrations" is not defined in any statute or rule. The term apparently has no generally accepted meaning in the planning profession. The word "population" has the ordinary meaning of "all of the people inhabiting a specific area." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1981). The word "concentration" has the ordinary meaning of "the act or process of concentrating." Id. The word "concentrate" means "to direct or draw toward a common center." Id. In the context of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012, the term "population concentrations" suggests a meaning of population densities (dwelling units per acre) of a certain level, but the level is not stated. Leeward argues that, because there is no state guidance on the meaning of the term "population concentrations," surrounding land uses should be examined to determine whether a proposed density would be "proportionate to its surroundings." According to Leeward, in order to be a population concentration, the density under review would have to be greater than the surrounding density. This comparative approach is rejected because the overarching Legislative objective is protection of life, which plainly calls for a straightforward consideration of the number of lives placed in harm's way. The Department, in its Proposed Recommended Order, states: By assigning either zero residential density to land by virtue of an Open Space land use designation, or a maximum density of one unit per acre by assigning a low density land use designation, the County Plan fulfills the mandates of State law that development be limited in and residential concentrations be directed away from the CHHA. Thus, not surprisingly, the Department does not consider one du/a to be a population concentration. A density of ten du/a is an urban density, as indicated by the fact that it is the maximum density allowed in the Urban Community land use designation and the highest density within the "standard density range" for the County's Central Urban land use designation. It is a generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that urban areas are areas where populations are concentrated. It is a another generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that ten dwelling units on one acre of land amounts to a lot of people living in a small space. Leeward, itself, described the residential density allowed under the Urban Community designation as "relatively intense." Leeward's Proposed Recommended Order, at 7. Whether measured by density alone (ten du/a) or by Leeward's estimate of 160 residences on 16 acres, the amendment places a population concentration in the CHHA. Offsets in the CHHA Leeward presented evidence that the County has been reducing residential densities, sometimes referred to as "down- planning," in other areas of the CHHA in Lee County. The reduction in dwelling units in the CHHA over the past several years may be as high as 10,000 units. The Department did not present evidence to dispute that there has been an overall reduction in dwelling units in the CHHAs of Lee County. Leeward argues that these reductions "offset" the increase in dwelling units in the CHHA that would result from the amendment and this "overall" reduction in densities in the CHHA must be considered in determining whether the amendment is "in compliance" with state law and with provisions of the County Plan related to directing population concentrations away from the CHHA. At the hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argued that the consideration of offsets in the CHHA was improper and unworkable, but that argument conflicts with the Department's actual practice and official position as described in the January 2006 "Department of Community Affairs Report for the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee." In that report, the Department acknowledged there is no statutory or rule guidance regarding what the maximum density should be in the CHHA. The Report notes that some local governments have established maximum densities for the CHHA (e.g., Pinellas County, 5 du/a; Franklin County 1 du/a). The Department states in the report that it reviews amendments to increase density in the CHHA on a "case by case" basis, and explains further: When a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the CHHA proposes a density increase, DCA's review considers the amount of the density increase, the impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" (generally accomplished through public acquisition). One of the visual aides used in conjunction with the 2006 report to Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee, entitled "Policy Issue #2 - Densities in High Hazard Areas," also describes the Department's practice: Without locally adopted density limits, DCA conducts a case by case review of amendments without any defined numeric limit. DCA considers amount of density increase, impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" in other areas of the CHHA. These statements use the phrase "there will be a corresponding offset," which suggests that for an offset to be considered, it would have to be proposed concurrently with an increase in residential density on other lands within the CHHA. However, according to the director of the Department's Division of Community Planning, Valerie Hubbard, offsets in the CHHA do not have to be concurrent; they can include previous reductions. Furthermore, although the Department pointed to the absence of any criteria in the County Plan to guide an offset analysis, Ms. Hubbard said it was unnecessary for a comprehensive plan to include express provisions for the use of offsets. To the extent that this evidence of the Department's interpretation of relevant law and general practice conflicts with other testimony presented by the Department in this case, the statements contained in the report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee and the testimony of Ms. Hubbard are more persuasive evidence of the Department's policy and practice in determining compliance with the requirement that comprehensive plans direct population densities away from the CHHA and limit development in the CHHA. As long as the Department's practice when conducting an "in compliance" review of amendments that increase residential density in the CHHA is to take into account offsets, the Department has the duty to be consistent and to take into account the County's offsets in the review of this amendment. The County planning director testified that he believed the applicable goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan are met as long as there has been a reduction in residential densities in the CHHAs of the County as a whole. The Department points out that the planning director's opinion was not included in the County planning staff's reports prepared in conjunction with the amendment. However, it necessarily follows from the Board of County Commissioners' adoption of the amendment that it does not interpret Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 as prohibiting an increase in residential density in the CHHA. Although these provisions make no mention of offsets, the Department has not required offset provisions in a comprehensive plan before the Department will consider offsets in its determination whether a plan amendment that increases density in the CHHA is in compliance. The wording used in Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 requiring "consideration" of density reductions in the CHHA can be harmonized with the County planning director's testimony and with the County's adoption of the amendment by construing these plan provisions consistently with the Department's own practice of allowing increases in the CHHA when the increases are offset by overall reductions in dwelling units in the CHHA. Seeking to harmonize the amendment with the provisions of the County Plan is the proper approach because, as discussed later in the Conclusions of Law, whether an amendment is consistent with other provisions of the plan is subject to the "fairly debatable" standard which is a highly deferential standard that looks for "any reason it is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense or point to a logical deduction." Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997). Shelter Space and Clearance Time Prior to the hearing in this case, Leeward moved to strike certain statute and rule citations in the Department's petition related to shelter space and clearance time4 because they were not included in the Department's ORC Report. The motion was denied because, although Section 163.3184(8)(b), Florida Statutes, limits the Department's petition to issues raised in the "written comments" in the ORC Report, the statute does not indicate that the Department is barred from citing in its petition, for the first time, a rule or statute that is directly related to the written comments. The CHHA is defined in the County Plan as the category one "evacuation zone." It is the area most in need of evacuation in the event of a severe coastal storm. Shelter space and clearance time are integral to evacuation planning and directly related to the Department's comment in the ORC Report that the amendment would, "expose a substantial population to the dangers of a hurricane." Therefore, the Department was not barred from presenting evidence on shelter space and clearance time in support of this comment. The Department's practice when reviewing an amendment that increases residential density in the CHHA, described in its 2006 report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Area Study Committee, is to consider not only dwelling unit offsets in the CHHA, but also the effect on shelter space and clearance time. That report did not elaborate on how shelter space and clearance time are considered by the Department, but evidence that a comprehensive plan amendment would have a significant adverse effect on shelter space or clearance time could presumably negate what would otherwise appear to the Department to be an acceptable offset of residential density in the CHHA. On this record, however, the Department did not show that a significant adverse impact on shelter space or clearance time would be caused by this particular amendment.5 Special Planning Areas Leeward argues that, even if the amendment were determined to be inconsistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4, that inconsistency should be balanced against other provisions in the County Plan that are furthered by the amendment, principally the provisions related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area and the Water- Dependent Use Overlay Zone. There is no authority for such a balancing approach that can overcome an inconsistency with an objective or policy of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, whether the amendment furthers the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area, Water-Dependent Use Overlay Zone, or other subjects is irrelevant to whether the amendment is consistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4. On the other hand, the Department's contention that the amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area is contrary to the more credible evidence. 100-Year Floodplain The amendment site is entirely within the 100-year floodplain. In its Statement of Intent, the Department determined that the amendment was not in compliance, in part, because the amendment site's location in the 100-year floodplain made it unsuitable for residential development. In addition, the Department determined that the amendment caused an internal inconsistency with the following policies of the County Plan related to development in the floodplain: POLICY 61.3.2: Floodplains must be managed to minimize the potential loss of life and damage to property by flooding. POLICY 61.3.6: Developments must have and maintain an adequate surface water management system, provision for acceptable programs for operation and maintenance, and post-development runoff conditions which reflect the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, direction, quality, hydroperiod, and drainage basin. Detailed regulations will continue to be integrated with other county development regulations. According to Mike McDaniel, a growth management administrator with the Department, "we try to discourage increasing densities in floodplains and encourage that it be located in more suitable areas." The policies set forth above are intended to aid in the achievement of Goal 61 of the Community Facilities and Service Element "to protect water resources through the application of innovative and sound methods of surface water management and by ensuring that the public and private construction, operation, and maintenance of surface water management systems are consistent with the need to protect receiving waters.” Plainly, Goal 61 is directed to regulating construction and surface water management systems. There is no mention in this goal or in the policies that implement the goal of prohibiting all development or certain kinds of development in the 100-year floodplain. The Department's argument in this case regarding development in the 100-year floodplain is rejected because it ignores relevant facts and law. First, substantial portions of Lee County and the State are within the 100-year floodplain. Second, there is no state statute or rule that prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain. Third, the Department of Environmental Protection, water management districts, and local governments regulate development in the floodplain by application of construction standards, water management criteria, and similar regulatory controls to protect floodplain functions as well as human life and property. Fourth, there has been and continues to be development in the 100-year floodplain in Lee County and throughout the State, clearly indicating that such development is able to comply with all federal, state, and local requirements imposed by the permitting agencies for the specific purpose of protecting the floodplain and the public. Fifth, the Department "discourages" development in the floodplain but has not established by rule a standard, based on density or other measure, which reasonably identifies for local governments or the general public what development in the floodplain is acceptable to the Department and what development is unacceptable. Finally, the Department's practice in allowing offsets in the CHHA, as discussed previously, necessarily allows for development in the 100-year floodplain in that particular context.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission determining that the amendment adopted by Lee County in Ordinance No. 05-10 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2006.
The Issue Whether the Petition to Establish the Dovera Community Development District meets the criteria established in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact A The property which is the subject of the Petition in this case consists of approximately 410 contiguous acres. All of the subject property is located in unincorporated Seminole County. Petitioner presented the testimony of John R. Maloy. Maloy is Corporate Vice President of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. and Executive Vice President of The Viera Company, positions he has held for approximately eight years. The Viera Company, the Petitioner, is a wholly owned subsidiary of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. Maloy is responsible for planning and disposition of real estate assets. He is also responsible for those projects which have reached the development phase. It was Maloy's responsibility in this matter to select and work with the team of professionals who prepared the Petition. He also reviewed the contents of the Petition and approved its filing. Maloy identified Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B, which is a copy of the Petition and its attached exhibits as filed with the Commission. Maloy stated that, for purposes of clarification, a sentence should be added to page 3 of the Petition indicating that the current version of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan is dated September, 1991. Maloy then testified that, to the best of his knowledge, the statements in the Petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct. Other witnesses testifying on behalf of Petitioner similarly confirmed the accuracy of the Petition and its attached exhibits, as supplemented at hearing. The Viera Company, a Florida corporation, is owner of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. As required by statute, the owner has given its written consent to the establishment of the proposed District. Maloy was designated as the agent of The Viera Company to act on its behalf with regard to any matters relating to the Petition. No real property within the external boundaries of the District is to be excluded from the District. All of the land to be included in the District is the subject of a DRI Development Order which has been approved by the Commission. The five persons designated in the Petition to serve on the initial board of supervisors are: Jack Maloy 135 Highway A1A North Satellite Beach, FL 32937 Don Spotts 1113 Tuskawilla Road Winter Springs, FL 32708 David Duda 7979 Dunstable Circle Orlando, FL 32817 Tracy Duda 1601 Highland Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Donna Duda 2436 Mikler Road Oviedo, FL 32765 All of them are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States. Existing residential communities are located on the north and west sides of the proposed District. To the south and east, the proposed District is generally bordered by the Seminole County Expressway and by a large undeveloped tract to the south. The land in the area to be included in the proposed District is currently undeveloped and is used for agricultural purposes, principally cattle grazing. All of the land to be included in the District has been planned as a single, mixed-use community to be developed pursuant to a development order for the DLI Properties Development of Regional Impact approved by the Commission on October 10, 1989, and issued to Duda Lands, Inc. Duda Lands, Inc. is now The Viera Company. Creation of the District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. The proposed District is a mechanism for financing infrastructure, and any change that might be made in the future would be subject to all requirements and conditions specified by statute. For example, establishment of the District will result in no change with respect to the present requirement that the District donate utility lines to the County. The proposed development of lands to be included in the District contemplates construction of significant commercial and office/showroom space, together with some residential units and hotel rooms over a twelve-year period. Creation of theproposed District will not constitute any change in the basic character of the development. With respect to the provision of infrastructure and services, it is presently anticipated that the CDD will construct or otherwise provide for a surface water management system, roads, street lighting, landscaping, culverts, and water and sewer facilities. With Seminole County's consent, the CDD will also exercise other special powers, as authorized under Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing facilities for parks and recreation, security, and mosquito control. Capital costs of these improvements are presently intended to be borne by the District. There is no intent to have the District apply for any of the private activity bond allocation monies available. Mr. Maloy testified that Petitioner has no intent to have the District exercise its ad valorem taxing authority. Mr. Maloy's unchallenged and unrefuted testimony in this regard is accepted. From the perspective of The Viera Company, creation of the proposed District is important for the construction, operation, long-term management and maintenance of major infrastructure for the development. Mr. Maloy testified that the CDD the best alternative for delivering the needed community development facilities and services and that the creation of the CDD will also help ensure that District residents pay for the costs of the necessary infrastructure that will be constructed to serve them. In the present economic climate, a developer's access to the money necessary for the provision of needed infrastructure is very limited. One of the few avenues available is the bond market. The CDD will permit access to this source of funds to provide capital to build the necessary infrastructure. To address issues related to planning, Petitioner presented the testimony of Brian C. Canin. Canin is President of Canin Associates Urban and Environmental Planners, a planning and consulting firm. He has held that position since the firm's inception in 1980. Canin has extensive experience with Developments of Regional Impact and in planning and development of other large-scale projects, as well as in reviewing comprehensive plans. Canin was qualified at the hearing as an expert in land use planning. Canin was coordinator for the consulting team which prepared the DLI Properties DRI. He prepared and submitted the application for development approval encompassing all of the property located within the external boundaries of the proposed district. He also participated in all of the hearings. With respect to the Dovera CDD petition, Canin worked as part of the project team, providing supporting materials for the Petition. Canin identified Exhibit 5 to the Petition as a map prepared by Canin Associates for the DRI which depicts the land use plan for the proposed District. He indicated that Canin Associates later provided the map to Gee & Jenson (Engineers, Architects and Planners) for use in compiling the Petition. Canin also identified an updated version of Exhibit 5 to the Petition. He indicated that the version contained as an attachment to the Petition was submitted with the DRI. In the course of the hearings held on the DRI and during the approval of the Master Plan, certain changes were made to the land uses. Petitioner's Exhibit E represents the land uses currently proposed and approved for the area encompassed by the proposed District. Canin noted that the updated version of the land use plan includes a revision of the typical roadway section. Petitioner had been informed by County staff that the typical roadway section initially submitted by the developer did not meet the standards for a County road. The roadway section, which meets the standards for a county-owned road, was drawn to show that the road could meet those specifications without changing the amount of buildable acreage within the proposed development. This means that the existing right-of-way can accommodate a change, if necessary, to meet County-owned road standards. There will be no change in the DRI requirements with respect to buildable acres. Encompassing approximately 410 acres, the proposed land uses for the area within the Dovera CDD comprise a Planned Unit Development consisting of 512 multi-family residential units and related commercial, institutional, recreational, and other uses. The proposed development includes over 247,000 square feet of commercial space and more than two million square feet devoted to office and office/showroom space. The plan also includes 250hotel rooms. The development is set within environmental open spaces that are integrated into stormwater facilities and roadways. A copy of the September, 1991 Seminole County Comprehensive Plan was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit F. Based on his review of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, Canin testified that the proposed district is consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, project approval required numerous reviews in the course of the DRI process, as well as various hearings conducted by the County Land Planning Agency and Board of County Commissioners. Unless the project had been consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan at all these points in time, the developer would not have been allowed to proceed. Canin also testified that he had reviewed the State Comprehensive Plan found in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and that, in his opinion, the proposed District is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. He noted that Section 187.201(18), Florida Statutes, provides for the creation of partnerships among local governments and the private sector which would identify and build needed public facilities. Canin also identified Section 187.201(20) which encourages the coordination of transportation infrastructure to provide major travel corridors and enhance system efficiency. Coordination of the Red Bug Lake Road construction and the proposed District's involvement in its financing are examples of how the proposed district fulfills this policy. Canin further testified that Section 187.201(21) permits the creation of independent special taxing districts as a means of lessening the burden on local governments and their taxpayers, and also encourages the use of such districts in providing needed infrastructure. Based on his extensive experience with Developments of Regional Impact, Canin testified that creation of the proposed District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. The District's activities are subject to the regulatory and permitting authority of the county, including the DRI approval process. From a land use perspective, the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Requiring DRI approval, the project was designed from the outset using an integrated land use plan, the purpose of which was to integrate diverse systems into one common plan. Canin testified that the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. According to Mr. Canin, the proposed District will facilitate long-term financing of necessary infrastructure while providing a perpetual entity capable of operating and maintaining those systems and facilities. In Mr. Canin's opinion, private development would not be as advantageous because a private developer could not provide the same guarantees with respect to long-term operation and maintenance. Finally, based on his familiarity with the type and scope of development as well as the available services and facilities locate din the area of proposed development, Canin testified that the District's services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. He noted that transportation services were taken into account in the DRI process and are thoroughly integrated into the local comprehensive plan. To address engineering-related matters, Petitioner offered the expert testimony of Fred A. Greene. Greene is President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Gee & Jenson Engineers-Architects-Planners, Inc., an engineering and planning firm. He has held these positions for a combination of sixteen years. Greene is a registered engineer in Florida and personally has been involved in a number of DRI-related projects. He has a wide range of experience in providing engineering services relating to the use and operation of special districts, including community development districts. He advises districts on construction matters, design and maintenance, beginning with permitting for major infrastructure. Greene was qualified at the hearing as an expert in civil engineering and in land development, specializing in special districts. Greene played an active role in preparation of the documents required to establish the Dovera CDD. He visited the site and reviewed designs prepared by others for the water management system, the roadway system, and the water and sewer facilities. He also assisted in the preparation of the cost estimates contained in the Petition. The land within the proposed District is not presently developed and is primarily used for cattle operations. The land uses adjacent to the proposed district include residential communities to the north and west. The Seminole County Expressway is east of the proposed District and the land to the south is vacant. The existing drainage basins and outfall canals, the existing major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and lift stations are identified in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B, attached Exhibit 6. The land presently is drained by a series of ditches installed for agricultural purposes, the water flowing from west to east before discharging through Bear Creek into Lake Jessup. The proposed District is currently expected to construct the water management system, water and sewer facilities, internal roadways, security, mosquito control, and parks and recreation facilities. Seminole County will provide potable water through the existing twelve-inch lines. The District will construct water mains along the internal roads and later transfer title to the County. There is no plan to have the District provide water service to the development. With respect to the provision of sewer service and facilities, Petitioner plans to have the District construct a collection system along with lift stations and force mains that will discharge to the County's Iron Bridge Treatment Plant. These facilities will also be dedicated to the County. There is no plan to have the District provide sewer service to the development. The Petitioner plans to have the District construct and/or maintain within its boundaries a system of lakes, dry retention areas, wet retention areas, wetlands, flowways, culverts and control structures to accommodate surplus stormwater. Discharge would be through control structures and flow north through a system of existing canals to Lake Jessup. The Petitioner also expects the District to be involved in the construction and maintenance of roads. The roads would be constructed to applicable Seminole County standards, and to the extent that the roads remain district roads, the District will maintain them. The Seminole County Expressway is a N/S roadway presently under construction along the eastern boundary of the District. Realigned Red Bug Lake Road is presently under construction by Seminole County pursuant to a joint infrastructure agreement with Duda Lands, Inc. The agreement requires cost participation on that part of realigned Red Bug Lake Road which runs through the District. The District is expected to assume the developer's responsibility for that portion of realigned Red Bug Lake Road which runs through the District. The proposed District expects to purchase a truck and sprayer to assist in mosquito control within its boundaries. The District will be responsible for this activity, either by contract or by using its own staff. The proposed District currently plans to construct, operate and maintain facilities for parks and recreation. These facilities may include passive parks, playgrounds, pedestrian systems, bike paths, boardwalks and nature trails. With respect to the proposed District's current plans for security, in addition to gates, fences and similar installations related to security, the District may supplement security with additional staff and, where practical, may install automatic security devices. Exhibit 7 to the Petition shows the estimated infrastructure construction schedule and costs for the proposed District based on 1991 dollars. The anticipated schedule is for work to be performed by the Dovera CDD over the next twelve years. Unlike the DRI which has phases triggered by trips, the CDD phasing is premised on financing and construction engineering. However, the anticipated timetable in Exhibit 7 to the Petition is consistent with the schedule for development of the land. Based on his experience with special districts and DRI-related projects, Greene testified that creation of the proposed District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. Mr. Greene's unrefuted testimony established that the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a functional interrelated community. A large tract lying adjacent to a major expressway, having been planned as a DRI and approved subject to issuance of a development order, is developable as a functional interrelated community. In this instance, all of the infrastructure systems, including those serving nonresidential areas of the development, are interrelated and have been purposefully designed to function as a single system. Greene's unchallenged testimony established that the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering the proposed services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. Although property- owners' associations constitute one alternative for the delivery of community development services and facilities, they are unable to finance infrastructure. In addition, regional water management districts prefer to have CDDs provide services because of their stability and record for collection of assessments. Being units of special-purpose local government, CDDs are generally perceived as being more stable than informal associations. While private development is another alternative, it cannot provide the same guarantees as CDDs with respect to operation and long-term maintenance of community development services and facilities. It is Mr. Greene's opinion that the proposed District's community development services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The project infrastructure will be designed and constructed to state or county standards for the various items of work and would therefore be consistent with the local development regulations and plans. The District will also be subject to all permit requirements and conditions of the development order. Mr. Greene testified that the area to be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government because the area is large enough to support necessary staff to maintain and operate the proposed system. The District also has specific authority and a specific mission. Based on his experience with other districts of this size and larger that have been in existence for more than twenty years, Greene concluded that the proposed Dovera CDD will prove to be a successful operation. Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, President of Fishkind & Associates, Inc., an economic and financial consulting firm, prepared and presented the economic impact statement which accompanied the Petition. In addition to providing economic forecasting services, Fishkind also provides financial advice to both public and private sector clients, including special districts. At the hearing, Fishkind was qualified as an expert in economics, financing and statistics, including infrastructure financing and the use of special taxing districts. In addition to preparing the economic impact statement (EIS), Fishkind has assisted The Viera Company in assessing the financial feasibility of the proposed District. Fishkind confirmed the accuracy of the information contained in the EIS. The EIS was prepared, in part, to meet the statutory requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. At the hearing, Fishkind summarized the findings contained in the EIS. Seminole County and the State of Florida were identified as the two governmental entities which would be affected by the processing of this Petition and ongoing review and oversight of the District. Seminole County received the Petition for review and was paid a $15,000 filing fee to cover expenses related to processing the application. This fee is expected to adequately cover those costs. The County will have the option of reviewing the District's proposed budget each year. Dr. Fishkind does not anticipate that the County will incur any other direct costs by virtue of establishment of the District. Dr. Fishkind testified that Seminole County and its citizens will also receive some benefits by virtue of establishment of the District. The District will provide a mechanism to facilitate the financing and ongoing operation and maintenance of infrastructure for the project. In Dr. Fishkind's opinion, the District not only restricts the costs for needed facilities and services to those landowners who benefit from them, but, because it is an independent special-purpose government, also frees the County from any administrative burden related to management of these facilities and services. In addition, the District should help to assure compliance with the development order conditions as they relate to infrastructure. With respect to the State, the Bureau of Local Government Finance in the Office of the Comptroller will review certain financial reports that all special districts must file. The cost of processing one additional report will be minimal. In addition, the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") also has certain reporting requirements with which the District must comply. The costs to the DCA are partially offset by a required annual fee imposed on all special districts. The EIS also analyzed the expected costs and benefits to the citizens of Florida and the state at large. According to Dr. Fishkind's testimony, Chapter 190 encourages planned large-scale communities such as that within the proposed District, and the Dovera CDD would satisfy this legislative intent. The District is also intended to serve as a way to ensure that growth pays for itself, and that those who receive the benefits absorb the costs. Dr. Fishkind testified that, in addition to providing an improved level of planning and coordination and ensuring long-term operation and maintenance of needed facilities and services, the District would also promote satisfaction of state and local requirements for concurrency. Dr. Fishkind's unchallenged and unrefuted testimony in this regard is accepted. Dr. Fishkind also analyzed costs and benefits to the Petitioner. The costs include preparation of the Petition and all of the underlying analysis devoted to the project by team members. Dr. Fishkind testified that, in addition, the Petitioner, as landowner, will be the largest single taxpayer for some time, and will bear the largest portion of the donation of certain rights- of-way and easements. The Petitioner is also expected to provide certain managerial and technical assistance to the District, particularly in the early years. Benefits to the Petitioner include the District's access to the tax exempt bond market and other capital markets which would otherwise be unavailable. Another benefit to the Petitioner flows from the assurance that concurrency requirements will be met and that a stable, long-term entity is in place to maintain necessary infrastructure. Because any other similarly-situated landowner could also petition for establishment of a CDD, the granting of the Petition does not give this developer an unfair competitive advantage. The anticipated costs and benefits to persons who ultimately buy land and/or housing or rent commercial space within the proposed District ("Consumers") were also analyzed. In addition to city, county, and school board taxes or assessments, Consumers will pay certain assessments for the construction and maintenance of necessary infrastructure. The consumers should, in turn, have access to first quality public facilities and high levels of public service in a development where the necessary infrastructure will be maintained even after the developer is no longer involved. Ultimately, the statute provides a mechanism where Consumers may control the board of supervisors and determine the type, quality and expense of essential district facilities and services, subject to County plans and land development regulations. The EIS analyzed the impact of the District on competition and the open market for employment. Although there may be a transitory competitive advantage because of lower cost financing and access to capital, any advantage is not exclusive to The Viera Company. Although the CDD itself will not have a measurable impact on the open market for employment in Seminole County, Dr. Fishkind believes that access to capital markets may nonetheless have some positive effect on the development of employment. According to Dr. Fishkind, the District's potential effect on the open market for employment will likely be enhanced when compared to private development because CDDs are subject to government-in-the-sunshine and public bidding laws. Similarly, while anticipating no measurable impact on small and minority businesses as a direct result of establishing the Dovera CDD, Dr. Fishkind testified that such businesses may be better able to compete in the development because the District must operate according to government-in-the- sunshine and public bidding laws. Data supplied by The Viera Company and Gee & Jenson was used by Dr. Fishkind in performing his economic and financial analysis. Based on the result of his financial studies and analyses, Fishkind concluded that the proposed District is expected to be financially sound and able to fulfill its economic obligations. The expected general financial structure of the proposed District is based on a system of special assessments to defray the costs of its infrastructure. These special assessments would be imposed pursuant to Chapter 190, using the procedures outlined under Chapter 170 or Chapter 197, and would be pledged to secure bonds issued for the necessary improvements. It is not anticipated that the District will use any ad valorem taxation. This proposed financial structure for the Dovera CDD is very similar to that used successfully in many other CDDs in Florida. Dr. Fishkind testified that the financial structure is significantly different from that employed by a Tax Increment Financing District or TIF. A TIF is a dependent district the financial structure of which is premised on a "frozen" tax base of a particular area. TIF bonds are then repaid by the increase in real estate value within that area. This structure usurps certain taxes that would otherwise accrue to the local general-purpose government at large. TIFs are sometimes used in community redevelopment areas. Unlike a TIF, a CDD is actually an independent district with limited powers set out in the statute. A CDD's assessments and taxes do not in any way impact the County's taxing or assessment powers. Although a CDD may borrow money, the debts of a CDD cannot become the debt of any other governmental entity without its consent. In addition to the proposed District, there are several other available alternatives for the provision of community infrastructure, including private development, homeowners' associations, county provision, and dependent districts such as MSTUs or MSBUs. Dr. Fishkind testified that, from a financial perspective, and based on an analysis of other options available, the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. According to Dr. Fishkind, of these alternatives, only a CDD allows for the independent financing, administration, operation and maintenance of infrastructure while permitting residents to exercise increasing control over the District's governing board. Although independent of the county commission and enabling district residents to exercise control as a governing board, a homeowners' association would not be capable of undertaking the financial responsibility necessary to pay for the required infrastructure. Private developers do not have access to the tax-free bond market, and cannot provide the stability of long-term maintenance of infrastructure. Provision by the county or by a MSTU or MSBU would require the county to administer, operate and maintain the needed infrastructure. Dr. Fishkind testified that, from a financial perspective, and based on a review of the applicable plans, the CDD is consistent with the State and Seminole County Comprehensive Plans. Although CDDs are not directly mentioned in the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, the proposed District is consistent with the plan's intent that growth should pay for itself. Based on his familiarity with the design of the proposed District and his experience with other districts of a similar size and configuration, Fishkind concluded that the area to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. All the infrastructure for the proposed development has been planned as a unit and so should be expected to function as an interrelated system. It was also Fishkind's opinion, after reviewing the availability of the existing community development services and facilities in the area to be served by the proposed District, that the community development services and facilities expected to be provided by the District are not incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional services and facilities. The current assistance provided by the developer with respect to the development of Red Bug Lake Road and the Seminole County Expressway provides an example of infrastructure compatibility. Finally, taking into account the governing structure of the proposed District and the experience of other special districts in Florida, Fishkind concluded that the area that will be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government. It is Dr. Fishkind's opinion that an interrelated community created in compliance with a comprehensive master plan and specific infrastructure requirements represents an ideal circumstance within which to foster development of a CDD. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Gary L. Moyer. Moyer is President of Gary L. Moyer, P.A., a firm engaged in providing consulting and management services to special districts. He provides numerous services to approximately 33 special districts, 25 of which are CDDs. These services include planning of infrastructure, financing, implementation and the award and oversight of construction contracts. Upon completion of construction, he oversees the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. He has provided these services for approximately fifteen years. At the hearing, Moyer was qualified as an expert in special district governance and management. Moyer has been involved with CDDs ranging in size from only 28 acres to as many as 13,000 acres. Moyer testified that the proposed Dovera CDD would be an average size district among those providing primarily commercial and industrial land uses. CDDs operate pursuant to statute and must comply with requirements similar to those imposed upon general-purpose local governments. CDDs issue bonds to finance necessary infrastructure and typically repay this bonded indebtedness through imposition of non ad valorem assessments. The collection of these non ad valorem assessments has been accorded equal dignity with the collection of property taxes. Comparing other alternatives for the provision of community infrastructure, such as private development, property-owners' associations, and provision of services and facilities by local governments, Moyer testified that the proposed District is the best alternative for providing the contemplated services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. The singular purpose of a CDD is to provide infrastructure to new communities. Although other entities may provide such facilities and services, none of them possess the focus which is characteristic of CDDs. Moyer also concluded, based on his familiarity with the land area that is to be included in the proposed District and his experience with several CDDs having similar land use characteristics, that the area is amenable to separate special district governance. Moyer also expressed the opinion, based on his experience as manager of other districts of similar size and configuration, that the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of a sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional interrelated community. The District appears to have the ability to provide the necessary infrastructure in a cost-effective manner to the lands to be included within its boundaries. With respect to the proposed District's anticipated use of County services, agreements with the tax collector and property appraiser for the collection of special assessments under Chapter 197, Florida Statutes, may be used. Such agreements are commonly used by other special districts. To the extent these services are used, the County is compensated by the District for these expenses.
Conclusions On March 12, 1992, a public hearing was held in this matter. The hearing was held in the Chambers of the Seminole County Commission, 1101 East First Street, Sanford, Florida, before James W. York, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Conclusions On March 10, 2010, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Division of Administrative Hearings entered an Order Closing File in the above captioned case.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL - CALDWELL BUILDING, 107 EAST MADISON STREET, MSC 110, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-4128, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS 2 Final Order No. DEO11-0006 FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Economic Opportunity, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this fopllriay of October 2011. : Miriam Snipes, Agency Clerk DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By U.S. Mail: Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. Max Lohman, Esquire Corbett and White, P.A; 1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207 Lantana, Florida 33462 Brian Joslyn, Esquire Gregory S. Kino, Esquire Boose, Casey, Cikin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O*Connell Northbridge Center, 19th Floor 515 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4626 By Hand Delivery: David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable D. R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Final Order No. DEO11-0006
Conclusions Having considered the entire record in this cause, it is concluded that petitioner has satisfied all requirements in Subsection 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). More specifically, it is concluded that all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct, the creation of a district is consistent with applicable elements or portions of the state comprehensive plan and the Lee County comprehensive plan currently in force, the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community, the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district, the community development services and facilities of the district will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities, and the land that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special- district government. Respectively submitted this 7th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1991. Appendix A (Names and Address of Witnesses) Bryon R. Koste, 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 500, Naples, Florida 33963 Thomas R. Peek, 3200 Bailey Lane at Airport Road North, Naples, Florida 33942 Gary L. Moyer, 10300 N.W. 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida Atlantic University, 220 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Samuel R. Crouch, 9200 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 David E. Crawford, 9200 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Dr. James E. Pitts, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306 William Spikowski, Lee County Community Development Department, 1831 Hendry Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Gary L. Beardsley, 2396 13th Street North, Naples, Florida Richard Huxtable, 4741 Spring Creek Road, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Larry Sullivan, 4778 Tahiti Village, 4501 Spring Creek Road, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Lee Menzies, Business Development Corporation of Southwest Florida, corner of Summerlin and College Parkway, Fort Myers, Florida Donna Buhl, 4501 Spring Creek Road, Box 91, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Ruth Norman, 24578 Redfish Street, S.W., Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 James Pepper, P. O. Box 1260, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 (Names and addresses of persons filing written statements) Eugene S. Boyd, 5225 Serenity Cove, Bokeelia, Florida 33922 Edward S. Zajchowski, 4501 Spring Creek Road, Box 178, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Winifred M. Wheeler, 24593 Dolphin Street, S.W., Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 James W. Campbell, 4501 Spring Creek Road, Box 131, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Dorothy Jean Kendrick, 300 Haral Street, Sturgis, Michigan 49091 Exhibit A Appendix B (List of Documentary Evidence) Location map Local boundary map outlining district Map of district and surrounding areas Collier County Comprehensive Future Land Use Map Exhibit B Pelican's Nest PUD 1b Ridgewood RPD 1c Palmetto Bay RPD 1d Pelican's Nest RPD 1e Summary of status of permits Proposed development agreement Statement by Crawford concerning DRI Exhibit C Petition filed by Westinghouse Bayside Communities, Inc. Location map Metes and bounds legal description of district Consent to establishment of district Map of existing major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors or outfalls Proposed time tables and cost estimates Future land use portion of Lee County Comprehensive plan Economic impact statement Exhibit D Supplement to metes and bounds description in petition Specific description of all real property within district Exhibit E Photocopy of $15,000 processing check sent to County Letter transmitting petition to Commission Secretary Exhibit F Letter transmitting petition to Division of Administrative Hearings Exhibit G Notice of Publication in Florida Administrative Weekly on March 8, 1991 Affidavit for Fort Myers News-Press publication, March 11, 1991 Affidavit for Fort Myers News-Press publication, March 18, 1991 Affidavit for Fort Myers News-Press publication, March 25, 1991 Affidavit for Fort Myers News-Press publication, April 1, 1991 Exhibit H Lee County Comprehensive Plan Documentation of plan status Exhibit I Chapter 187, Florida Statutes Exhibit J Letter of March 14, 1991 from Secretary of Department Community Affairs to Commission Secretary Exhibit K White Paper by Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith Supplemental Exhibits Prefiled testimony of Bryon G. Koste Prefiled testimony of Samuel R. Crouch 3A Letter from Samuel R. Crouch to Jim Pepper 3B Letter from Samuel R. Crouch to Lloyd Read Prefiled testimony of Gary L. Moyer Prefiled testimony of David E. Crawford Prefiled testimony of Thomas R. Peek Prefiled testimony of Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith Intevenors Exhibit 1 - Letter of Edward S. Zajchowski COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Kenza Van Assenderp, Esquire P. O. Box 1833 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1833 Judith A. Workman, Esquire 408 Old Trail Road Sanibel, FL 33957 Marianne Kantor, Esquire Asst. County Attorney Lee County Courthouse 1700 Monroe Street Fort Myers, FL 33901 David M. Maloney, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 309 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Property The Seminary Lane Development consists of multiple parcels totaling 6.33 acres of property that straddle Northwest 5th Avenue and Northwest 12th Street in Gainesville, Florida (Property).7 The majority of the Property is owned by the Gainesville Florida Housing Corporation (Housing Corporation).8 The area around the Property is known as the Fifth Avenue Neighborhood (Neighborhood). Appellant Kali Blount is a resident of Gainesville who has worked continuously to improve the Neighborhood since 1987. Mr. Blount has served multiple terms on the Gainesville Fifth Avenue Community Redevelopment and Pleasant Street Advisory Board, a board of citizens appointed by the Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to advise the CRA on development in the area including and surrounding the Property. Appellant NKwanda Jah is a resident of Gainesville and is the founder and executive director of the Cultural Arts Coalition, which is housed in the Wilhelmina Johnson Center located in the Neighborhood at 321 Northwest 10th Street. The Center is about 200 feet from the Property. Appellant Carrie Johnson resides in the Neighborhood at 705 Northwest 10th Street. Ms. Johnson has lived in her home for the last 35 years. Her home is about 700 feet from the Property. Appellants Jennifer and Joel Parker live in the Neighborhood at 1202 Northwest 4th Avenue, which is located about 150 feet from the Property. The Parkers' home is located in a part of the Neighborhood that has been designated by the City as the "University Heights Historic District" (UHHD). 7 Northwest 5th Avenue in Gainesville, Florida, is also known as "Seminary Lane." 8 The remainder of the Property consists of two additional parcels which TWP intends to purchase in the future. Appellee TWP is a Florida limited liability company that is developing the Seminary Lane Development. TWP submitted the application which resulted in the Development Decision. Appellee City is a Florida municipality. The City enacted the LDC and has authorized its staff to administratively issue final approval of TWP's application for the Development Decision. History of the Property and Neighborhood The Neighborhood has historic and cultural significance to Gainesville's history. In the past, African Americans (who were denied access to land that was restricted to "whites only" for residential, commercial, institutional, or religious use elsewhere in Gainesville) exclusively occupied the Neighborhood. As a result, the community has a number of single-family homes, as well as religious and institutional buildings that serve the African American community. Some Appellants have lived in the Neighborhood since the Jim Crow era or have close ties to Neighborhood institutions. The homes in the Neighborhood are of varying architecture but are no more than two-story. They sit on varying lot sizes. The streets in the Neighborhood are sometimes narrow and often lack sidewalks. More recently, the Neighborhood has diversified in its residents and character. For example, although historically African American, non-African Americans also own property and/or reside in the Neighborhood. In the past five years, at least two student housing developments, similar to the project proposed by TWP, have been built in or on the outskirts of the Neighborhood. The City has taken steps to lay the foundation for redeveloping the Property and Neighborhood. The Property was acquired by the Housing Corporation. In 2009, the City removed 31 structures from the Property. Since that time the Property has remained and is currently vacant. In 2017, the City changed the Future Land Use designation for the Property and other surrounding and nearby properties to Urban Mixed Use (UMU) and changed the zoning for the Property to Urban 6 (U6). Ultimately, the Housing Corporation entered into a contract to sell TWP the Property for $8,590,600. The proceeds from the sale of the Property will give the Housing Corporation funds to further its mission of providing affordable housing in the form of mortgage-free homes or payment-assisted homes. Additionally, TWP is obligated to build eight affordable housing units on the Property, contribute $200,000 towards a community center, community space, or for community- based investment in the surrounding neighborhood, and provide $50,000 toward relocation of a building housing a leadership program currently located on the site. The Master Plan and Development Decision On April 17, 2019, TWP (through a consultant) conducted a workshop regarding its intention to file an application to develop the Property. At the time, TWP was applying for a special use permit for the Seminary Lane Development. Although special use permits require a neighborhood meeting, the workshop was not sponsored by the City, nor was City Staff in attendance in their official capacity at this meeting. TWP's consultant mailed notice of the workshop to property owners in the Neighborhood and published notice of the neighborhood workshop in the newspaper. The notice was mailed to Appellants Joel Parker and Jennifer Parker. The notice did not mention a "master plan." After the workshop, TWP changed the type of development procedure it would utilize and abandoned the special use permit process. By way of a letter dated February 3, 2020, the City notified TWP's consultant that it had administratively approved the Seminary Lane Master Plan (Master Plan) and that the approval would remain effective for five years. The letter stated in relevant part: The [City's] Technical Review Committee (TRC) has reviewed the Seminary Lane Master Plan, DB 19-00180, in accordance with the process and requirements as set forth in the [LDC]. Based on the review by the TRC, the plan has been approved. Please note, the master plan serves as a basis for the review of future development plans in the phased development and any individual phases or portions of the project and must be consistent with the approved master plan. Any future development plan shall comply with the [LDC], the City's Comprehensive Plan and any and all applicable regulations for the City of Gainesville. The City-approved Master Plan consists of one sheet and sets forth a graphic of the area approved for development. The Master Plan also indicates that there will be two phases of development, sets forth the acreage for each phase (Phase One – 5.41 acres and Phase Two – .92 acres), as well as the total acreage of 6.33 acres. The Master Plan provides no specific details of the number of units proposed for each phase of the project or the individual parcels within the Property. Rather, the Master Plan depicts Phase 1 containing proposed buildings for multi-family dwelling units and for car parking. The Development Decision at issue in this appeal addresses development for Phase 1 of the project. Phase 2 is depicted on the Master Plan as containing affordable housing units on land to be donated by TWP, proposed parking, and a stormwater area for the affordable housing units. Phase 2 is not at issue in these proceedings. The Master Plan sets forth the following information related to density for the entire proposed development, both Phase 1 and Phase 2. TABLE 2: PROPOSED MAXIMUM BED COUNT AREA BEDS ALLOWABLE** 1042 **ALLOWABLE TOTAL BASED ON THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLINGS IS PERMITTED BASED ON LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) §30-4.9.C1 60 UNITS PER ACRE @ 6.33 ACRES = 379 UNITS MAX 379 UNITS @ 2.75 BEDS/UNIT = 1042 BEDS MAX[9] The City provided no public notice of the TRC's review of the Master Plan. The City provided no notice to anyone - besides TWP - of its decision to administratively approve the Master Plan. The City did not inform anyone living in the Neighborhood, including Appellants, about its consideration or administrative approval of the Master Plan. After the Master Plan (labeled by the City as DB-90-180) was administratively approved by the City for the Seminary Lane Development, TWP submitted a major development plan application for the first phase of the development which was referred to as "Peak Campus Seminary Lane" (labeled by the City as DB-19-00074). As required by the LDC, the application was reviewed by the TRC, made up of City Staff from different departments, for consistency and compliance with the LDC and with the Master Plan. Although TWP argues this development is not "student housing," the units will contain up to four bedrooms, each with their own bathroom, and a very small living space. As a practical matter, although technically the development is not limited to students, it will cater to the large student population in Gainesville. The floor plan is a dorm-like apartment setting, and, as the "Campus" in its name suggests, the development is within walking distance to the University of Florida campus. On March 27, 2020, after five rounds of review, the TRC administratively issued a final approval for DB-19-00074, the Development Decision. The approved Development Decision consists of approximately 46 sheets of schematics, renderings, and plans for stormwater, demolition, tree 9 The term "beds" refers to the number of bedrooms per unit. protection, grading, drainage, underground utilities, landscape, and architecture. The Development Decision involves three development areas that make up the Property: Area A, Area B, and Area C. Below is a graphic of the areas and buildings approved by the TRC in the Development Decision as superimposed on the Master Plan. Area A is located on the northwest corner of Northwest 5th Avenue and Northwest 12th Street. It is one block east of Northwest 13th Street, a major street through Gainesville, Florida. The area across Northwest 12th Street east of Area A is zoned RSF-4 and Residential Conservation (RC). The area north of Area A, which is separated from Area A by an undeveloped (and perhaps abandoned) right-of-way or an alley, is zoned Urban 2 (U2) and has a Future Land Use Designation of Residential Low (RL). Area A consists of buildings (as explained below) that will house multi- family residential units and a parking garage. The proposed buildings are connected as one structure and have a "terraced" design containing three to five stories. The parking garage is wrapped with multi-family residential units, but some sides of the parking garage face the outside streets. Area B is a backwards "L" shaped parcel on the interior portion of a block bordered by Northwest 5th Street to the north. Building B1 is on the west portion of the parcel. It has a "terraced" design similar to the building in Area A, and also contains multi-family residential units and a multi-story parking garage attached to its southern wall. Building B1 abuts the rear of several single-family homes. Building B2 is also on this parcel and will contain multi-family residential units but have no parking. Building B1's parking garage will serve the units in Building B2. It also abuts the rear of several single-family homes. Area C is located on the southeast corner of Northwest 5th Avenue and Northwest 12th Street. The building in Area C will be four stories and will contain multi-family residential units but have no parking. Building B1's parking garage will serve the units in Building C. The homes abutting Area B on the south are in "a designated historic district," UHHD. Several single-family homes located in this historic district are within 100 feet from the south side of Buildings B2 and B1. Although the number of units to be built is not specified in the Development Decision, the following is provided regarding the maximum number of bedrooms: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Only Phase 1 as seen on the master plan is proposed to be permitted with this set. Phase 1 includes areas, area [sic] A, B and C. Area A & B include the construction of a three and five-story multi-family building with a four-story parking garage, amenities, underground stormwater system, landscape and utilities. Area A proposes a total of 502 beds. Area B proposes a total of 325 beds. Area C includes the construction of a four-story multi-family building with included amenity space, utilities, underground stormwater and landscaping. Area C proposes a total of 32 beds. The total proposed beds for Phase 1 is 859. Based on a total allowable of 1,042 beds, Phase 2 can have up to 183 beds. (emphasis added). As noted above, Phase 1 will allow development of 859 bedrooms in three separate multi-family buildings located on Areas A, B, and C in the Neighborhood. Section 30-4.8.D.3.a., establishes the following formula for the maximum bedrooms in multi-family developments: Multi-family developments shall be limited to a maximum number of bedrooms based on the development's maximum residential density allowed by the zoning district multiplied by a 2.75 multiplier. Using this multiplier, the maximum number of units approved by the City for Phase 1 is 312 units. Additionally, the parking structures attached or part of Buildings A and B1, will provide 537 motor vehicle parking spaces. Prior to commencing construction on Phase 1 of the proposed development, TWP must submit documentation and obtain building permits for the individual buildings. According to the testimony at the hearing, the building permit documentation will be consistent with the Development Decision but have more detail. Issue I - Whether the approved development is compatible with the historic Fifth Avenue Neighborhood. Appellants contend that the size and nature of the multi-family buildings and the multi-story parking structures contrast with the existing neighborhood in a manner that does not fit with the character of the Neighborhood. Specifically, Appellants point to the approved 312 off-campus apartments with 859 bedrooms and 537 motor vehicle parking spaces as compared with the existing single-family homes surrounding the Property. (Appellants' Proposed Final Order, ¶ 46). Appellants also contend potential residents of the project (i.e. students) will not mix with the existing residents in the Neighborhood. More specifically, Appellants argue the Seminary Lane Development violates section 30-1.3 of the LDC, which is entitled "Purpose" and states as follows: This chapter implements the City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) to secure an environment for present and future generations that is environmentally sustainable, socially just and desirable, and economically sound through the scientific, aesthetic, and orderly disposition of land, resources, facilities and services. Further, Appellants argue that the Seminary Lane Development violates the objectives described in section 30-1.4 of the LDC: This chapter is prepared in accordance with and for the promotion of the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The regulations herein are designed to conserve the value of land, building and natural resources; protect the character and maintain the stability of residential, commercial and industrial areas; and provide for efficiency and economy in the process of development through: Preservation, protection and conservation of significant natural features of land, creeks, lakes, wetlands, uplands and air; Appropriate use of land; Regulation of the use and occupancy of buildings, land and water; Healthful and convenient distribution of population; Provision of convenient circulation of people and goods and the control of traffic congestion; Provision of adequate public facilities and utilities; Protection, enhancement and perpetuation of specific community areas with special character, interest or value representing and reflecting elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, historical and architectural heritage; Establishment of zoning districts regulating the location and use of buildings and other structures, and the use of water and land for trade, industry, residence and other purposes, by regulating and limiting the height, bulk and access to light and air of building and structures, the area of yards and other open spaces and density of use; and Provision of low cost, efficient and expeditious development review process. (emphasis added). Article I of the LDC is titled "Generally" and City Staff has construed this provision as being aspirational rather than imposing any substantive requirements for a proposed development. A plain reading of Article I indicates it is a description of the general purpose and objectives that motivated the City when it adopted the land development regulations that are codified as the LDC. It is prefatory in nature, serving as an introduction and guidance to interpreting the requirements set forth in the LDC. Thus, compliance with the specific substantive requirements contained in Articles III through X of the LDC would carry a presumption of furthering these motivational goals and objectives; violation would indicate that a project was inconsistent with these goals and objectives. Whether the Development Determination violated the substantive requirements of the LDC are addressed below. As such, neither LDC section 30-1.3 nor section 30-1.4 provides a basis upon which to challenge the Development Decision. See generally Dep't of State v. Fla. Greyhound Ass'n, Inc., 253 So. 3d 513, 521 (Fla. 2018) ("Although prefatory language may aid a court to determine legislative intent when the operative terms of a provision of law are ambiguous, such language does not control interpretation of the operative terms of that provision."); Per Jonas Ingvar Gustafsson v. Aid Auto Brokers, Inc., 212 So. 3d 405, 409 (Fla. 4th 2017)(noting prefatory language did not necessarily create any obligations). As such, the Development Decision cannot be said to violate sections 30-1.3 or 30-1.4 of the LDC. The City's interpretation of these sections in approving the Development Decision is not clearly erroneous, patently unreasonable, or unfounded in reason. Nor will the City's determination result in a miscarriage of justice or an ultra vires act. Issue II - Whether the approved development violates the maximum density allowed for multi-family development by the LDC. Appellants argue that the Development Decision exceeds the density allowed by the LDC. The City found that the project was entitled to a density bonus based on the preservation of a tree. Based on this bonus, the City approved 60 units per acres. TWP counters that appellants waived the issue of density because Appellants did not appeal approval of the Master Plan, and even if not waived, the City's density calculations are correct. Did Appellants waive the issue of density? 10 Section 30-3.57 allows the appeal of "a final decision, order, requirement, interpretation, determination, or action." As stated above, Appellants challenge the density allowed in the Development Decision proposed for Buildings A, B1, B2, and C, not the Master Plan. Appellees' waiver argument fails for the following reasons. First, the Master Plan does not provide an actual number of units or beds that will be constructed in each phase or area, nor does it identify the qualifying tree that results in the density bonus. Rather, it provides for the 10 The LDC defines "density" as "the extent of development of residential uses, expressed in dwelling units per acre of land." maximum allowable density for the project in a chart titled "Proposed Maximum Bed Count" (emphasis added). The use of the word "proposed" indicates that this number was not the final or actual number approved by the City. Second, the LDC anticipates that a master plan is just one step in the development process, not a final step. It states: Sec. 30-3.49. - Master plans. Purpose. Master plan review is an optional step for projects that fall within the intermediate or major level of development review. A master plan is intended to provide for large area planning for phased developments. The intent of the master plan is to identify internal and external connectivity, regulated natural and archeological resources, and developable areas. Review and effect. Master plans are reviewed by the technical review committee in accordance with the process set forth in this division for development plan review, and must demonstrate that the completed development will be consistent with this chapter and with the Comprehensive Plan. Each phase must include a proportionate share of any required recreational and open space, and other site and building amenities of the entire development, except that more than a proportionate share of the total amenities may be included in the earlier phases with corresponding reductions in the later phases. An approved masterplan will serve as a basis for review of future development plans in the phased development, and individual phases or portions of the project must be consistent with the approved master plan. Expiration of master plan. A master plan shall be effective for up to five years from the date of approval. (emphasis added). Third, the City's February 3 letter approving the Master Plan explicitly states that the Master Plan is not final. Rather, the City informed TWP "the master plan serves as a basis for the review of future development plans in the phased development and any individual phases or portions of the project." It goes on to state that any "development plan shall comply with the [LDC], the City's Comprehensive Plan and any and all applicable regulations for the City of Gainesville." The clear intent is that a development plan would be submitted in the future and that each phase of the development would require a separate review of consistency with the LDC. Lastly, the notices regarding the workshops were not from the City, nor did the workshop notice mention "Master Plan." The City and TWP admit that they did not provide notice to anyone that the TRC had approved the one-page Master Plan because the LDC does not require it. Appellants did get actual notice, albeit not automatically or from the City, that the application for Phase 1 of the project was approved in the 45- page Development Decision that had the actual bedroom numbers and identified the qualifying tree. As a practical matter, Appellants could not have challenged the size of the qualifying tree (as discussed below) without identification of the tree or the final numbers proposed for the development. To require Appellants to have appealed the Master Plan's proposed density formula without having been given notice of the specific details provided in the Development Decision would be a miscarriage of justice. See generally Mordenti v. State, 630 So. 2d 1080, 1084 (Fla. 1994) (noting a fundamental error "equivalent to a denial of due process" results in a miscarriage of justice). They have the right to challenge the density numbers approved in the Developmental Decision, even though the formula was previously established in the Master Plan. Was TWP entitled to a tree bonus? As stated above, the Property is located in a zoning district designated as U6, which allows a broad range of uses including multi-family residential. Pursuant to section 30-4.13, the maximum residential density in the U6 Zoning District is 50 units per acre "by right" and up to 60 units per acre with certain bonuses. Section 30-4.9 establishes the City's incentive-based "Development Bonus System": Available bonuses. In accordance with this section and up to the limit allowed with bonuses as specified for the applicable zoning district, development projects may be eligible for: 1) additional building stories and the corresponding increase in overall building height; and 2) increased residential density. (emphasis added). Section 30-4.9.C.1. awards a developer a density bonus of ten units per acre if the development preserves either one High Quality Heritage Tree with a diameter breast height (DBH) of more than 71 inches or two trees that have a DBH of between 51 to 70 inches. It provides: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS High Quality Heritage Tree Preservation (fair or better condition): Tree DBH 20"—30" 31"—50" 51"—70" 71"+ Bonus DU/Acre 0.5 1 5 10 Although Appellants presented contrary measurements, the record reflects that the City and TWP presented evidence that the Property has a qualifying tree in Area A with a DBH of 71.8 inches. This tree is located on the eastern side of proposed Building A on Northwest 12th Street. Additionally, there is testimony in the record that there are two trees in Area B that have a DBH of between 51 and 70 inches that would also qualify for the bonus and award TWP 10 bonus units per acre. There is no dispute that the development is a "project" as defined by the LDC.11 Section 30-4.18 provides that the density bonus applies project- wide, not just in the immediate area where the qualifying tree exists: Development criteria described in the density bonus points manual, when met, shall allow increases in development intensity based upon the limits in this section. These increases in intensity shall be allowed should a developer propose to undertake a project that will result in a development sensitive to the unique environmental and developmental needs of the area. For each criterion met by the developer, certain points shall be credited to the project. Those points, calculated in accordance with the Density Bonus Points Manual, shall determine the maximum allowable density. (emphasis added). Appellants also assert that the Development Decision fails to protect the qualifying tree in Area A and that as proposed, the building would harm 11 The City's LDC defines "project" as follows: Project means a single development as designated by the applicant, but two or more purportedly separate developments shall be considered one project if the City Manager or designee determines that three or more of the following criteria exist: The purportedly separate developments are located within 250 feet of each other; The same person has an ownership interest or an option to obtain an ownership interest of more than 50% of the legal title to each purportedly separate development; There is a unified development plan for the purportedly separate developments; The purportedly separate developments voluntarily do or shall share private infrastructure; or There is or will be a common management or advertising scheme for the purportedly separate developments. LDC § 30-2.1. The development fulfills criteria A, B, C, and E. the qualifying tree's root structure or interfere with the tree's "dripline." In other words, Appellants argue, the City has failed to require TWP to provide a sufficient buffer to ensure the qualifying tree remains healthy. At the hearing, TWP objected to testimony regarding this issue because it was not raised in Appellants' Amended Notice of Appeal or any supporting briefs. The undersigned agrees and sustains the objection regarding the "dripline" issue. Even if this issue had been properly raised, the undersigned must defer to the City Staff, who did not seem concerned that the tree would not remain in "fair or better" condition as required for the bonus. The City's calculation of 60 units per acre for the maximum density for the project (which includes the 50 units provided for the U6 Zoning District plus the 10-unit bonus for having one or more qualifying High Quality Heritage Trees) cannot be said to be clearly erroneous, patently unreasonable, or unfounded in reason. Nor will the City's density calculations result in a miscarriage of justice or an ultra vires act. Did the City err in calculating the density amount for Phase 1? TWP intends to develop Buildings A, B1, B2, and C to have 312 residential units and 859 beds. Appellants argue that the City erred in allowing TWP to "transfer" density from Phase 1 to Phase 2, and among areas. As indicated above, the City determined that TWP was allowed a maximum of 379 units or 1,042 beds. The record further establishes all of the project's units could theoretically be placed anywhere on the Property. The City determined a maximum density of 379 units, based on the 60-unit per acre density calculation and the 6.33 acreage for the entire project. The City further determined that based on the entire size of the project, the maximum number of bedrooms (calculated by multiplying the 379 units by the 2.75 multiplier for allowable bedrooms per unit) would be 1042 bedrooms. Appellants seem to argue that the density calculations should have been done by phase or parcel. In other words, they insist the density allowance (here, 60 units or 165 beds per acre) should be multiplied by individual acreage for each area and not the 5.41 acres for Phase 1 or the 6.33 acreage of the entire project. Below is a chart comparing the calculations for the separate areas. Property Size Number of Units allowed by Right (@ 50 per acre) Number of units allowed by exception (@ 60) for tree bonus Number of Units approved in the Development Decision Area A 2.91 145 174 175 Area B 2.24 112 134 129 Area C 0.26 13 15 8 Phase 1 5.41 270 324 312 Total Project 6.33 316 379 n/a Assuming the density should be based on the size of the parcel being developed in each phase, the total area for Phase 1 (Areas A, B, and C) being developed would be 5.41 acres. This would equate to maximum density of 324 units or 891 beds for Phase 1. Again, TWP only seeks to develop 312 units with 859 beds. This is well under the density limitation calculated by Appellants for Phase 1. Using Appellants' method of calculation per parcel, the allowable density approved for Area A is one unit over the allowable amount under the LDC (using the bonus formula). This is the only portion that would go beyond the maximum amount. This parcel approach, however, is not consistent with the LDC. As indicated above, the density bonus is project-wide, not phase or parcel dependent. It would be illogical to calculate the density bonus per project, and not also calculate the base density the same way, per project. The testimony of City Staff (taken at the hearing and made part of the record) also establishes that a development applicant may allocate density anywhere within the boundaries of the project, regardless of whether the project consists of multiple lots or parcels, and regardless of whether the project has streets crossing through the project. For example, all the approved 312 units for Phase 1 could be located in Area A even though this amount was calculated based on the entire Phase 1 acreage, so long as the project complied with other aspects of the LDC. Because the density is correctly calculated for the entire project area and the proposed number of beds is consistent with the terms of the LDC, it cannot be said that the City's determination of maximum density is clearly erroneous, patently unreasonable, or unfounded in reason. Nor can it be said that these calculations would result in a miscarriage of justice. Issue III - Whether the approved development meets the compatibility standards between multi-family development and single-family development found in the LDC. Appellants argue that the project violates the LDC because it is a multi-family development that fails to comply with section 30-4.8 of the LDC. Section 30-4.8.D. states, in pertinent part, as follows: 1. Generally. Multi-family development shall contain no more than six dwelling units per building and shall be in the form of single-family dwellings, attached dwellings, or small-scale multi-family when located within 100 feet of any property that is in a single-family zoning district, the U1 district, or a designated historic district. (emphasis added). A plain reading of section 30-4.8.D.1. indicates the restrictions in that section apply only to multi-family development in three instances: when the project is located within 100 feet of any property in (1) a single-family zoning district, (2) a U1 Zoning District, or (3) a designated historic district. Section 30-4.2 sets forth the zoning districts that are considered "single-family" by the City. Future Land Use Category Zoning Districts Single-Family (SF) U1, RSF-1 to 4, RSF-R Before evaluating Appellants' argument regarding subsection D.1., it is helpful to identify the zoning districts surround the Property. With regards to Area A, the land to the north is zoned U2, U4, or U6; the land to the immediate east is zoned U8; the land to the west across Northwest 12th Street is zoned U6, RSF-4, and RC; and the land to the south is mostly U6, but the southwest corner catty-corner to the property is zoned U8. Again, only the RSF-4 to the east of Area A is a "single-family" zoning district. Areas B and C are surrounded by U4 and U6 zoning districts. To the south of Area B, is property located in the UHHD, a designated historic district. According to the Development Decision, Building B2 is within 100 feet from the UHHD. The City has interpreted section 30-4.8.D.1. as establishing a definite prescriptive compatibility standard that applies specifically to a land area that is measured as 100 feet within certain areas (i.e., single-family zoning district, U1 district, or designated historic district). Here, there are two areas of the proposed project that trigger section 30-4.8.D.1. First, there is the portion of Area A that is located on Northwest 12th Street and 100 feet from the RSF-4, a "single-family zoning district." According to the City, section 30- 4.8.D.1. does not apply to the entirety of a project area, no matter how large, just because a portion may be within 100 feet of a described area. Rather, it applies only to the portion that is located within 100 feet of that designated zone. Thus, the City determined that the limitation of no more than six dwelling units per building and the requirement that such buildings be in the form of single-family dwellings, attached dwellings, or small-scale multi- family only applies to that portion of the project area which is located within 100 feet of the RSF-4 Zoning District. The issue then becomes whether the restrictions in section 30-4.8.D.1. apply to the entire Building A, or only that portion that is built in Area A that is within the 100 feet of the RSF-4 Zoning District. City Staff has applied this provision to achieve development within the applicable 100-foot area where each building, or portion thereof, contains no more than six dwelling units in the form of single-family dwellings, attached dwellings, or small-scale multi-family. This achieves the City's goal to provide a transition between property designated as a single-family zoning district, U1 district, or a historic district and property proposed for larger-scale development. As an example, Appellees point to Figure 2 in section 30-4.8, which depicts an example of allowable transitioning between property in a designated single-family zoning district and a portion of a multi-family building that lies within 100 feet of that zoning district. The Development Decision depicts three separate structures of residential development that are on the eastern side of Building A. The City has interpreted these three structures as "buildings" because they will be built for the enclosure or shelter of persons.12 Although Appellants argue that these three structures are part of one building, Building A, and cannot be treated separately, the undersigned defers to the City's determination that these are three separate buildings. Similarly, the City considers the parking structure as a separate building from the three buildings in Area A on Northwest 12th Street. These three buildings make up the only portion of the development that is located within 100 feet of property in a single-family zoning district. Each building is capped at three stories with a maximum of six units per building. Thus, these buildings are in the form of a small-scale multi-family structure with a maximum of six units per building and, thereby, meet the requirements of section 30-4.8.D.1., as interpreted by the City. The second area triggering section 30-4.8.D.1 is in Area B. TWP disclosed that as approved, Building B2 exceeds the maximum density of six dwelling units per building for multi-family development because that portion of the building, which is five stories tall, is located within 100 feet of the UHHD. The City failed to detect this conflict with the LDC when it approved the development of Building B2 in the Development Decision. Pursuant to section 30-3.57.C.7., TWP requested at the hearing that the undersigned consider modified plans for Building B2 that correct the error approved by the City. The undersigned declines to do so. Rather, based on the representations by the City at the hearing, the portion of the 12 The City's LDC defines "building" as follows: Building means any structure, either temporary or permanent, except a fence or as otherwise provided in this definition, used or built for the enclosure or shelter of persons, vehicles, goods, merchandise, equipment, materials or property generally. This definition shall include tents, dining cars, trailers, mobile homes, sheds, garages, carports, animal kennels, storerooms, jails, barns or vehicles serving in any way the function of a building as described herein. This definition shall not include individual doll houses, play houses, and animal or bird houses. Development Decision approving Building B2 is reversed without prejudice, so that TWP may proceed with development of Buildings A, B1, and C, and submit an amendment to the City for TRC review and approval of revised plans for Building B2. Appellants next argue that the Development Decision violates section 30-4.8.D.2.e., which requires certain dividers in the form of walls or screening between multi-family projects that abut single-family properties: 2. Abutting single-family property. All new multi-family projects, whether stand alone or part of a mixed-use project, abutting property in a residential district or a planned development district with predominantly residential uses shall comply with the following regulations: * * * A decorative masonry wall (or equivalent material in noise attenuation and visual screening) with a minimum height of six feet and a maximum height of eight feet plus a Type B landscape buffer shall separate multi-family residential development from properties designated single-family residential. However, driveways, emergency vehicle access, or pedestrian/bicycle access may interrupt a continuous wall. If, in the professional judgment of city staff or other professional experts, masonry wall construction would damage or endanger significant trees or other natural features, the appropriate reviewing authority may authorize the use of a fence and/or additional landscape buffer area to substitute for the required masonry wall. There shall be no requirement for a masonry wall or equivalent if buildings are 200 or more feet from abutting single-family properties. In addition, the appropriate reviewing authority may allow an increased vegetative buffer and tree requirement to substitute for the required masonry wall. The primary driveway access shall be on a collector or arterial street, if available. Secondary ingress/egress and emergency access may be on or from local streets. (emphasis added). Specifically, Appellants argue that Building A fails to provide the proper wall and dividers from the property to the north of Area A. Area A is separated from the property to the north by a 15-foot alley which includes the paved portion of Northwest 6th Avenue. This area includes a former appellant's property and homes that were built by or with the assistance of Habitat for Humanity. Although this alley may be an abandoned right-of- way, a platted street maintained by the City, or simply an undeveloped portion of Northwest 6th Avenue, it is clear that there is separation between Area A and the single-family homes to the north. Section 30-2.1. provides clarification by defining "adjacent" and "abut": Adjacent means when two properties, uses or objects are not abutting but are separated only by a right-of-way, street, pathway or similar minimum separation. Abut means to physically touch or border upon, or to share a common property line. As such, Area A does not abut the residential property to the north but rather, is adjacent to that area. Moreover, this area to the north of Area A is zoned U2 and is not included as a residential zoning district in section 30-4.1, which is described as follows: Residential RSF-1 to 4 Single-Family RC Residential Conservation MH Mobile Home RMF-5 Single/Multi-Family RMF-6 to 8 Multi-Family Even assuming the property to the north of Building A abuts the project, neither section 30-4.8.D.2.e. nor section 30-4.8.D.2.f. is applicable to the Development Decision. Section 30-4.8.D.2.e. requires a decorative masonry wall only to "separate multi-family residential development from properties designated single-family residential." There are no properties which abut the property that are "designated as single-family residential." Section 30-4.8.D.2.f. requires the primary driveway access to "be on a collector or arterial street, if available." Section 30-2.1 defines both collector and arterial streets as follows: Arterial or arterial street means any street: Designated as arterial on the roadway map on file in the public works department; Functionally classified by the state department of transportation as an urban principal arterial street or an urban minor arterial street; or Designated by the city commission as an arterial street based on its physical design, moderately long trip length, and existing or anticipated traffic characteristics. * * * Collector or collector street means any street: Designated as collector on the roadway map on file in the public works department; Functionally classified by the state department of transportation as a collector; or Designated by the city commission as a collector street based on its physical design, moderate trip length, and existing or anticipated traffic characteristics. It is undisputed that a collector or arterial street is not available to the project. Thus, the Development Decision complies with the requirements of section 30-4.8.D.2.f. With the exception of Building B2, it cannot be said that the City's determinations that TWP's application meets the requirements of sections 30-4.8.D.1. and 30-4.8.D.2.e. and f. are clearly erroneous, patently unreasonable, or without foundation in reason. Nor can it be said that the City's finding of compatibility and compliance with these sections of the LDC will result in a miscarriage of justice or is an ultra vires act. Issue IV - Whether the approved development meets the building design standards set forth in the LDC. Appellants argue that the project does not meet building design standards set forth by the LDC. Appellants contend that the Seminary Lane Development fails to provide building entrances as set forth in section 30- 4.14.D. Section 30-4.14.D. states as follows: Building entrances. Each building shall provide a primary public entrance oriented toward the public right-of-way, and may be located at the building corner facing the intersection of two streets. Additional entrances may be provided on other sides of the building. Primary public entrances shall be operable, clearly-defined and highly-visible. In order to emphasize entrances they shall be accented by a change in materials around the door, recessed into the façade (alcove), or accented by an overhang, awning, canopy, or marquee. Building frontages along the street shall have functional entrances at least every 150 feet. (emphasis added). First, Appellants contend that the development proposed for Area A does not provide for primary entrances into the residential portion of the building on two streets. As noted above, the development proposed for Area A is made up of more than one building. There are at least three buildings fronting Northwest 12th Street that are within 100 feet from the RSF-4 Zoning District, the larger building made up of five stories that is outside the 100-foot area, and the parking structure. TWP must make sure that each building complies with the LDC requirements. Assuming the portion of Building A that is beyond 100 feet from the RSF-4 Zoning District is a separate building, it has one public entrance into a proposed non-residential space at the corner of Northwest 5th Avenue and Northwest 12th Street. This satisfies the LDC's provision that states the entrance "may be located at the building corner facing the intersection of two streets." There are, however, multiple buildings (as defined by the LDC) in Area A. The drawings and plans approved by the City in the Development Decision do not reflect that each of the three buildings that front Northwest 12th Street and are located within 100 feet from the RSF-4 Zoning District have their own entrances "oriented toward the public right-of-way." Because this failure to designate entrances for each of these three buildings is in violation of the LDC and clearly erroneous, the Development Decision must be modified to require entrances for each building in Area A. Appellants also contend that the buildings set to be constructed on Proposed Development Area B do not have any entrances oriented toward the public right-of-way. Because approval of Building B2 has been reversed, the issue of whether the entrance complies with the LDC is moot. Regarding Building B1, which is made up of a residential portion and a parking garage, the Development Decision plans indicate an entrance at the corner facing Northwest 5th Street, which is a public right-of-way. Thus, the proposed Building B1 complies with the entrance requirements of the LDC. Finally, the Development Decision plans relating to Building C reflect that its primary public entrance is on the west side of the building facing Northwest 12th Street, which is a public right-of-way. Thus, the proposed Building C complies with the entrance requirements of the LDC. With the exception of the three buildings that lack complying entrances in Area A modified above, it cannot be said that the City's decision in approving the proposed plans for Buildings A, B1, or C are clearly erroneous, patently unreasonable, or without a foundation in reason. Nor can it be said that the approval of these buildings and their entrances would result in a miscarriage of justice or constitute an ultra vires act. Issue V - Whether the approved development meets the parking structure standards set forth in the LDC. Appellants argue that the two parking structures in the project violate the LDC's provisions regulating parking structures. Section 30-7.3 provides the following regarding structured parking: Development plans for new parking structures as a principal or accessory use must: Minimize conflict with pedestrian and bicycle travel routes; Provide parking for residents, employees, and customers to reduce the need for on-site surface parking; Be located and designed to discourage vehicle access through residential streets; and Design facilities for compatibility with neighborhoods by including ground floor retail, office, or residential use/development (as appropriate for the zoning district) when located on a public street. The facility must also have window and facade design that is scaled to relate to the surrounding area. Structured parking may not be located within 100 feet of property zoned for single-family use. Section 30-4.15.C. further provides: C. Design of parking structures. Parking structures located along Storefront streets shall be concealed by liner buildings, which may be attached or detached from the parking structure. The liner building shall have a minimum of two stories and a minimum height of 30 feet and a minimum depth of 25 feet along the entire length of the parking structure. Parking structures located along Principal streets shall be required to provide ground floor commercial or office space along the street frontage. On all other streets, any structured parking that is not concealed behind a liner building or ground floor commercial or office space shall have decorative screening walls, perimeter parking landscaping per Article VII, or a combination thereof to screen ground floor parking. (figures and references omitted; emphasis added). Appellants first argue that the Development Decision does not comply with section 30-7.3.A.3., which discourages vehicle access to and from a parking structure via residential streets. Notably, this section does not prohibit vehicle access through residential areas but just discourages it. According to the record, the parking structure in Area A has vehicle access on the southside through an opening to Northwest 5th Street and on the northside on Northwest 6th Street. Both of the entrances to the parking structure seem to be toward the west end of Area A, away from the properties in the RC and RSF-4 zoning districts and closest to Northwest 13th Street. As indicated above, Northwest 13th Street is a multi-lane road running through Gainesville. Moreover, the parking structures in Areas A and B have access from Northwest 5th Street, which the City consider to be a "Storefront street," not a "residential street." Therefore, section 30-7.3.A.3. is not implicated for these vehicular access openings. The Northwest 6th Avenue entrance for the parking garage in Area A is depicted on one of the architectural sheets that makes up the Developmental Decision. As stated above, Northwest 6th Avenue runs between Area A and a number of single-family homes. Vehicular access so close to the residences could be disruptive and not compliant with the LDC's goal in section 30-7.3 of minimizing conflict with nearby residences. The hearing testimony established that during the TRC review process the City requested TWP remove the Northwest 6th Avenue vehicular access opening. TWP claims that the original architectural sheet has simply not been updated. To the extent the Developmental Decision has not been updated, the Developmental Decision is modified to remove the vehicular access from Northwest 6th Avenue into the parking structure in Area A. Next, Appellants contend that the Area A parking garage fails to comply with section 30-4.15.C., which requires certain design features when located on a public street. Arguably, the parking structure in Area A also fronts Northwest 6th Avenue as well, but this is an undeveloped part of that street, and it is unclear if it is a "public street." Regardless, the parking structure in Area A is located on at least one public street: Northwest 5th Avenue. The City determined that both parking structures have the required window and façade designs that are scaled to relate to the surrounding area. Moreover, the parking structure in Area A is wrapped with residential units, and thus complies with the requisite screening requirements. It cannot be said that this decision was clearly erroneous, patently unreasonable, or not based in reason. Appellants next contend that the parking structure located in Area A is within 100 feet from a "single-family zoning district," the property across Northwest 12th Street that is zoned RSF-4. However, the parking structure in Area A is on the far west side of the property, more than 100 feet from the area zoned RSF-4. Moreover, as noted above, there are three buildings between the parking structure in Building A and Northwest 12th Street. Because, as explained above, there are multiple buildings in Area A, the parking structure in Area A does not violate section 30-4.15.C. Appellants also contend that the Development Decision does not provide for any decorative screening walls, perimeter landscaping, or window and façade design compatible with or scaled to relate to the surrounding area as described in section 30-4.15.C. As stated above, the City has designated Northwest 5th Avenue as a "Storefront Street." Thus, section 30-4.15.C.1. is applicable to the parking structures located along Northwest 5th Avenue. The depictions in the Development Decision indicate that the parking structures will have the required liner building, thus complying with this section of the LDC. The parking structure in Area A that fronts Northwest 6th Avenue must comply with section 30-4.15.C.3., which requires a liner building, ground floor commercial, office space, or decorative screening walls. The portion of the parking structure in Area A that is not concealed behind a liner building has a decorative screening wall made up of brick veneer with openings made to look like windows. Thus, the parking garage in Building A complies with the requirements of section 30-4.15.C.3. With the modification of removing the Northwest 6th Avenue vehicular access entrance for the parking structure in Area A, it cannot be said that the City's decisions regarding the parking structures were clearly erroneous, patently unreasonable, or not founded in reason. Nor can it be said that the development of these parking structures as part of the project will result in a miscarriage of justice or an ultra vires act.
The Issue There are four issues in this proceeding. Whether the Petitioner, Edgewater Beach Owners Association, Inc. (the Association) has been denied a right to a quasi-judicial proceeding regarding Walton County Resolution 95-82 (the December 1995 Amendment). Whether the December 1995 Amendment improperly revives a development of regional impact development order. Whether the development approved by the December 1995 Amendment is vested from compliance with the local comprehensive plan adopted by the County in April 1993 (the 1993 Comp Plan). If not vested, whether the development approved by the December 1995 Amendment is consistent with the 1993 Comp Plan.
Findings Of Fact Background The Association, a Florida condominium association, is the owner of property developed pursuant to a development of regional impact (DRI) order, Walton County Resolution Number 82-12 (Original D.O.), issued by the County on June 8, 1982. The Original D.O. stated that it would remain in effect for ten years or until development was completed, whichever occurred first. It also stated that, upon application of the developer, the duration of the development order could be extended by the County. The Original D.O. authorized the construction of a six-phase condominium development, to consist of 476 residential units and associated recreational amenities. Phases I and II of the proposed six phase development were completed in 1984 and consist of 175 residential (both ownership and rental) units with associated amenities. Phase I and II consists of one building ranging, in a staircase fashion, from nineteen stories to three stories, with the lower portion of the building being located closest to the beach. This building is located on property now owned by the Association. In 1987, before any construction on the remaining four phases began, the original developer lost its interest in the undeveloped property through foreclosure. The Respondent, KPM, Ltd. Company (KPM), which is a Florida limited liability company, acquired title to the undeveloped property in March 1992. On May 25, 1992, in response to a request from KPM, the County voted to extend the termination date of the Original D.O. However, the Florida Department of Community Affairs subsequently informed the County and KPM that, in order to effect such an extension, the developer would be required to file a formal notice of proposed change and undergo further review pursuant to chapter 380, Florida Statutes. In September 1992, KPM filed a notice of proposed change asking the County to revive the Original D.O. KPM subsequently amended its notice to request a reduction in the number of units to be included in Phase III. In January 1993, the County approved KPM's proposed changes, revived the Original D.O., and extended the duration of the development order to January 1, 1999. This approval was formalized in Walton County Resolution Number 93-2 (the 1993 Amendment) and included the proviso that KPM submit an updated traffic analysis before Phases IV through V could be constructed. The Association filed a Section 380.07 appeal of the 1993 Amendment (EBOAI) and, in that appeal, specifically challenged the County's authority to revive the Original D.O. Following a formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, FLWAC entered a final order dismissing EBOA's appeal of the 1993 Amendment on October 24, 1995. The FLWAC final order is presently pending on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal. Neither FLWAC nor the court have entered an order staying the effectiveness of the final order. In April, 1993, the County adopted the 1993 Comp Plan. KPM submitted a second notice of proposed change in January 1995, requesting certain changes in the phasing of the project. Included with the materials submitted to the County was the updated traffic analysis required by the county as a precondition to the approval of future phases III and IV to 71 and 124, respectively. The number of units included in Phase V was reduced to 86 and Phase VI was deleted altogether. The net effect was that the total number of units to be included in the undeveloped phases of the project remained at 281. The Association filed a FLWAC appeal challenging the April 1995 Amendment. Since the April 1995 Amendment is pending on appeal to FLWAC, it is not yet effective. The Association also brought two separate suits challenging the April 1995 Amendment in circuit court, one under Section 163.3215, Florida Statues, and the other under common law certiorari. All three actions have been abated and remain pending. In June 1995, KPM transferred its interest in the undeveloped property to the Respondent, Grand Dunes, Ltd. (Grand Dunes). Grand Dunes is a limited partnership, of which KPM is a limited partner. In addition, KPM retains the right to reacquire the undeveloped property should Grand Dunes decide against developing it. On or about October 5, 1995, the Developers jointly filed another notice of proposed change, through which they sought authorization to increase the number of units in Phase III to 89, decrease the number in Phase IV to 89, and delete Phases V and VI altogether. The net effect of the proposed change is a reduction in the total number of units in the undeveloped phases from 281 to 178. The December 1995 Amendment, which is the subject of this proceeding, reflects the County's approval of these proposed changes. Quasi-judicial Proceedings The Association asserts that the County's December 12, 1995, hearing (the County hearing) was deficient in two respects: 1/ 1) the transportation report appended to the notice of proposed change was not competent substantial evidence; and 2) the Association was not afforded appropriate procedural rights. The Transportation Report The transportation analysis submitted by the Developers as part of their notice of proposed change was dated October 7, 1994, and was identical to the report submitted in support of the April 1995 Amendment. No further updated transportation information was provided to the County by either the Developers or the Association prior to or during the County hearing. The author of that report, David Muntean, is an expert in transportation engineering. Muntean explained at final hearing that the purpose of the analysis reflected in the report was to determine whether the development changes being considered by KPM in the fall of 1994--ultimately embodied in the April 1995 Amendment--would have a significant impact on area roadways. Two specific issues are addressed in making this determination: 1) at build-out (1998), whether traffic generated by the proposed development, considered together with the already built Phases I and II and all other traffic on an area roadway, will result in traffic volumes that exceed the traffic capacity recommended for the roadway (i.e. cause a degradation in the level of service); and 2) at build-out, whether the proposed development, together with Phases I and II, will generate five (5) percent or more of the traffic volume recommended for a roadway. In order to determine whether there may be a degradation in the level of service, Muntean made a projection of the volume of traffic that would be generated by sources other than the proposed development (the background traffic) in 1998. He accomplished this by extrapolating between the background traffic reflected in the latest Department of Transportation traffic figures then available (1993) and the projected traffic volume for the year 2015, as calculated in the Fort Walton Beach Urban Area Transportation Update. Since Phase I and II of the Original D.O.-- the Association's buildings-- were completed back in 1984, traffic generated by those phases was included in the calculation of background traffic. Muntean then projected the number of trips that would be generated by the proposed development itself, using data supplied by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This source provides a formula for calculating projected numbers of vehicular trips based upon the type of development being proposed. Once a raw figure was calculated using the ITE formula, certain adjustment factors were applied. These included adjustments for household size and for internal capture. Internal capture represents the number of trips that might otherwise be generated by a project if not for amenities available within the project itself that reduce the number of vehicular trips taken off the project premises. The adjustment factor used for internal capture was conservative, in order to ensure that the number of trips generated by the project would not be underestimated. In calculating the number of trips projected to be generated by the project, Muntean included not only those trips that would originate from the proposed new development, but also those trips that could be expected to originate from the already developed Phases I and II. Since the traffic from those completed phases was also included in the calculation of projected background traffic, Muntean's analysis double counts the Phases I and II traffic. The result is another overestimation of the traffic impacts of the project. Based upon a total development of 456 units, the traffic report established that there are projected to be two roadway segments which will operate below their recommended level of service at build-out. However, the trips generated by a 456 unit development was projected to account for less than five percent of the assigned level of service. (i.e. the maximum recommended traffic volume). Similarly, the report projects that, at build-out, trips generated by a 456 unit development would account for more than five percent of the maximum recommended traffic volume for two roadway segments. Those two roadways, however, will continue to operate well within their assigned levels of service. While the initial report projects the traffic impacts of a 456 unit development, the development approved by the December 1995 Amendment will have fewer total units--only 353. (The 175 already constructed units owned by the Association and 178 to be built by the Developers). The Association offered no evidence suggesting that the conclusions reflected in the initial traffic report were faulty or inapplicable to the development at hand. Nor did the Association offer any reports or analysis of its own. While the projections reflected in the report may not predict 1998 traffic with absolute accuracy, it reflects a best estimate of the traffic impacts of the development. Accordingly, the initial traffic report constitutes competent substantial evidence. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the initial report also supplies a sufficient evidentiary basis on which to make a finding regarding traffic impacts. However, the Developers provided further support by commissioning Muntean to prepare a second traffic report, based upon the most up-to-date traffic information. Muntean used basically the same methodology utilized for the previous report. 2/ However, in the second report, Muntean did decrease the total number of units being analyzed for traffic impacts to reflect the 353 that the County actually approved during the County hearing. The conclusions reflected in the second report do not deviate significantly from those reported in the first. At build-out, three roadway segments are projected to operate below their assigned levels of service, but, in each case, the traffic from the 353 unit development will account for less than five percent of the maximum capacity allowable under the assigned level of service. On one other roadway segment, traffic from the total project is projected to account for more than five percent of the maximum allowable volume for the roadway's assigned level of service, but that roadway will continue to operate well within its assigned level of service, even with the build-out development's traffic. The evidence presented by the Developers establishes that the proposed development, even when considered together with the already constructed phases now owned by the Association, will not significantly impact any area roadway. Consequently, the County's determination, that the proposed development does not constitute a substantial deviation, is supported by competent substantial evidence. Procedural Opportunities The County hearing was preceded by notice published in a local newspaper on November 16, 1995. That notice clearly identifies the date and time of the hearing regarding the Developers' proposed changes. The Association has not alleged that it failed to receive said notice. As is the practice of the County for all agenda items, the agenda indicated that ten minutes were set aside for consideration of the Developers' proposed changes. However, the transcript of that hearing indicates that both the Developers and the Association were afforded as much time as they desired to make arguments or present evidence. Both the Association and the Developers were represented at the County hearing by their attorneys, but neither offered any live testimony, even though the transcript clearly establishes that both the Association and the Developers were afforded that opportunity. Counsel for the Association did have one exhibit admitted into the record. In addition, the only documentary evidence admitted into the record consisted of the documents filed as part of the notice of proposed change itself, supplements to the notice submitted by the Developer prior to the County hearing, the reports and comments of regulatory agencies, and the general warranty deed reflecting transfer of the property from KPM to Grand Dunes. The record is devoid of any evidence establishing that the Association requested either the Developers or the County to make witnesses available at the County hearing for cross-examination. Nor does the record include any evidence that, prior to the County hearing, the Association requested that it be made a party to the proceeding. There can be no question that, even if all appropriate procedural rights were not already offered to the Association at the County hearing, the present proceeding provided ample opportunity for the Association to offer evidence, either in the form of documents or testimony, and to cross-examine the Developers' witnesses. Notably, the exhibits entered into the record before the County, were admitted as joint exhibits in this proceeding, without any limitation as to their weight or relevance. Revival of the Original D. O. Even the closest scrutiny of the December 1995 Amendment reveals the complete absence of any provision extending the termination date of the Original D.O. In essence, the Association attempts, through this proceeding, to obtain review of action taken by the County in January, 1993, while stipulating that the County revived the Original D.O. in January 1993. Since the Original D.O. had already been revived, approval of the December 1995 Amendment did not require the County to revive anything. Vesting and Consistency with the Local Comprehensive Plan The development approved by the December 1995 Amendment will include eighteen stories of living space, with two stories of parking underneath. The resulting density will exceed twelve units per acre. The December 1995 Amendment expressly states that the proposed development is not subject to the height and density requirements of the 1993 Walton County Local Comprehensive Plan (the 1993 Comp Plan). The County has consistently treated DRI developments as vested from compliance with the 1993 Comp Plan, even when there has been a change in ownership. This position has been endorsed by the Department of Community Affairs. When the 1993 Comp Plan was being drafted, the County staff specifically intended that the height and density limitations in that plan not apply to already approved DRI developments. Approved DRIs were seen as sources of tax revenue that would alleviate losses attributable to the development restrictions imposed by the 1993 Comp Plan. The Department of Community Affairs has taken the position, and has consistently advised local governments, that, if a DRI development order is amended to reflect a decrease in the intensity of the project -- a decrease in the number of units, for example -- the development would not lose its statutory vesting. The Association's Purpose for Commencing This Proceeding The association's president repeatedly stated in her deposition that the Association's membership intend to do everything that they can to prevent the revival of the Original D.O. and to ensure that, whatever the Developers build, it is consistent with the 1993 Comp Plan. In addition to the present proceeding, the Association has also initiated six other legal proceedings challenging development proposed for the Developers property, Section 380.07, Florida Statutes appeals of both the 1993 and the April 1995 Amendments, two actions for certiorari challenging both of the April and the December 1995 Amendments, and two actions under Section 163.2115, Florida Statutes, challenging both of the 1995 Amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order approving the development proposed by the Developers and dismissing the Association's appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 11th day of December, 1996.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the decision of the Board to approve Flexible Development Application FLD2019-01002 (Application) filed by Edgewater Valor cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the Board, or that the decision of the Board departed from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Edgewater Valor proposes to develop an 80-unit attached dwelling with 164 associated off-street parking spaces on 2.931 acres of property it owns. The property is located at 1026 Sunset Point Road and 1919 Edgewater Drive in Clearwater, Florida. The proposal consists of three buildings and a structured parking platform with a pool and deck on the west side of the parking platform. Sixty percent of the 164 parking spaces is garage parking, with the rest as exposed surface parking. Two of the buildings, both in the T district, are proposed at a height of 86 feet measured from base flood elevation. The third building, in the MDR district, is proposed at a height of 38 feet measured from base flood elevation. The buildings in the T district are set back 152 feet from the east property line. The building in the MDR district is set back 75 feet from the east property line. The proposal includes landscaping and setbacks that exceed the Board's requirements for approval. The Application requests Level Two approval of flexibility for a building height of 86 feet from base flood elevation in the T zoning district. A Level One approval allows a building height of up to 50 feet, and up to 100 feet as a Level Two approval. The Application also requests Level Two approval of flexibility for an attached dwelling use in the MDR zoning district. The attached dwelling has a building height of 38 feet from base flood elevation, where up to 40 feet is allowed as a Level Two approval and flexibility from lot width in the MDR zoning district. Edgewater Valor owns 2.437 acres of the property which is zoned T with an underlying Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use category of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The remaining 0.494 acres is zoned MDR with an underlying Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use category of Residential Medium (RM). The property to the north of the proposed development is zoned T and is currently developed as a Comfort Suites hotel. The property to the south is zoned Office (O), MDR, and Preservation (P). There is a vacant automobile service station adjacent to the proposed development to the southwest, and a multi-family development to the south across Sunset Point Road. The property to the east is zoned MDR and P with single-family detached dwellings and attached dwellings further east along Sunset Point Road. The property to the west is zoned Commercial (C) and P. EDNA's boundaries are Sunset Point Road north to Union Street, and Edgewater Drive east to Pinellas Trail. The neighborhood consists of 400 homes that are mostly single-family, single-story detached dwellings. The proposed development would be located in the southwest corner of the neighborhood at the intersection of Edgewater Drive and Sunnydale Drive. The Comfort Suites hotel is located directly across from the proposed development on the opposite corner of Sunnydale Drive and Edgewater Drive. Sunnydale Drive travels east away from Edgewater Drive and dead-ends as a cul-de-sac with mostly single- family detached dwellings.
