The Issue The issue is whether the Type B site plan for the 78-unit townhome/condominium project known as Park Terrace Townhomes should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Parties Skipper is the applicant for the Type B site plan at issue in this proceeding, No. TSP060026. Skipper owns the property on which the project will be developed, Parcel ID No. 21-23-20-417-000-0 (the project site). The City is the local government with jurisdiction over the project because the project site is located within the City limits. The Association is a voluntary neighborhood association encompassing 343 lots in an established single-family residential neighborhood generally located to the northeast of the Tharpe Street/Old Bainbridge Road intersection, adjacent to the project site. The purpose of the Association is to “preserve and enhance the quality of life in [the] neighborhoods by taking coordinated action on matters which advance the common good of all residents,” and one of the Association’s objectives is to “protect[] the neighborhood from incompatible land use and rezoning.” The Project Site (1) Generally The project site is located to the north of Tharpe Street, to the east of Old Bainbridge Road, and to the west of Monticello Drive. The project site is bordered on the south by the Old Bainbridge Square shopping center. It is bordered on the north, east, and west by the residential neighborhood represented by the Association. The project site consists of 13.91 acres. The western 11.11 acres of the project site are zoned R-4, Urban Residential. The eastern 2.8 acres of the project site are zoned RP-1, Residential Preservation. The project site is roughly rectangular in shape. It is 300 feet wide (north to south) and approximately 2,100 feet long (east to west). The project site is located within the Urban Service Area (USA) boundary. The Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan specifically encourages infill development within the USA. The project site is designated as Mixed Use A on the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan. Residential development of up to 20 units per acre is allowed within the Mixed Use A land use category. The project site has been zoned R-4/RP-1 since 1997 when it was rezoned from Mixed Use A as part of the City-wide rezoning of all mixed use properties. Multi-family residential was an allowable use under the Mixed Use A zoning district, as was small-scale commercial. The R-4 zoning is intended to function as a “transition” between the commercial uses to the south of the project site and the single-family residential uses to the north of the project site. The R-4 zoning district allows a wide range of residential development at a density of up to 10 units per acre. (2) Surrounding Zoning and Uses The property to the north, east, and west of the project site is zoned RP-1, and is developed with single-family residences. The neighborhood adjacent to the project site is stable and well established. Most of the homes are owner- occupied, and many of the residents are retirees. The property to the south of the project site is zoned UP-1, Urban Pedestrian, and is developed with commercial uses, namely the Old Bainbridge Square shopping center. There is an existing stormwater pond located on the northwest portion of the shopping center parcel, adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. (3) Environmental Features on the Project Site The project site is vacant and undeveloped, except for several concrete flumes and underground pipes located in the drainage easements that run north/south across the site. The project site has been impacted by the surrounding development in that household and yard trash has been found on the site. The vegetative community on the project site is considered to be upland hardwood forest. There are a number of large trees on the project site, including pecan, cherry, pine, gum, and various types of oak trees. There are also various exotic plants species on the site, such as kudzu. The vegetative density is consistent throughout the project site. The land in the general vicinity of the project site slopes from south to north. The elevations along Tharpe Street to the south of the project site are in 220 to 230-foot range, whereas the elevations in the neighborhood to the north of the project site approximately one-quarter of a mile north of Tharpe Street are in the 140 to 160-foot range. The elevations across the R-4 zoned portion of the project site range from a high of 214 feet on the southern boundary to a low of 160 feet on the northern boundary. The southern property boundary is consistently 30 to 40 feet higher than the northern property boundary across the entire R-4 zoned portion of the project site. The slopes are the main environmental feature of significance on the project site. There are a total of 7.32 acres (319,110 square feet) of regulated slopes -- i.e., severe or significant grades -- on the project site, which is more than half of the total acreage of the site. There is a ravine that runs in a northwesterly direction across the RP-1 zoned portion of the project site. The ravine is considered to be an altered wetland area and/or altered watercourse. The regulated slopes and altered wetland/watercourse areas on the project site were depicted on a Natural Features Inventory (NFI) submitted in September 2005, prior to submittal of the site plan. The City’s biologists reviewed the original NFI, and it was approved by the City on October 13, 2005. A revised NFI was submitted in March 2007. The revised NFI removed the man-made slopes from the regulated slope areas, and made other minor changes based upon comments from the staff of the Growth Management Department. The City’s biologists reviewed the revised NFI, and it was approved by the City on August 24, 2007. The Association questioned the change in the amount of regulated slopes identified on the project site, but it did not otherwise contest the accuracy of the NFIs. Roger Wynn, the engineer of record for the project, testified that the amount of regulated slopes on the project site changed because the man-made slopes were initially included in the calculation but were later removed. That testimony was corroborated by the James Lee Thomas, the engineer who coordinated the Growth Management Department’s review of the project. The Project (1) Generally The project consists of 78 townhome/condominium units in 14 two-story buildings. It was stipulated that the density of the project is 7.02 units per acre, which is considered “low density” under the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC. The stipulated density is calculated by dividing the 78 units in the project by the 11.11 acres on the project site in the R-4 zoning district. If the entire acreage of the project site was used in the calculation, the project’s density would be 5.61 units per acre. All of the buildings will be located on the R-4 zoned portion of the project site. Five of the buildings (with 21 units) will have access to Monticello Road to the east by way of Voncile Avenue. The remaining nine buildings (with 57 units) will have access to Old Bainbridge Road to the west by way of Voncile Avenue. There is no vehicular interconnection between the eastern and western portions the project. There is no vehicular access to the project from the north or south. However, pedestrian interconnections are provided to the north and south. The only development on the RP-1 zoned portion of the project site is the extension of Voncile Avenue onto the site. The remainder of the RP-1 zoned property will be placed into a conservation easement. The Voncile Avenue extension will end in a cul-de-sac at the eastern boundary of the R-4 zoned portion of the project site. The extension will be constructed to meet the City’s standards for public roads, and it will comply with the City’s Street Paving and Sidewalk Policy. The other streets shown on the site plan are considered private drives because they are intended to serve only the project. Those streets and the internal cul-de-sacs have been designed to allow for the provision of City services - – e.g., trash, recycling, fire -– but they do not have to meet the City’s Street Paving and Sidewalk Policy. It was stipulated that the project is consistent with the City’s Driveway and Street Connection Regulations, Policies and Procedures. It was stipulated that the project is consistent with the City’s Parking Standards. The City’s Parking Standards Committee approved tandem parking spaces and an increase in the number of parking spaces in the project. It was stipulated that the project is consistent with the City’s concurrency policies and regulations. A preliminary certificate of concurrency was issued for the project on March 9, 2007. It was stipulated that the project is consistent with the City’s requirements for utilities -- e.g., water, sewer, stormwater, electricity, gas, cable -- and infrastructure for those utilities. However, the Association still has concerns regarding various aspects of the project’s stormwater management system. See Part D(3), below. (2) Site Plan Application and Review On August 4, 2005, the City issued Land Use Compliance Certificate (LUCC) No. TCC060219, which determined that 94 multi-family residential units could be developed on the R-4 zoned portion of the project site. The LUCC noted that the RP-1 zoned portion of the project site “is not eligible for multi-family development,” and that the “[a]ttainment of the full 94 units on the R-4 zoned property may be limited by the presence of regulated environmental features that will be determined via an approved Natural Features Analysis [sic].” On March 10, 2006, Skipper submitted a Type B site plan application for the project. The initial site plan included 82 multi-family units in 13 buildings; an extension of Heather Lane onto the project site to provide vehicular access to the north; vehicular access to the west by way of Voncile Avenue; and no vehicular access to the east. The Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department (Planning Department) and other City departments expressed concerns about the initial site plan in memoranda prepared in advance of the April 10, 2006, DRC meeting at which the site plan was to be considered. A number of neighboring property owners submitted letters to the DRC and other City departments detailing their concerns about the project. A number of neighboring property owners also sent “petitions” to Skipper urging him to reduce the density of the project and to construct single-family detached units rather than multi-family units. The DRC “continued” -- i.e., deferred consideration of -- the site plan at its April 10, 2006, meeting as a result of the concerns expressed by the City departments. The site plan was also “continued” by the DRC at each of its next 10 meetings. Skipper submitted a revised site plan in February 2007 that reduced the number of units in the project from 82 to 78; eliminated the extension of Heather Lane onto the project site; added the connection to Voncile Avenue on the east; and made other changes recommended by City staff. It is not unusual for a site plan to be revised during the DRC review process. Indeed, Mr. Wynn testified that it is “very uncommon” for the initial version of the site plan to be approved by the DRC and that the approved site plan is typically an “evolution” of the initial site plan. That testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Dwight Arnold, the City’s land use and environmental services administrator. The City departments that reviewed the revised site plan -- growth management, planning, public works, and utilities -- each recommended approval of the site plan with conditions. A total of 21 conditions were recommended, many of which were standard conditions imposed on all site plans. The DRC unanimously approved the site plan with the 21 conditions recommended by the City departments at its meeting on March 26, 2007. The DRC was aware of the neighborhood’s objections to the project at the time it approved the site plan. Mr. Arnold, testified that the Growth Management Department was “extraordinarily careful” in its review of the site plan as a result of the neighborhood’s concerns. The site plan received into evidence as Joint Exhibit J13 is an updated version of the revised site plan submitted in February 2007. It incorporates all of the DRC conditions that can be shown on the site plan. For example, the updated site plan shows the “stub-out” at the southern property boundary and the pedestrian interconnections requested by the Planning Department as well as the appropriately designated handicapped parking spaces requested by the Public Works Department. The site plan review process typically takes six months, but Mr. Arnold testified that the process can take longer depending upon the number of issues that need to be addressed. Mr. Arnold testified that there is nothing unusual about the one-year period in this case between the submittal of the site plan and its approval by the DRC. Issues Raised by the Association The primary issues raised by the Association in opposition to the project are the alleged incompatibility of the proposed multi-family development with the surrounding single- family neighborhood; concerns about increased traffic in and around the neighborhood; concerns relating to the design of the project’s stormwater management system and the potential for stormwater run-off from the project to cause flooding in the neighborhood; and the alleged inadequate protection of the environmentally sensitive features on the project site. The public comment presented at the final hearing generally focused on these same issues, but concerns were also raised regarding the potential for increased crime and decreased property values in the neighborhood if college-aged students move into the proposed multi-family units on the project site. Compatibility Protecting the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods from incompatible development is a specifically emphasized “growth management strategy” in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 2.1.1 [L] of the Comprehensive Plan promotes the protection of “existing residential areas from encroachment of incompatible uses that are destructive to the character and integrity of the residential environment.” Paragraph (c) of Policy 2.1.1 [L] requires the adoption of land development regulations to limit future higher density residential development adjoining low density residential areas. Such limitations “are to result in effective visual and sound buffering (either through vegetative buffering or other design techniques) between the higher density residential uses and the low density residential uses; [and] are to discourage vehicular traffic to and from higher density residential uses on low density residential streets.” These Comprehensive Plan provisions are implemented through the buffering requirements in LDC Section 10-177, which requires landscaping and fencing to be installed between potentially incompatible land uses. The width of the buffer and the amount of the landscaping required vary depending upon the proposed and existing land uses. The multi-family development proposed in the project at 7.02 units per acres is not inherently incompatible with the existing single-family neighborhood surrounding the project site. Indeed, as noted above, both uses are considered low density under the LDC and the Comprehensive Plan. Multi-family residential development on the project site furthers the intent of the R-4 zoning district in that it provides for a “transition” between the commercial uses in the Old Bainbridge Square shopping center to the south of the project site and the single-family residential neighborhood to the north of the project site. The Planning Department expressed concerns about the initial site plan’s compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood in its March 24, 2006, memorandum to the DRC. The memorandum recommended that the project be redesigned -- with a lower density and/or clustered single-family lots or townhomes - - in an effort to make it more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Department does not have the authority to require a project to be redesigned; it can only recommend that the developer consider alternative designs. The Planning Department does not have compatibility concerns with the revised site plan. Indeed, Mary Jean Yarbrough, a senior planner with 10 years of experience with the Planning Department, testified that “the site plan has changed significantly from the first submittal” and that it now “meet[s] the compatibility requirements of the comprehensive plan.” Similarly, Wade Pitt, an expert in local land use planning, testified that the project meets the compatibility requirements in the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC. Mr. Pitt also testified the project furthers the intent of the R-4 zoning district by providing a transition between the commercial uses to the south of the project site and the single-family residential uses to the north of the project site. Some of the changes in the site plan mentioned by Ms. Yarbrough that led to the Planning Department no longer having compatibility concerns with the project were the elimination of the Heather Lane interconnection; the reduction in the number of units in the project; the reduction in the size of the eastern stormwater pond; the inclusion of buffers in the project; and the elimination of the road through the project, which allowed for more extensive conservation areas in the central portion of the project site. A Type D buffer is required where, as here, the existing use is single-family and the proposed use is multi- family. The width of a Type D buffer can range from 30 to 100 feet, but the wider the buffer, the less landscaping that is required. The site plan includes a 30-foot wide buffer along the project site's northern and western property lines, as well as along the eastern border of the R-4 zoning district on the project site.1 The 30-foot Type D buffer is required to contain at least 12 canopy trees, six understory trees, and 36 shrubs for every 100 linear feet of buffer. The northern boundary of the R-4 zoned portion of the project site is approximately 1,600 feet long, which means that there will be approximately 864 plants -- 192 canopy trees, 96 understory trees, and 576 shrubs -- in the buffer between the proposed multi-family units and the neighborhood to the north of the project site. The Association contends that a 60-foot Type D buffer should have been required. However, Ms. Yarbrough persuasively testified that the 60-foot buffer actually provides less buffering because it is not required to be as densely vegetated as the 30-foot buffer provided on the site plan. Portions of the buffer shown on the site plan overlap the designated conservation areas that will be subject to the conservation easement on the project site. Mr. Arnold testified that it is not uncommon for buffers to overlap conservation areas. The conservation areas will be disturbed in those areas where the trees and shrubs are planted to comply with the landscaping requirements for the buffer. An eight-foot high fence will be constructed along the northern and western property lines. The site plan shows the fence several feet inside the property line, within the designated conservation areas. However, Mr. Arnold and City biologist Rodney Cassidy testified that the fence will have to be placed outside of the conservation areas along the property lines. LDC Section 10-177(f)(5) does not impact the placement of the fence on the property line as the Association argues in its PRO. That code section requires planting materials to be located on the outside of the fence “[w]hen residential uses buffer against other uses.” Here, the residential uses on the project are not being buffered against “other uses”; they are being buffered against the same type of use, residential. None of the six buildings on the northern side of the project site directly abut the buffer. Only one of the buildings is closer than 40 feet from the northern property line, and three of the buildings are as much as 80 feet from the northern property line. The only development actually abutting the 30-foot buffer is the retaining walls for the stormwater management ponds. The walls will be covered with vines to minimize their aesthetic impact on the adjacent properties. It is not necessary that the trees and shrubs in the buffer reach maturity before a certificate of occupancy is issued; all that is required is that the appropriate type and number of trees and shrubs are planted. The project is adequately buffered from the existing single-family residences to the north and west of the project site. The buffer requirements in the LDC have been met. In addition to the landscaped buffer and fence, impacts of the project on the surrounding neighborhood have been mitigated by the placement of parking on the interior of the site and by the elimination of the Heather Road interconnection that was in the initial site plan, which would have directed more traffic from the project onto the neighborhood streets. In sum, the more persuasive evidence establishes that the project is not inherently incompatible with the surrounding single-family uses and that its impacts on the surrounding neighborhood have been mitigated as required by the LDC. Thus, there is no basis to deny the site plan based upon the incompatibility concerns raised by the Association. Traffic Concerns There is currently considerable traffic on Old Bainbridge Road, particularly during rush hour. This makes it difficult for residents of the neighborhood north of the project site to turn left onto Old Bainbridge Road from Joyner Drive. The amount of traffic on Old Bainbridge Road is in no way unique. There are many streets in the City that have similar amounts of traffic, particularly during rush hour. Vehicles leaving the project will utilize Voncile Avenue, Joyner Drive, and Monticello Drive to access Old Bainbridge Road or Tharpe Street. Those streets are considered collector roads, not local streets. The number of vehicles expected to utilize the local streets in the neighborhood to the north of the project site will not be significant from a traffic engineering perspective. The initial version of the site plan showed Heather Lane being extended onto the project site and connected with a street running through the project. This interconnection, which is no longer part of the site plan, would have increased the amount of traffic on the surrounding neighborhood streets because Heather Lane runs through the middle of the neighborhood to the north of the project site. There are expected to be less than 50 trips entering the eastern portion of the project during the afternoon peak hour, and less than 20 trips entering the western portion of the project during the afternoon peak hour. The exiting trips during the afternoon peak hour are expected to be about half those amounts. The number of trips generated by the project fall below the one percent or 100 trip threshold in the City’s concurrency regulations. A preliminary certificate of concurrency, No. TCM060026, was issued for the project on March 9, 2007, indicating that there will be adequate capacity of roads (and other infrastructure) to serve the project. No credible evidence to the contrary was presented. LDC Section 10-247.11 requires properties in the R-4 zoning district to have vehicular access to collector or arterial streets if the density is greater than eight units per acre. Where, as here, the density of the project is less than eight units per acre, vehicular access to local streets is permitted. In any event, as noted above, access to the project site is by way of Voncile Avenue, which is considered a collector road. In sum, there is no basis to deny the site plan based upon traffic concerns because the project satisfies the City’s traffic concurrency requirements. Stormwater Management/Flooding Concerns Currently, stormwater run-off from the project site flows uncontrolled across the site, down the slope towards the neighborhood to the north that is represented by the Association. The neighborhood had severe flooding problems in the past. The City resolved those problems by reconfiguring the stormwater management system and constructing several stormwater ponds in the neighborhood. The Association is concerned that the stormwater run- off from the project will cause flooding in the neighborhood. The Association also has concerns regarding the design of the stormwater ponds and their proximity to the neighborhood. The project site is located in the upper reaches of a closed basin. As a result, the project’s stormwater management system is subject to the additional volume control standards in LDC Section 5-86(e), which requires the volume of post- development stormwater run-off from the site to be no greater than pre-development run-off. The project’s stormwater management system provides volume control, rate control, and water quality treatment. The system complies with all of the design standards in LDC Section 5-86, including the additional closed basin standards in paragraph (e) of that section. The project will retain all post-development stormwater run-off on site by capturing it and routing it to two stormwater ponds located in the north central portion of the project site. Stormwater run-off will be captured by roof collectors on the buildings and inlets on the streets and then routed to the stormwater ponds through underground pipes. The two stormwater ponds are designed with retaining walls on their north/downhill sides. The walls will have a spread footing, which was a design change recommended by Mr. Thomas to improve the functioning of the ponds. The walls will be eight to nine feet at their highest point, which is less than the 15-foot maximum allowed by LDC Section 5-86(f)(7), and they will be covered with vegetation as required by that section. Access to the stormwater ponds for maintenance is provided by way of the 20-foot wide “pond access” easements shown on the site plan for each pond. These easements meet the requirements of LDC Section 5-86(g)(2). The stormwater ponds are roughly rectangular in shape, rather than curvilinear. The shape of the ponds is a function of the retaining walls that are required because of the sloping project site. The stormwater ponds have been visually integrated into the overall landscape design for the site “to the greatest extent possible” as required by LDC Section 5-86(f)(10). The south side of the ponds will be contoured with landscaping, and the walls around the ponds will be covered with vegetation. The final design of the stormwater ponds and the retaining walls is evaluated during the permitting phase, not during site plan review. The walls must be designed and certified by a professional engineer, and the construction plans submitted during the permitting phase will include a detailed analysis of the soil types on the site to determine the suitability of the walls and to ensure the proper functioning of the ponds. The project’s stormwater management system will also collect and control the overflow stormwater run-off from the existing stormwater pond on the Old Bainbridge Square shopping center site. That run-off currently overflows out of an existing catch basin on the eastern portion of the project site and flows uncontrolled across the project site, down the slope at a rate of 6.7 cubic feet per second (CFS). After the project is developed, that run-off will flow out of a redesigned catch basin at a rate of 0.5 CFS, down the slope through a conservation area, to a graded depression area or “sump” on the northern property line, and ultimately to the existing stormwater management system along Heather Lane. Mr. Arnold and Mr. Cassidy testified that the reduced flow down the slope will benefit the conservation area by reducing erosion on the slope. Mr. Cassidy further testified that he was not concerned with the flow through the conservation easement forming a gully or erosion feature or otherwise altering the vegetation in that area, and that potential impacts could be addressed in a management plan for the conservation area, if necessary. The stormwater ponds and other aspects of the project’s stormwater management system will be privately owned and maintained. However, the operation and maintenance of the system will be subject to a permit from the City, which must be renewed every three years after an inspection. The City can impose special conditions on the permit if deemed necessary to ensure the proper maintenance and function of the system. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the project’s stormwater management system meets all of the applicable requirements in the LDC. On this issue, the testimony of Mr. Thomas and Mr. Wynn was more persuasive than the stormwater-related testimony presented on behalf of the Association by Don Merkel. Mr. Merkel, a former engineer, “eyeballed” the project site and the proposed stormwater management system; he did not perform a detailed analysis or any calculations to support his criticisms of the project’s stormwater management system. In sum, there is no basis to deny the site plan based upon the stormwater management/flooding concerns raised by the Association. Protection of Environmental Features on the Project Site The NFI is required to depict all of the regulated environmental features on the site, including the regulated slopes. The revised NFI approved by the City in August 2007 accurately depicts the environmentally sensitive features on the project site. The environmental features regulated by the City include “severe grades,” which are slopes with grades exceeding 20 percent, and “significant grades,” which are slopes with 10 to 20 percent grades. The project site contains 5.74 acres (250,275 square feet) of “significant grades” and 1.58 acres (68,835 square feet) of “severe grades.” Those figures do not include man-made slopes in the existing drainage easements across the site, which are not subject to regulation. There are 0.76 acres (33,056 square feet) of severe grades on the R-4 portion of the project site that are regulated as significant grades because of their size and location. Thus, there are a total of 6.50 acres (283,331 square feet) of slopes regulated as significant grades on the project site. LDC Section 5-81(a)(1)d. provides that 100 percent of severe grades must be protected and placed in a conservation easement, except for severe grades that are less than one- quarter of an acre in size and located within an area of significant grades that are regulated as significant grades. LDC Section 5-81(a)(2)d. provides that a minimum of 50 percent of significant grades must be left undisturbed and placed in a conservation easement. LDC Section 5-81(a)(2)d.1. provides that the significant grades to be protected are those areas “that provide the greatest environmental benefit as determined by the director [of growth management] (i.e., provides downhill buffers, protects forested areas, buffers other protected conservation or preservation areas, or provides other similar environmental benefits).” The Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) included with the site plan shows that 100 percent of the severe slopes that are regulated as such are protected and will be placed in a conservation easement. The EIA shows that a total of 3.05 acres (133,002 square feet) of the significant grades on the project site will be impacted. That figure is 46.9 percent of the total significant grades on the project site, which means that 53.1 percent of the significant grades will be undisturbed and placed into a conservation easement. It is not entirely clear what environmental benefit is provided by some of the smaller conservation areas shown on the site plan, such as those between several of the buildings, but Mr. Cassidy testified that he took the criteria quoted above into consideration in determining that the site plan meets the applicable code requirements and is “approvable." Moreover, Mr. Arnold testified that similar “small pockets” of conservation areas are located in other areas of the City and that fencing or other appropriate measures can be taken to ensure that the areas are not disturbed. The EIA will be approved simultaneously with, and as part of the site plan. The conservation easement is not required during site plan review. Rather, LDC Section 5-81(b) requires the easement to be recorded no later than 30 days after commencement of site work authorized by an environmental permit. LDC Section 5-81(a)(2)d.1. provides that development activity in the area subject to the conservation easement is prohibited, except for “vegetation management activities that enhance the vegetation and are specifically allowed in a vegetation management plan approved by the director [of growth management].” LDC Section 5-81(b) provides that a management plan for the area subject to a conservation easement “may be approved provided the activity does not interfere with the ecological functioning of the conservation or preservation area and the activities are limited to designs that minimize impacts to the vegetative cover.” That section further provides that the management plan is to be approved “during the [EIA].” Mr. Cassidy testified that an approved management plan is required in order to plant trees in a conservation area. He further testified that impacts related to the construction of the buffer fence could be addressed in the management plan, if necessary. No management plan has been prepared or approved for the project even though there will be planting in the conservation areas that overlap the 30-foot Type D buffer. In sum, more persuasive evidence establishes that the regulated environmentally sensitive features on the project site are accurately depicted in the NFI; that the required amounts of regulated slopes are protected on the site plan; and that, subject to approval of a management plan for the plantings in the buffer as part of the EIA, the project complies with the requirements of the LDC relating to the protection of environmentally sensitive features. Other Issues The final hearing was properly noticed, both to the parties and the general public. Notice of the final hearing was published in the Tallahassee Democrat on September 9, 2007. An opportunity for public comment was provided at the final hearing, and 16 neighboring property owners spoke in opposition to the project. A number of the concerns raised by the Association and the neighboring property owners who spoke at the hearing are permitting or construction issues, not site plan issues. For example, issues related to the engineering specifications for the stormwater pond retaining walls and issues related to the protection of the conservation areas from construction impacts will be addressed and monitored as the project moves through the permitting process. Mr. Arnold testified that Association and neighboring property owners are free to provide input and express concerns on those issues to the appropriate City departments as the project moves through permitting and construction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Planning Commission approve the Type B site plan for the Park Terrace Townhomes project, subject to the 21 conditions recommended by the DRC and additional conditions requiring: the eight-foot high buffer fence to be located on the property lines, outside of the designated conservation areas; and a management plan to be approved for the conservation areas that will be disturbed through the plantings required in the Type D buffer. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the petition to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District. The proposed District consists of approximately 1,015 acres located within unincorporated St. Johns County, Florida. There are two out-parcels, totaling 3.7 acres, within the areas to be included in the District. No adverse impact on these out parcels is expected from the establishment of the district. The estimated cost of the infrastructure facilities and services which are presently expected to be provided to the lands within the District was included in the Petition. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission. Witnesses Maier, Walters, Boring, and Fishkind each stated that he had reviewed portions of the contents of the petition and its attachments and affirmed the petitions findings. Witness Maier testified that the Petitioner has written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent of the real property located within the lands to be included in the District. Witness Maier also presented deeds for parcels of land within the boundaries of the proposed District which have been acquired by the Petitioner or its subsidiaries, as well as consent forms from the Petitioner's subsidiaries. The Petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct, with the addition of the deeds showing land ownership and owners' consent as specified above. Witnesses Walters and Fishkind reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Witness Walters also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan. From a planning and economic perspective, four subjects, subject 16, 18, 21, and 26, of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the establishment of the proposed District as do the policies supporting those subjects. Subject 16, titled Land Use, of the State Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. The proposed District will: have the fiscal capability to provide a wide range of services and facilities to the population in the designated growth area; help provide infrastructure to development the County, thereby helping limit unintended, unplanned sprawl; facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and services to assist in fulfilling the community plan. Subject 18, titled Public Facilities of the State Comprehensive Plan provides that the state shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly and efficient manner. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the District will: plan and finance the infrastructure systems and facilities needed for the development of lands within the District in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner; provide the infrastructure systems and facilities within the District with the landowners and residents benefiting from the new public facilities bearing the costs associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities; act in a type of 'infrastructure partnership' with St. Johns County; have financial self-sufficiency through the use of special assessments, as well as user charges or fees, to provide public facilities; provide a consistent, innovative and fiscally sound alternative for financing public facilities by bringing the cost of managing and financing public facilities down to a level of government closest to its beneficiaries and connecting those who pay for facilities with those who directly benefit from those facilities and services; and be structured to assure secure revenue sources capable of meeting District responsibilities. Subject 21, titled Governmental Efficiency of the State Comprehensive Plan provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the proposed District will: cooperate with other levels of Florida government, such as through entering into interlocal agreement to address maintenance issues for certain roads; be established under uniform general law standards as specified in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes; be professionally managed, financed, and governed by those whose property directly receives the benefits; not burden the general taxpayer with costs for services or facilities inside the District; and plan and implement cost efficient solutions for the required public infrastructure and assure delivery of selected services to residents. Subject 26, titled Plan Implementation of the State Comprehensive Plan, provides that systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination and citizen involvement. The proposed District is consistent with this element of the State Comprehensive Plan because: the proposed District will systematically plan for the construction, operation and maintenance of the public improvements and the community facilities authorized under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, subject to and not inconsistent with the local government comprehensive plan and land development regulations; the District meetings are publicly advertised and are open to the public so that all District property owners and residents can be involved in planning for improvements; Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file and update public facilities reports with the County, which it may rely upon in any revisions to the local comprehensive plan. Based on the testimony and exhibits in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. Witness Walters testified that since St. Johns County has already found the development within the proposed District to be not inconsistent with the St. Johns County local comprehensive plan, the establishment of a community development district would not cause any inconsistency and would be in furtherance of four of the plan's policies, goals and objectives: Policy H.1.3.4 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that 'DRI's planned unit subdivisions, and other large developments shall provide for the dedication of parks and open space to be generated by the development according to the level of service standards.' The proposed District will finance the construction of, and ultimately own and maintain, a community recreational facility. Goal J.1 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that St. Johns County is to ensure the orderly and efficient provision of infrastructure facilities and services such as roads, utilities, recreation, and drainage. The proposed District will serve as an alternative provider of these infrastructure systems and services to meet the needs of the lands within its boundaries; Objective J.1.7 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that the County shall manage fiscal resources to ensure the provision of needed infrastructure. The proposed District will provide the infrastructure facilities and services needed for its lands without burdening the fiscal resources of the County or impacting the bonding limits contained in Policy J.1.7.; Objective K.1.6 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan calls for St. Johns County to work cooperatively with other units of government to address issues and concerns. The proposed District may be expected to enter into interlocal agreements with the County to provide certain enhanced maintenance. Additionally, over the long term, the establishment of the proposed District will provide another unit of local government in place and able to cooperate with the County on future issues and concerns. The State of Florida Department of Community Affairs also reviewed the petition to establish the proposed District and concluded that the petition was consistent with the local comprehensive plan. Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the local comprehensive plan, and will in fact further the goals provided. Most of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community included in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval issued by St. Johns County. The PUD was approved on February 10, 1998. The PUD is found in St. Johns County Ordinance No. 98-7. Section 6 of the PUD Application, which is incorporated into Ordinance 98-7 by reference, explicitly states that a community development district will be established and requires the establishment of the District prior to the sale of the first lot within the development. Petitioner is developing all of the lands within the District as a single master-planned community. Witness Walters testified that functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the community's other purposes. Each function requires a management capability, funding source and an understanding of the size of the community's needs, so as to handle the growth and development of the community. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or the maintenance of the community. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 1,105 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate the basic infrastructure facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. The community is sufficiently compact to be developed as a functionally inter-related community. The compact configuration of the lands will allow the District to provide for the installation and maintenance of its infrastructure facilities in a long-term cost efficient manner. The property is sufficiently contiguous when all parts of a project are either in actual contact or are close enough to allow the efficient design and use of infrastructure. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes and for the purpose of district governance. The size of the proposed community within the District provides a sufficient economic base to absorb the debt costs and annual operating costs for the proposed District. There will be no economic disincentives to the provision of the infrastructure facilities contemplated. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. It is presently intended that the District will participate in the construction or provision of certain infrastructure improvements as outlined in the petition. Installation and maintenance of infrastructure systems and services by the District is expected to be financed by bonds and repaid through the imposition of special assessments on benefited property within the District. Use of such assessments will ensure that the real property benefiting from District services is the same property which pays for them. Two types of alternatives to the use of the proposed District were identified. First, the County might provide facilities and services from its general fund or through a MSTU. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, without public bidding, with maintenance delegated to a homeowners association (HOA). The District exceeds the available alternatives at focusing attention to when and where and how the next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in a full utilization of existing facilities before new facilities are constructed and reduces the delivered cost to the citizens being served. Only a community development district allows for the independent financing, administration, operations, and maintenance of the land within such a district. Only a community development district allows district residents to completely control the district. All of the other alternatives do not have these characteristics. From an engineering perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities because it is a long-term stable, perpetual entity capable of maintaining the facilities over their expected life. From planning, economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the are that will be served by the District. The services and facilities proposed to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities and services within the proposed boundaries will not duplicate any existing regional services or facilities which are provided to the lands within the District by another entity. None of the proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by another entity for the lands to be included within the District. Therefore, the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. As cited previously, from planning, economics, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community. The lands to be included within the proposed District have a need for the basic infrastructure being provided. From an engineering perspective, the area within the proposed District is also large enough to support a staff necessary to operate and maintain the proposed infrastructure systems and facilities. Based upon these characteristics, the proposed District is expected to be financially viable. From planning, engineering, economic, and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the intended District is amenable to separate special-district government. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains such a description. Section 190.005(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, also requires a description of any real property within the external boundaries which is to be excluded from the District and the last known address of the owners of such properties. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains the required information. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that the petition contain the proposed timetable for the construction of any district services and the estimated construction costs for those services as well as the designation of the future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private land uses proposed for the area by the future land use element of the adopted local government comprehensive plan. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains this information. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain written consent to establishment of the District by the owners of one-hundred percent of the real property to be included within the proposed District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains this information which was supplemented by Petitioner at hearing, as it or its subsidiaries acquired title to the lands proposed to be included within the District. Sections 190.005 and 190.006, Florida Statutes, require that each member of a board of supervisors be a resident of Florida and a citizen of the United States. The proposed board members meet these criteria. Section 109.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC), which meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The petition contains a SERC. It meets all requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District -- the State of Florida and its citizens, the country and its citizens, Petitioner, and consumers. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from establishing the District. These costs are related to the incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one additional local government report. The proposed District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which is difficult to quantify but is nonetheless substantial. Administrative costs incurred by the County related to rule adoption should be minimal. Benefits to the County will include improved planning and coordination of development, without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for facilities and services within the proposed District except for those it chooses to accept. Consumers will pay non-ad valorem or special assessments for certain facilities. Location within the District is voluntary. Generally, District financing will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to consumers in the area within the community development district will include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities within the area. Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that St. Johns County was paid the requisite filing fees. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in St. Johns County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in St. Johns County (the St. Augustine Record) for four consecutive weeks on March 13, 2000, March 20, 2000, March 27, 2000, and April 3, 2000. All publications were prior to the hearing. Mr. Stephenson, on behalf of the County's community development district processing group formed in accordance with Section 5.06.00 of the St. Johns County Land Development Code, presented the following proposed findings regarding the approval of the development within the proposed District: On October 28, 1999, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners entered into an Impact Fee Agreement with St. Joe Residential Acquisitions, Inc., and A & S Land Development Company to widen a portion of CR 210 in order to meet concurrency requirements for two projects. St. Joe Residential Acquisitions, Inc. is the developer of the property contained within the Sampson Creek CDD Petition. The project is approved with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning and contains 799 single family residential dwelling units and associated roadways, retention areas, common areas, sales and recreation complex, and an 18-hole golf course. St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners approved the PUB on February 10, 1998. The PUD provides that a CDD will be established and will be in place prior to the sale of the first lot so that purchasers will be aware of their participation and membership in the CDD and of their obligation to pay any taxes that may be levied by the CDD. The PUD and Impact Fee Agreement are separate County approved documents and the creation and operation of a CDD does not in any way affect these documents or their approval without further review by the St. Johns County Board of Commissioners. Impact fee credits shall be awarded in accordance with approved Impact Fee Agreement which ensures that the credits are awarded to the appropriate entity. The CDD processing group finds no inconsistencies with the six factors as described in Section 190.005(6), Florida Statutes. With these findings, Mr. Stephenson testified that St. Johns County has no objection to the establishment of the proposed District.
Conclusions On Monday April 10, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., the local public hearing for the Petition to Establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District was held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Cleavinger, at the St. Johns County Public Library, 950 Davis Pond Boulevard, in St. Johns County, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of taking testimony, public comment, and receiving exhibits on the petition of the St. Joe/Arvida Company, L.P. (Petitioner) to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District (District) in northern St. Johns County, Florida. This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 120, and 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District as requested by Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed rule, after inclusion of the legal description, in substantially the form attached to this Report of Findings and Conclusions as Attachment 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Daniel Woodring, Esquire Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carol Licko, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The general issue for determination in this administrative proceeding is whether Ordinance No. 1266-2002, adopting Amendment 02-1 (Plan Amendment) to the City of Rockledge's Comprehensive Plan, is not "in compliance" within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Petition for Administrative Hearing, as amended.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners, Shelly W. Sutterfield, William E. Sutterfield, Becky Kosher, and James Kosher, are residents of the City, who reside within Pine Cove Subdivision, which is east of Fountain's property. This subdivision is located in the City's Planning District 8. Ms. Sutterfield stated that Petitioners want "to maintain the integrity of [their] planning district as low and medium-density in [their] neighborhood." Ms. Sutterfield also believed that the Plan Amendment "will add a high-density residential close to -- in close proximity to [their] neighborhood" and that "it will set a precedent for others to do the same thing." Ms. Kosher agreed. Petitioners appeared at most, if not all, of the local government public hearings held regarding consideration of the Plan Amendment leading up to and including the adoption of Ordinance No. 1266-2002 by the City. Petitioners opposed the Plan Amendment during each hearing. See also Findings of Fact 35-40. The Department is the state land planning agency responsible for reviewing local government comprehensive plans and plan amendments pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (Act). This includes review of the proposed Plan Amendment adopted by the City, and a determination of whether the proposed Plan Amendment is "in compliance" with the Act. In this case, the Department reviewed the Plan Amendment submitted by the City and determined that it was "in compliance" with the Act. The City is the oldest incorporated municipality in Brevard County. The City is located on the shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon south of the City of Cocoa and north of Palm Shores and Melbourne. The City is approximately 10 square miles with a population of 20,174 as of 2000. The City is primarily a residential community, although it has some light, clean industry as well as a variety of commercial centers and institutional facilities, including a hospital, four public and three private schools, and churches of various denominations. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan and a FLUM, which was amended last on July 19, 2000, excluding the Plan Amendment at issue in this case. The City is divided into eight planning districts as reflected on the City's FLUM and in the text to the FLUE, Chapter 1, Appendix A, Planning District Guidelines, of the Comprehensive Plan. On May 19, 1999, the City adopted its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)-based amendments to its Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Ordinance No. 1182-99. Fountain is incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida and owns all the property (located within the City of Rockledge) that is the subject of the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment On or about August 23, 2001, Fountain submitted an application to the City, requesting the Plan Amendment at issue in this proceeding. First, Fountain requested a change to the City's FLUM, removing their property from Planning District 8, and placing it in Planning District 5. The property consists of approximately 9.163 acres (site or subject property) and is located adjacent to the intersection of Huntington Lane, to the east, and Eyster Boulevard, to the north. The property has pine trees and open grass areas. The subject property has no significant historical value and no environmental concerns have been raised. See Findings of Fact 50-68 for a more complete description of the subject property in relation to existing, surrounding land uses. As noted in Fountain's application: The applicant is proposing to build a high- rise apartment complex and needs additional density to meet the scale of economy for the project. The applicant also believes that with the FPL substation directly to the south and the property to the west being a large multi-family apartment project and the property to the north allowing manufacturing[,] [i]t would make more sense for the property to be in Planning District 5, instead of Planning District 8. The property to the east allows a mixture of low-density residential and single-family residential. In its application, Fountain claimed that the maximum allowed development under the existing designation in the FLUM for the property site is 96 residential dwelling units. Petitioners dispute this number and claim that the error is material. If the Plan Amendment is approved, the maximum allowable development under the proposed designation for the site is 118 dwelling units, i.e., 9.163 acres times a proposed maximum density of 13 dwelling units per acre. There is no dispute regarding this number. To this end, Fountain indicated that it "is willing to enter into a binding development agreement during the rezoning phase with the City to ensure adequate buffering to adjoining properties, where needed, as well as eliminate the possibility of the property to be used for commercial or manufacturing purposes." Fountain submitted a draft agreement to the City. However, no agreement has been signed by Fountain or the City. The subject property (without the Plan Amendment) is located in the northwest quadrant of Planning District 8. Planning District 5 is located immediately north of the subject property (across the street), and north of Eyster Boulevard, which runs east and west. Planning District 5 is located on the FLUM as a mixed- use planning district. The subject property, and the property to the west, south and east, are located in Planning District 8, which is designated as medium density residential on the FLUM. As defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, "[m]edium density residential land uses shall be at a density greater than three (3) dwelling units per acre and not exceeding fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre." As provided in the Comprehensive Plan "Guidelines" for Planning District 5, the density for Planning District 5 for a new residential development "is limited to a maximum of fourteen (14.0) dwelling units per acre. . . ." With respect to Planning District 8, the "Guidelines" provide that the [m]aximum density allowed shall not exceed five (5) dwelling units per acre, current multi-family zoning districts shall be limited to existing densities. Any proposed zoning district changes shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) dwelling units per acre. Undeveloped areas west of Fiske Boulevard will be encouraged to be developed with a maximum of three (3) dwelling units per acre in order to protect the natural character of the land. In addition to requesting a change in the FLUM designation for the site, from Planning District 8 to Planning District 5, Fountain also proposed, and the City ultimately adopted, a textural Plan Amendment to the Planning District 5 "Guidelines," including paragraph 5.A., which provides: Those areas located on the west side of Huntington Lane and south of Eyster Boulevard and north of the Florida Power and Light sub-station, may develop residential at a maximum of thirteen (13.0) dwelling units per acre (appropriate zoning districts include R2A, R3, TH). No principal structure shall be constructed within 225 feet of the right-of-way of Huntington to a distance of 425 feet from the south boundary of the described property, and not closer than 50 feet to Huntington Lane beyond the 425 feet. Other conditions include the submittal of a binding site plan, building height limited to a maximum of 38 feet; deceleration lane to any point of ingress and egress, traffic calming techniques will be used at entrances, and sidewalk along Huntington Lane for the entire length of the property. Paragraph 5.A. was adopted as a site-specific addition within the Planning District 5 "Guidelines." Petitioners claim that this provision, when read with other provisions discussed in Planning District 5, allows Fountain to develop authorized land uses on the subject property, other than the development of only residential dwelling units. When read in its entirety, and based on the weight of the evidence, the text Plan Amendment authorizes only residential dwelling units and no other land use. The inclusion of only residential zoning districts and the clear language that the property may be developed "at a maximum of thirteen (13.0) dwelling units per acre" bolster this finding. Further, it is not uncommon for local governments to include various restrictions, such as maximum height restrictions and setback requirements, in plan amendments. These restrictions are not considered land development regulations within the context of the Comprehensive Plan. Rather, they are plan policies which define the parameters for future development within the planning districts, including Planning District 5. There is a body of "land development regulations" which are intended to implement comprehensive plans and are subject to independent scrutiny. See, e.g., Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes. However, the restrictions noted in the Plan Amendment are not land development regulations within the context of this "in compliance" review proceeding. Donald Robert Griffin of the City prepared a report consisting of two pages. Prior to preparing the report, Mr. Griffin reviewed the properties surrounding the subject property and also analyzed the potential impacts of the Plan Amendment on roads, sewer, and water, for example. In analyzing paragraph 5.A., City staff also considered in part setbacks and reducing the zoning on the site to ensure compatibility. The staff report includes input from City department heads, the City Manager, and other staff. Staff recommended approval. Staff indicated that the change in the residential land use classification for the approximate 9.163 acres would be consistent with the City's allocation percentages in its Comprehensive Plan. (The "need" for this Plan Amendment is not at issue in this proceeding.) Staff further noted: It would be staff's opinion that if the Brevard County enclave: (east of Fiske Blvd.; north of Howard Blvd. and south of Eyster Blvd.) was annexed into the city it would probably be put into Planning District 5, since it has a combination of mixed land uses. In addition, those properties immediately to the west of the subject property are identified as Woodhaven Apartments (799 Eyster Blvd.) a multi-family complex and the BCARC Group Home (951 Eyster Blvd.) a multi-family complex. Immediately to the south of the subject property is an FPL electrical substation. Immediately east of the subject property is Huntington Lane, a 50-foot road right-of-way, and property zoned either R-2A or R-2 on the east side of Huntington Lane. Immediately to the north of the subject property is Eyster Boulevard, a 100-foot-right-of-way and vacant M-1 industrial property. At the eastern terminus of Howard Boulevard, Florida Power and Light has a 100-foot wide easement, where power lines are currently in place. The easement limits the additional expansion of buildings into this 100-foot area. The property on the east end of Pine Cove, has a mixture residential and commercial uses adjacent to it, as part of Planning District 5. If this Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved to allow the proposed change into Planning District 5, staff would recommend that when the property goes for rezoning, based on compatibility and consistency issues, that only residential land uses be allowed on the 9.163 acres. In addition, if the Amendment is approved, it should be suggested to the City Council that the area between Howard Boulevard and FPL Easement to the South; Fiske Boulevard to the west; Huntington Lane to the East; be incorporated into Planning District 5 at a future date. The Applicant does not have control over any other property beyond the 9.163 acres, noted in the application. Fountain's planner, Rochelle W. Lawandales, prepared a planning report dated October 2001. This document was submitted to the City for its consideration. This planning report provides technical information to support the proposed textural addition to the "Guidelines" (5.A.) for Planning District 5 and change to the FLUM. Ms. Lawandales describes the subject property, including the existing density for the approximate 9.163 acre site, as follows: "Approximately 6 acres [of the 9.163 acres] are zoned R-3 with a density of 13 units per acre. The remaining approximate 3 acres are designated as R-2 and R-2A. R-2A is medium density multi-family district allowing up to 8 units per acre and the R-2 allows up to 5 units per acre." (emphasis added.) (In 2001, the City approved a rezoning request for the six-acre parcel, changing the zoning from R-2A to R-3. According to the Comprehensive Plan, an R-3 designation authorizes a maximum density of 14 units per acre, not 13. It is uncertain why Ms. Lawandales used 13 units per acre.) The multiplication of approximate 9.163 acres times the noted (by Ms. Lawandales) densities per acre, yields a specific density of 96 residential units, which is the same number used in item 19 of Fountain's application. When this number (96) is subtracted from the maximum allowable development under the proposed designation (Plan Amendment) for the subject property, i.e., 118 units (9.163 X 13), the difference is 22, which purports to be the number of additional units which would be authorized if the proposed Plan Amendment is approved. Petitioners assert this number is incorrect and the record supports Petitioners' position in part. Prior to the EAR-based amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1999, it appears that the zoning for the approximate north six acres of the subject property was R-2A, with a density of eight units per acre, which yields 48 units. The density for one acre was R-2A, which yields an additional eight units per acre. The remaining two acres were assigned a designation of R-2, which yields a density of five units per acre, or ten total units per acre for the two acres. When added together, the approximate 9.163-acre parcel yields a maximum allowable development for the subject property, pre-EAR- based amendment, of 66 units per acre, not 96 units per acre. This means that the maximum allowable additional development on the subject property under the existing land use designation, within the Planning District 8 pre-EAR-based amendments is 52, or 118 minus 66, not 22. Petitioners claim that the post-EAR based amendment zoning would allow five units per acre for the north six acres or approximately 31 units. (Presumably, this is based on Petitioners' contention that the density authorized for Planning District 8 for "post-EAR based amendment zoning" is five dwelling units per acre based on the following Planning District 8 statement regarding density: "Maximum density allowed shall not exceed five (5) dwelling units per acre, current multi- family zoning districts shall be limited to existing densities.") The zoning for the remaining three acres remained the same, which yields 18 units, for a total of 49 units, which would be allowed on the subject property without the Plan Amendment. According to Petitioners, this means that the Plan Amendment will authorize an additional 69 units, i.e., 118 minus 49, not the 22 units disclosed by Fountain. Fountain's representation that approval of the Plan Amendment would yield only an additional 22 dwelling units on the subject property was carried over to the Department's two (2) staff analyses, which were prepared in response to the proposed Plan Amendment. See Finding of Fact 43. Whether this revelation would have changed the City's, or the Department's, decisions is unknown, although the City Council and the Department were advised that the Plan Amendment authorized a maximum of 118 units. It is persuasive that the Department, in assessing whether the Plan Amendment is "in compliance," in part, considered the total maximum theoretical density, or 118 residential dwelling units, which may be authorized by the Plan Amendment on the subject property. Importantly, the maximum density of the proposed land use is expressly stated in the textural Plan Amendment, which was approved by the City, and found to be "in compliance" by the Department. Local Government Hearings Regarding the Plan Amendment On September 17, 2001, the Citizen's Advisory Committee (Committee) met to consider the Plan Amendment. The minutes reflect that the staff report mentioned in Finding of Fact 25 was presented to the Committee; that the Committee had several questions, which are noted in the minutes along with the responses; that Fountain gave a brief presentation using Ms. Lawandales' planning document referred to herein; and that several residents, including Ms. Kosher and Ms. Sutterfield, spoke in opposition. A motion to approve the request failed by a vote of four to two. On October 2, 2001, the Planning Commission (Commission) met to consider the proposed Plan Amendment. Fountain presented its position. (The Commission is the land planning agency for the City.) Ms. Lawandales also gave a presentation on behalf of Fountain. Several persons who are identified as having Cocoa and Rockledge addresses, appeared before the Commission. While some persons from Cocoa and Rockledge favored the proposal, the majority of the persons with Rockledge addresses opposed the project. Mr. McKnight, the City Manager, stated that the hearing before the Commission "did not require advertisement in the newspaper, as previously done; therefore, this too, was not an issue of concern, but that the property had been posted and all property owners within 500 feet were mailed a notice." Ms. Kosher and Ms. Sutterfield opposed the Plan Amendment. The Commission unanimously approved the Plan Amendment. On October 17, 2001, the City Council conducted a public hearing "to consider the request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and cause the scheduling of a Transmittal Hearing." Ms. Kosher, Ms. Sutterfield and others opposed the Plan Amendment. Others supported the request. In response to concerns raised by Ms. Sutterfield regarding advertisements for this meeting and the Planning Commission meeting on October 2, City Manager McKnight responded that a newspaper advertisement is not required until the Transmittal Hearing. By unanimous vote, a motion to authorize a public hearing before the Commission on November 6, 2001, and a transmittal hearing before the City Council on November 7, 2001, was passed. On November 1, 2001, the City had published a "Notice of Change of Land Use" in "Florida Today," a newspaper of general circulation, published in Brevard County. This "Notice" advised the public of hearings to be held on November 6, 2001, before the Planning Commission and on November 7, 2001, before the City Council. Ms. Sutterfield received notice of the transmittal hearings by U.S. Mail prior to the hearings.1 On November 6, 2001, the Commission met once again to consider the Plan Amendment. The minutes of this public hearing reflect that "this was a transmittal public hearing." Local residents, including Ms. Kosher and Ms. Sutterfield, voiced their opposition to the Plan Amendment. The Commission voted in favor of the Plan Amendment by a vote of six to one. On November 7, 2001, the City Council met to consider the Plan Amendment. This transmittal hearing was held six days, not seven days, after the notice was published. Once again Ms. Kosher and Ms. Sutterfield opposed the Plan Amendment along with two other persons giving a Rockledge address. By unanimous vote, the City Council approved a motion to authorize transmittal of the Plan Amendment to the Department. This was the first of two transmittal hearings conducted by the City. The second was conducted on February 6, 2002, after timely notice was advertised. On February 6, 2002, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1266-2002, incorporating the Plan Amendment. Notice The City did not comply with the seven-day advertising requirement set forth in Section 163.3184(15)(b)1., Florida Statutes. See Conclusions of Law 101-102. It is concluded, however, that the "due public notice" procedures set forth in the City's Land Development Code do not apply. See Conclusion of Law 101. This is not fatal. Ms. Sutterfield and Ms. Kosher attended the November 6 and 7, 2001, transmittal hearings, as well as other hearings, both before and after these transmittal hearings, furnishing the City with their comments and objections at each hearing. Also, Ms. Sutterfield received notice of the transmittal hearings by U.S. Mail prior to the hearings. Ms. Kosher has been involved with this matter since November of 1999. Petitioners have shown no prejudice arising out of the City's non-compliance with the advertising/notice requirement for the transmittal hearings. The Department's Review of the Plan Amendment On November 15, 2001, the Department received the City's letter of transmittal with supporting documentation, including the proposed Plan Amendment. By Memorandum dated January 4, 2002, the Department "[s]taff has identified no potential objections or comments with the proposed amendments." With respect to the textural Plan Amendment to Planning District Policy 5.A., the Department staff stated: "The addition of this policy to Planning District 5 limits the potential growth of the parcel to 13 dwelling units per acre from the 14 now allowed in the Planning District. This is consistent with District 5 Mixed Use and Medium Density Residential Land Uses. Additionally the lower dwelling unit concentration in combination with the specific building set back regulations will work to buffer District 8 from the non-residential land uses in District 5." With respect to moving the approximate 9.163 acres subject property from Planning District 8 to Planning District 5, the Department staff noted: Moving the tract of land from Planning District 8 to Planning District 5 will allow for an additional 22 dwelling units to be developed on the land. The applicant is willing to enter into a binding development agreement during the rezoning phase with the City to ensure adequate buffering to adjoining properties, as well as eliminating the possibility of the property being used for commercial or manufacturing purposes. The analysis of existing public facilities provided shows the infrastructure is adequate to support the additional 22 dwelling units the proposed land use change would allow. The site is not home to any significant historic resources nor is it home to any endangered, threatened or species of special concern. The Department did not receive any negative comments from the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of State, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, or the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. The Department received several letters from citizens, objecting to the proposed Plan Amendment and summarized them as follows: "The residents state the high density residential development would be incompatible with the existing low density residential neighborhood. The residents opposing the amendment state it is spot zoning and will set a negative precedent for other developers. Several residents also mention the increase in traffic and how this would impact the safety of school children. The residents question the ability of the existing infrastructure will [sic] be adequate to serve the increased population. They also mention the insufficient notice given for the LPA meeting." On February 6, 2002, the City approved the Plan Amendment during a public hearing and, thereafter, sent the Department Ordinance No. 1266-2002, with supporting documents. Notice of this public hearing was published in the January 24, 2002, edition of The Reporter, published weekly in Brevard County, and a newspaper of general circulation. On March 11, 2002, the Department staff conducted a review of the Plan Amendment in order to prepare its notice of intent. The staff analysis reflects no comments or objections from the Department with respect to the Plan Amendment. On March 29, 2002, the Department had published "notice of its intent to find the Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Rockledge adopted by Ordinance No. 1266-2002 on February 6, 2002, IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187 and 163.3189, F.S." Thereafter, Petitioners filed a timely challenge to the Department's Notice of Intent. Petitioners' Challenges Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is not "in compliance," as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, because the Plan Amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis; is not compatible with surrounding land uses; and is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners also argue that the Plan Amendment approves spot zoning or spot planning. Petitioners further contend that the City did not comply with statutory and City notice requirements prior to its transmittal hearing and, as a result, that the Plan Amendment is void ab initio. Data and Analysis Description of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area Fountain's property, approximately 9.163 acres, is rectangular in shape and is bounded on the north by, and directly abuts, Eyster Boulevard. This site is located in the geographic center of the City. Eyster Boulevard, abutting and to the north of the site and between Fiske Boulevard and Murrell Road, is a two-lane urban collector road (between Fiske Boulevard and Murrell Road), with a right-of-way width of 100 feet, and with a current Level of Service (LOS) of C, with a minimum acceptable LOS of E. (There are no traffic/transportation-related issues raised in this proceeding. Also, there is no evidence that the Plan Amendment will cause any reduction or deficiencies in the LOS for utilities.) Across Eyster Boulevard to the north of the site and extending west from Huntington Lane in Planning District 5, are industrial uses, mobile homes, apartment complexes, some commercial uses and Kennedy Middle School. The subject property is bounded on the west by an existing two-story, multi-family development, developed to eight units per acre, known as Woodhaven Apartments. The development of these apartments pre-dates the adopted EAR-based amendments. The apartments are located in Planning District 8, and will continue to be located in Planning District 8 if the Plan Amendment is approved. The Brevard County Association for Retarded Persons (BCARC), located west of Woodhaven, is a group home multi-family complex also located in Planning District 8, which has been developed at more than 25 units per acre. Development of this facility pre-dates the EAR-based amendments. A Brevard County enclave, consisting of a wide variety of uses, including commercial and manufacturing, is located east along Eyster Boulevard and west to Fiske Boulevard, and west of the BCARC. This enclave does not have a land use designation on the FLUM (nor is it within Planning District 8) because it is outside the jurisdiction of the City. (Objective 8.2 of the Comprehensive Plan states in part: "Any proposed development will be evaluated for its impact on adjacent local governments. ") The subject property is also bounded on the south by a Florida Power and Light (FPL) substation, within planning District 8, which has a R-2 zoning classification, five units per acre. There is a 100-foot FPL easement which runs east and west, directly south of the substation. This substation was in existence at the time of the adoption of the EAR-based amendments. Also, church property is located south of the 100 foot easement. The subject property is bounded on the east by, and directly abuts, Huntington Lane. Huntington Lane runs perpendicular north and south of Eyster Boulevard. Huntington Lane, south of Eyster Boulevard, which abuts the subject property, apparently carries no designation in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and is considered to be a local two-lane road. (Huntington Lane north of Eyster Boulevard is designated by the City in its Comprehensive Plan as a local road.) The right-of-way width for Huntington Lane adjacent to and east of the subject property is 50 feet. Immediately east of the site and adjacent to the Huntington Lane right-of-way, is vacant property of an approximate depth of 175 feet. This vacant land runs south to north and then east, abutting Eyster Boulevard to the south. For the most part, this vacant land has a density under the Comprehensive Plan of R-2A, which authorizes a density of eight units per acre. There is also vacant land to the east of the site and abutting the Huntington Lane right-of-way, which is due south of the rectangular vacant land, which has a density of R- 2, which permits five units per acre. The single-family subdivision (Pine Cove) is located to the east of the vacant land which abuts Huntington Lane. Petitioners reside in this single-family subdivision. (The maximum potential density for the subdivision allowed multi-family residential units, with eight units per acre. However, the developer opted to build single-family residential homes instead.) The predominant land use character of Planning District 8 is single-family residential. This includes the subdivision where Petitioners reside. The subject property has approximately 900 feet of frontage on Huntington Lane. The subject property is approximately 1,500 to 2,000 feet east of Fiske Boulevard, which is a roadway designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a four-lane divided minor arterial. (It is contemplated that Eyster will ultimately have five lanes. There are also existing intersection improvements at the corner of Huntington and Eyster.) The subject property is approximately one mile west of Murrell Road, which is a roadway designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a four-lane divided minor arterial. Both Fiske Boulevard and Murrell Road have a center turn lane with no islands. Prior to the proposed Plan Amendment, all the property within the City located south of and along Eyster Boulevard, between Fiske Boulevard and Murrell Road, was included in Planning District 8, except for the several parcels (referred to in this proceeding as "incursions") east of the subdivision, abutting Murrell Road. Also, prior to the proposed Plan Amendment, all of the property within the City located north of and along Eyster Boulevard, between Fiske Boulevard and Murrell Road, was included in Planning District 5. The incursions along Murrell Road are authorized by the City in its Comprehensive Plan. The incursions are contiguous to the residential dwellings and not separated by a 50 foot road right-of-way, as in the case of Huntington lane. However, these incursions are approximately one mile from the subject property and Petitioners' residences. These incursion areas along Murrell Road allow for Planning District 5 and Planning District 6 land uses pursuant to specific textural provisions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for each of these planning districts. These textural provisions restrict Planning District 5 and Planning District 6 incursions in that area to a maximum depth of 630 feet west of Murrell Road, as well as provide other limitations on the types and intensities of development. (According to the Comprehensive Plan, the first 300 feet of the 630 feet can be developed at 14 units per acre, and the next 330 feet at eight units per acre. Also, "[r]esidential uses may be allowed to locate on the west side of Murrell Road to a depth of six hundred thirty (630) feet. Commercial uses may also be allowed to a depth of three hundred (300) feet.") The provisions for Planning District 6 incursions west of Murrell Road, as to densities and depth of development, are the same as those recited for Planning District 5 incursions on the west side of Murrell Road. The Planning District 5 and Planning District 6 incursions along Murrell Road predate the EAR-based amendments. Other than the incursions along Murrell Road, there have been no incursions of Planning District 5 into Planning District 8 until the Plan Amendment. The existing provisions covering Planning Districts 5 and 8 were the result of EAR-based amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City in mid-1999. Planning District 8 was created by splitting the area from a then larger existing planning district.2 The City's Comprehensive Plan Planning Districts In its Comprehensive Plan, the City created eight planning districts. The boundaries and policies in the planning districts are fluid. Planning District 8, in which the subject property was located prior to the proposed Plan Amendment, is designated as the Central Rockledge Area. The "Area Objective" of this planning district is [t]o maintain and improve this area as a low and medium density residential area and insure that future development will not substantially alter or depreciate the existing character of the area. This planning district also authorizes, in part, the following types of land uses: Development within the district will be limited primarily to single-family detached dwellings and directly related land uses such as parks, schools, utilities, streets and other such activities whose primary purpose is to serve residents of the district. . . . Limited commercial, professional, and multi-family residential uses will be considered in appropriate locations based on severe compatibility and consistency tests. After due consideration by the city other zoning district [sic] shall be limited to existing use which range from R2A, R-3, TH, P1, C1, to C2, which may be changed and approved only if consistent with, and compatible to the intent or [sic] criteria of this district. The maximum density allowed in Planning District 8 "shall not exceed five (5) dwelling units per acre, current multi-family zoning districts shall be limited to existing densities. Any proposed zoning district changes shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) dwelling units per acre. Undeveloped areas west of Fiske Boulevard will be encouraged to be developed with a maximum of three (3) dwelling units per acre in order to protect the natural character of the land." Planning District 5 is designated as the Barton Boulevard Area. The "Area Objective" for this planning district is [t]o guide development in this area toward the establishment of a mixed-use area consisting of highly intensive mixed uses while maintaining compatibility with regional thoroughfares, local roads, municipal systems, and adjacent land uses. In part, "[d]evelopment in this district wall be limited to retail trade, business and professional offices, multiple family attached dwellings, public and semi-public service, . . . and other such activities that are compatible with and support the intent of this district." The density of new residential development in the Planning District 5 "is limited to a maximum of fourteen (14.0) dwelling units per acre. . . ." "Compatibility" is discussed in the Planning District 5 "Guidelines" as follows: Urban design guidelines shall be developed which address appropriate scale, materials, building orientation, signing, landscaping, detailing, and other physical features within the district. Adherence to the design guidelines shall be required to insure orderly development of the area and compatibility of uses within and adjacent to the district. Adequate vegetation, constructed buffers (fences, walls, berms, etc.) and/or open space will be used between different land uses. Compatibility, Suitability, and Urban Infill The Plan Amendment proposes the development of a maximum of 118 residential units, with a maximum density of 13 units per acre for the 9.163 acres. The site and the surrounding property to the east, south, and west are designated as "medium density residential" land uses on the FLUM. According to the Comprehensive Plan, a low density residential land use is restricted to a "density not exceeding three (3) dwelling units per acre." A medium density residential land use would include "a density greater than three (3) dwelling units per acre and not exceeding fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre." The site (as proposed) and the surrounding property are within the parameters of these measuring sticks, with the site (as proposed) at the upper end and the apartments (to the west) and the subdivision (to the east), as developed, at the lower end of the density spectrum. Yet both areas are within the medium density residential definition. In reviewing the Plan Amendment, the Department considered whether the uses proposed in the Plan Amendment in Planning District 5 were compatible with surrounding property, including the subdivision east of the site. In support, Mr. Wilburn testified in part: "We look at the surrounding area based on internal compatibility or compatibility in [sic] any other internal policies they may have as far as the movement or restriction of a planning district." Whether a proposed land use is compatible with surrounding land uses is a question of degree, rather than black and white. To this end, the Department examines what the comprehensive plan allows from a standpoint of maximum proposed density. On the other hand, the Department does not ignore the reality as to actual build-out on surrounding property. Consistency with the authorized land uses in Planning District 5 was also considered. As noted by Mr. Wilburn, "in this case Planning District 5 allows residential, industrial, commercial. Commercial or heavy industrial might be inconsistent next to residential, but as part of the plan amendment, they have limited it strictly to residential." However, the Department did not review the Plan Amendments for consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies for Planning District 8 because the City is proposing to change the boundaries and make-up of Planning District 5, not Planning District 8. Here, as noted above, the issue of whether the proposed development as contemplated by the Plan Amendment is "compatible" with the surrounding property is largely a question of degree. For example, a nine-story high-rise, with 50 units per acre, next to a single-family residential area would most likely present compatibility problems. In this vein, Henry B. Iler, Petitioners' expert planner, opined that the proposed (by the Plan Amendment) three-story multi-family housing project would not be compatible with the single-family subdivision to the east of the site. Mr. Iler believes that going from five or eight units per acre to 13 units per acre takes the proposed development out of the existing character of the subdivision. Stated otherwise, Mr. Iler believes that with a density of eight units per acre, the land could be developed with single-family homes and "a few simple townhouses," whereas, with 13 units per acre, the land use would "move into the apartment/attached- housing product." For Mr. Iler, it is the latter described development which makes the proposed development "out of character" with the existing subdivision. The Department's expert planner, Mr. Roger Wilburn, and other experts, opined to the contrary. For Mr. Wilburn, compatibility is one of degree. In light of the nature of the surrounding property, and given the restrictions in the Plan Amendment, e.g., transition buffers (distance requirements in paragraph 5.A. and other provisions set forth in the Planning District 5 "Guidelines," and the restriction to residential use only, it is at least fairly debatable that the Plan Amendment, authorizing the development of the 9.163 acres as residential, with a maximum density of 13 units per acre, is "compatible" with the surrounding property and is not otherwise inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is also at least fairly debatable that the Plan Amendment is "suitable" to the area. (For example, there are no environmental, topographical, or soil factors at issue which might make the land unsuitable for its intended use.) The subject property may also be considered urban infill as it is in the middle of an urban area, served by existing urban services. The Plan Amendment seeks approval of residential development which is functionally related to surrounding property and is creating a compact development.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Plan Amendment adopted by the City of Rockledge in Ordinance No. 1266-2002 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an existing special tax district, created on August 18, 1975, by Broward County Ordinance 75-22. (See Exhibit "A"). A legal description of the property which comprises the ITSMTD, and which would comprise the community development district, is contained within Section 1(a) of Ordinance 75-22 (Exhibit "A"). On December 22, 1980, the Board of Supervisors of the ITSMTD adopted a resolution (Exhibit "B") authorizing and directing the proper district officials to file a Petition with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to reestablish the district as a community development district pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. The ITSMTD filed its Petition to reestablish the district as a community development district on January 22, 1981. The Petition named five (5) persons to serve as initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the proposed new district. These persons, who presently constitute the Board of Supervisors of the existing district, are Norman A. Cortese, Ellen Mills Gibbs, F. A. Mapleton, Robert E. Huebner and Edward F. Kosnick. The Petition recites that the proposed name of the new district will be the Indian Trace Community Development District, and that the District boundaries will remain the same as the existing special tax district. By letter dated January 29, 1981, the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission requested the assignment of a Hearing Officer form the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the necessary public hearing. The ITSMTD has jurisdiction over approximately 13,000 contiguous acres which lie within the unincorporated area of Broward County, Florida. A map showing the particular location of the property within the jurisdiction of the ITSMTD was presented and received into evidence. (Exhibit "C"). Petitioner presented the following additional Exhibits which were received into evidence: Development orders adopted June 27, 1978 and August 17, 1979 by the Broward County Commission. (Exhibit "D"). The development orders were adopted by the Broward County Commission pursuant to the development of regional impact permitting processes established by Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. These development orders govern or affect development of all land within the ITSMTD. A map which designates the future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land proposed for the area within the district by the Future Land Use Element of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. (Exhibit "E"). A proposed timetable for constructing district services and the estimated cost of constructing those services. (Exhibit "F"). An economic impact statement which, based upon available data, estimates the economic impact on all persons directly affected by the proposed action and which sets forth in detail the data and method used in making the estimate. (Exhibit "G"). Proof of publication that public notice of the hearing conducted on March 25, 1981 was published once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing in the Fort Lauderdale News. (Exhibit "H"). The Future Land Use Plan Element of the Broward County comprehensive Plan which has been adopted by Broward County in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. (Exhibit "I"). An agreement between ITSMTD, Arvida Corporation, and the City of Sunrise providing for the purchase of both water and sewer services by the ITSMTD from the City of Sunrise and committing the ITSMTD to make use of a Regional 201 Sewer Plan, when such plan is operational and capable of serving the district. ("Exhibit 'J'"). The ITSMTD was created by Broward County to provide certain services such as water, water management and control, sewers, and roads for an area of land consisting of approximately 13,000 acres. Included within this area of land is the 10,000 acre new community to be developed by Arvida Corporation known as Weston. The new community is a development of regional impact and is subject to two development orders adopted by Broward County (Exhibit "D"). The Weston development is a low density, residential new community which also includes industrial and commercial uses. It is presently planned to be developed over a 25-30 year period of time and will eventually contain 20,500 dwelling units and will have a population of 40,000. The two development orders grant master development approval to the Weston community and grant incremental development approval to the first two increments (approximately 7,000 acres). the third increment is designated for future incremental approval (approximately 3,000 acres presently planned for industrial, commercial, and airport uses). The 7,000 acres of land within Weston which comprise increments 1 and 2 pursuant to the aforementioned development orders have been zoned as a planned unit development. The zoning classification allows the construction of 18,000 dwelling units and the development of 500 acres of business-commercial land. To date, three (3) plats have been approved by Broward County within the Weston community. The Weston development and all proposed uses within the ITSMTD are consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of Broward County, Florida, including policies and requirements relating to trafficways, open space and parks, and provision for housing (Exhibits "E" and "I"). The area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional, interrelated community for the following reasons: The area of land within the ITSMTD is composed of approximately 13,000 acres. 10,000 of the 13,000 acres constitute a development of regional impact, the develop- ment which is subject to two development orders (Exhibit "D"). 7,000 acres of the development of regional impact have been zoned by Broward County as a Planned Unit Development. (Exhibit "D"). These land control devices plan and provide for the development of this area in great detail. The development orders require phasing of the development and provide for the provision of parks, civic sites, schools, roads, and major land uses within the area. (See specifically Article II, A, D, and E of 1978 development order and Sections 1 and 2 of the 1979 development order.) The area of land within the proposed district is subject to and within the jurisdiction of the ITSMTD. The ITSMTD presently has the responsibility for providing water management, water and sewer services, and the construction of trafficways and certain other improvements. the ITSMTD was created for the specific purpose of aiding in the development of the area of land within the proposed district. In adopting Ordinance 75-22, the Broward County Commission observed: "WHEREAS, it is found by the County Commission that to promote the economic, orderly, and planned development of certain land and to best serve the welfare and convenience of the public, a Special Municipal Tax District of Broward County, Florida, should be established pursuant to the Charter of Broward County, Florida." The very location of the area of land within the proposed district and the major boundaries of that area dictate that the area be developed as a self-contained, functional interrelated community. (See Exhibits "C" and "D"). The area within the proposed district is compact and sufficiently contiguous to be developable as an interrelated community, as evidenced by the existence of the ITSMTD, the development orders, and the planned unit development zoning classification. A community development district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area of land that will be served by the district for the following reasons: The finding supporting creation of the ITSMTD by the Broward County Commission in 1975 that a tax district is necessary for the area to be developed in an economic, orderly, and planned way remains true today. A community development district functioning pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, would have the following advantages over the ITSMTD: Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, provides a clear and comprehensive charter for operating the district. The reestablishment of the ITSMTD as a community development district will conform the district to uniform state policy regarding the formation and operation of independent develop- ment districts, and will promote a strengthened state new community policy. A community development district has broad, comprehensive, and flexible powers which will better serve the area of land within the proposed district during the period of its development. The area of land to be served by the district will develop over a 20 to 30 year period of time and the broad flexible powers contained within Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, will give the community development district the ability to meet the changing needs and desires of the new community. The special powers contained within Section 190.012, Florida Statutes, will enable the district to provide a broader range of services to meet the needs of the developing community. Specifically, the Indian Trace Community Development District will be authorized to provide parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural, and educational uses; fire protection and control services, including fire stations, water mains, fire trucks, and other vehicles and equipment; and to construct security and school buildings and related structures for use in the security and educational system, when authorized by proper governmental authority. The economic impact statement (Exhibit "G") points out several reasons why a community development district would be the best alternative to deliver community development services. Among the important points contained within the economic impact statement are the following: The Environmental Land Management Study Committee recommended implementation of a new communities policy in order to encourage well planned quality developments. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, has implemented the recommendations of the Committee and has established that new community policy. The State of Florida has determined that Community Development Districts are a better alternative to provide infrastructure improvements than are "paper cities" The reestablishment of the ITSMTD as a Community Development District would avoid municipal formation as a means of infrastructure development. The reestablishment of the ITSMTD as a Community Development District will serve to implement the goals of the Broward County Land Use Plan. The Broward County Land Use Plan contains the following goals: It encourages planned communities with mixed uses, both residential and nonresidential; It determines that growth should be phased with the provision of community services and finds that urban growth should not be permitted in areas where the basic minimum required community services and facilities have not been provided or scheduled for capital improvement either by public or private means; It establishes that the capital costs for the provision and extension of major services, facilities, and transportation networks to benefit new residential or commercial developments should be imposed primarily on those who benefit and not on the existing resident population. The community development services which would be provided to the area of land within the proposed district would not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional development services and facilities for the following reasons: There are no existing regional services of facilities for the area of Broward County within the proposed district. Further, Broward County has neither the plans, nor the capability to provide services and facilities to the area. There are no major trunk water mains or sewer interceptors or outfalls in existence in the area of land within the proposed district. The ITSMTD was created by Broward county to provide services and facilities to service the area of land within the proposed district. In addition, the application for development orders are based, recognized that the ITSMTD would be used to provide infrastructure improvements within the area. The trafficways which have been designed to serve the area within the proposed district and which are required to be built in accordance with the development orders are in accordance with the Broward County Trafficways Plan, which is incorporated by reference in the county future land use element. The ITSMTD is making use of existing local water and sewer facilities. It has entered into a contract with the City of Sunrise to purchase both water and sewer services from the City of Sunrise. (Exhibit "J"). In addition, that agreement commits the ITSMTD to make use of a regional 201 sewer facility when such facility is operational and capable of serving the district. The testimony and documentary evidence establish the following: All statements contained in the Petition are true and correct. The creation of the district would not be inconsistent with any applicable element of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. The area of land that will be served by the district is amenable to separate district government. On March 24, 1981, the Broward County Board of County Commissioners voted to support ITSMTD's petition to reestablish the district as a community development district.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law hereby submitted, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the Petition of the ITSMTD and adopt a rule which will reestablish the ITSMTD as the Indian Trace Community Development District. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 10th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Rhodes, Esquire Messer, Rhodes, Vickers & Hart Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David W. Wilcox, Esquire Office of the Governor Room 209, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Philip Shailer, Esquire 540 N. W. Fourth Street Suite B Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Donald R. Hall, Esquire 540 N.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
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 The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (CGMP) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 843, 845 (as amended by Ordinance No. 847), 846, 847, 851, 853, and 854 are “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is charged with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments and to determine whether they are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in the Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Martin County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time. Groves Holdings, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company. Groves Holdings, LLC operates a real estate management and investment business in the County that manages the leasing, entitlement, and disposition of lands owned by its related subsidiaries Groves 12, LLC, and Groves 14, LLC. Groves 12, LLC, and Groves 14, LLC, are Florida limited liability companies wholly owned by Groves Holdings, LLC. Groves 12, LLC, owns 2,800 acres of citrus grove. Groves 14, LLC, owns 1,700 acres of land being developed as a residential community and equestrian club known as Hobe Sound Polo Club. The land owned by Groves 12, LLC, is located in the rural area of the County, approximately one mile from the closest boundary of an urban service district. The land being developed by Groves 14, LLC, is also located in the rural area. Groves 14, LLC, also owns 450 acres not being developed that are located partially within the rural area and partially within an urban service district The Groves submitted written comments regarding the Plan Amendments to the County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. Donna Melzer and Eliza Ackerly each owns real property in and resides in Martin County. Melzer and Ackerly each submitted comments regarding the Plan Amendments to the County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. MCCA is a not-for-profit Florida corporation incorporated in 1997 for the purposes of conserving the natural resources of Martin County, and maintaining and improving the quality of life for residents of the County. Its members include individuals and corporate and non-corporate entities. A substantial number of its members reside, own property, or operate a business in Martin County. MCCA engages primarily in lobbying, public advocacy, and litigation in Martin County regarding the CGMP. MCCA conducts membership meetings, sends a newsletter to members and others, and sometimes hosts meetings open to the general public. MCCA is also involved in environmental preservation activities in Martin County, including educational meetings, field trips, and lobbying for public purchase of lands for conservation. No evidence was presented to show that MCCA owns property in the County, maintains an office in the County, or holds a business or occupational license. MCCA submitted comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments, on behalf of its members, during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendments. Hereafter, MCCA, Donna Melzer, and Eliza Ackerly will be referred to collectively as MCCA. The Plan Amendments Section 163.3191(1), Florida Statutes, requires each local government to conduct an evaluation and appraisal of its comprehensive plan every seven years and to prepare an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (“EAR”). Martin County initiated its second evaluation and appraisal process in 2007, culminating in the adoption of an EAR in July 2008. Section 163.3191(10), Florida Statutes, requires a local government to adopt comprehensive plan amendments based on the recommendations in the EAR in a single amendment cycle within 18 months after adopting the EAR. The County’s proposed EAR-based amendments were sent to the Department in September 2009. The Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (“ORC”) Report the next month. After considering and responding to the ORC Report, the County adopted Ordinance Nos. 842 through 856 on December 16, 2009, amending all the elements of the CGMP. The Department reviewed the Plan Amendments and determined that a new “Essential Services Nodes” policy of the FLUE adopted by Ordinance No. 845 was not in compliance. The Department determined that all of the other amendments adopted by Martin County were in compliance. The County adopted Ordinance No. 857, which rescinded the Essential Services Nodes policy to which the Department had objected. The decision to rescind the policy was made unilaterally by the County. The rescission was not pursuant to a compliance agreement with the Department. Based on the County’s rescission of the Essential Services Nodes policy, the Department determined that Ordinance No. 845, as amended by Ordinance No. 857, was in compliance. All of the Plan Amendments are text amendments. The Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”) is not changed. Urban Service Districts The CGMP establishes urban service districts (USDs) in the County. There is an Eastern USD and an Indiantown USD. These USDs are subdivided into a primary USD and a secondary USD. About 87 percent of the County’s population resides east of the Florida Turnpike in the Eastern USDs. The Indiantown USDs, which are west of the Florida Turnpike, are separated from the Eastern USDs by more than 20 miles of mostly agricultural lands. The primary purpose of the USDs is to prevent urban sprawl by directing growth to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available or are programmed to be available at appropriate levels of service. The provision of urban public facilities and services is generally limited to USDs. The term “public urban facilities and services” is defined in the CGMP as “regional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network.” Under FLUE Policy 4.7A.2, urban development, including commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and urban residential land uses may only be located within the Primary USDs. FLUE Policy 4.7B.1 permits low density residential use (half-acre lots or greater) in the Secondary USD. No urban or suburban uses and no utility services such as water and sewer may extend outside the USD boundaries. Most of the lands outside the Primary and Secondary USDs are designated Agricultural, but there are also lands designated Public Conservation and Public Utilities. MCCA’s Issues Section 1.10 Chapter 1 of the CGMP is entitled “Preamble” and addresses general topics such as the legal status of the CGMP, the continuing evaluation of the CGMP, and amending the CGMP. The Preamble contains no goals, objectives, or policies. MCCA objects to a sentence in Section 1.10 of the Preamble, adopted by Ordinance No. 843, which states, “This Plan shall be adopted by ordinance and shall supersede the 1990 Comprehensive Plan and all related amendments.” MCCA contends that this sentence will create problems and confusion if some of the Plan Amendments are determined to be in compliance, but other amendments are determined to be not in compliance. There is no confusion. The reference to “This Plan” in Section 1.10 is reasonably interpreted to refer to the entire CGMP, as amended by the latest EAR-based amendments that are either already in effect or will become effective following the conclusion of these consolidated cases.2/ Chapter 2 Definitions MCCA objects to several definitions added in Chapter 2 of the CGMP, but the evidence presented does not show an internal consistency or other "in compliance" issue. FLUE Goal 4.7 MCCA objects to the changes in FLUE Goal 4.4G, which would be re-designated Goal 4.7. Existing Goal 4.4G states: 4.4G Goal (encourage urban development in urban service areas) Martin County shall regulate urban sprawl tendencies by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to those areas where urban public facilities and services are available, or are programmed to be available, at the levels of service adopted in this Growth Management Plan. (italics in original) New Goal 4.7 states: Goal 4.7. To regulate urban sprawl by directing growth in a timely and efficient manner to areas with urban public facilities and services, where they are programmed to be available, at the levels of service adopted in this Plan. (italics in original) MCCA contends that the removal of the word “shall” in the new goal “removes the mandatory restriction.” The County did not intend to make a substantive change to Goal 4.4G. In this particular context, the removal of the word “shall” does not require a different interpretation or application of the goal. It is not a substantive change. FLUE Policy 4.12A.2 MCCA’s major objection to Ordinance No. 845 is with new FLUE Policy 4.12A.2. Most of the objections raised by MCCA to other changes in the CGMP are directly related to MCCA's objection to Policy 4.12A.2. MCCA contends that this new policy, which allows “small-scale service establishments” outside the USDs, fails to include reasonable controls on commercial development and will adversely affect agricultural uses and the quality of life of rural residents.3/ Policy 4.12A.2 states: Restrictions outside urban service districts. Outside urban service districts, development options shall be restricted to low-intensity uses, including Agricultural lands, not exceeding one unit per 20 gross acres; Agricultural Ranchette lands not exceeding one unit per five gross acres; and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses. (italics in original) Martin County contends that this policy is not a substantive change because nearly the same wording already exists as Section 4.6.D.4 in a part of the FLUE entitled “Implementation Strategies,” and the section was merely re- located and re-designated as Policy 4.12A.2. Section 4.6.D.4 provides: Development outside the urban services district shall be restricted to low intensive development in order to promote cost-effective practices in the delivery of public services. Outside Urban Service Districts development options shall be restricted to low intensity uses including agriculture and agricultural ranchettes, not exceeding one unit per 5 gross acres, and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses as provided by section 6.4.A.5.e., Housing Service Zones in the Housing Element. (italics in original) The reference in this policy to Housing Service Zones is an error. Sometime in the past, the County deleted provisions in the CGMP regarding Housing Service Zones, but overlooked this particular reference. Comparing Section 4.6.D.4 with new Policy 4.12A.2, the significant changes appear to be that Section 4.6.D.4 is transformed from a “strategy” to a “policy,” and the new policy no longer ties small-scale service establishments to Housing Service Zones. However, the determination of whether a substantive change was made in the replacement of Section 4.6.D.4 with new Policy 4.12A.2 also requires consideration of Policy 4.4.G.1.e, which states: Martin County shall provide reasonable and equitable options for development outside of Primary Urban Service Districts, including agriculture and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses. Policy 4.4.G.1.e is already designated as a policy and it does not tie small-scale service establishments to Housing Service Zones. Therefore, although Section 4.6.D.4 differs from new Policy 4.12A.2, there is no substantive difference between new Policy 4.12A.2 and existing Policy 4.4.G.1.e. MCCA asserts that Policy 4.12A.2 and Policy 4.4.G.1.e differ substantively because the former does not have the “agricultural land use designation limits on uses allowed” that are in Policy 4.4.G.1.e. However, as shown above, both policies allow for small-scale service establishments that support rural uses as well as agricultural uses. In support of its arguments about small-scale service establishments, MCCA also points to existing FLUE Policy 4.4.G.1.b (re-designated Policy 4.7A.2) and “implementation strategy” 4.6.D.3 (to be deleted) which require commercial uses to be located in the Primary USDs. The policy and implementation strategy that restrict commercial uses to the Primary USDs co- exist in the CGMP with Policy 4.4.G.1.e, which allows small- scale service establishments outside the Primary USDs. Therefore, in whatever manner the County currently reconciles these policies and strategies, that reconciliation pre-dates the EAR-based amendments. The FLUE amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 845 do not alter the situation. MCCA refers to the County planning staff's report associated with another proposed plan amendment known as "Becker B-4" in support of MCCA's argument that the amendments at issue in the present case have substantively changed the FLUE with regard to small-scale service establishments. However, none of MCCA's allegations regarding the relevance of the Becker B-4 staff report are borne out. If the Becker B-4 amendment is adopted by the County, it will be subject to its own "in compliance" review. In summary, when all relevant provisions of the CGMP are taken into account, the changes made by Ordinance No. 845 that are related to small-scale service establishments are not substantive changes to the CGMP. MCCA’s claims of internal inconsistency that are based on MCCA’s objections to new Policy 4.12A.2 must also fail as unsupported by evidence of a substantive change. MCCA’s claim that the County did not demonstrate a need for more commercial uses outside the USDs (based on the allowance for small-scale service establishments) must also fail as unsupported by evidence of a substantive change. MCCA’s claim that the allowance for small-scale service establishments constitutes a failure of the County to discourage urban sprawl must also fail as unsupported by evidence of a substantive change. FLUE Policy 4.5F.4 MCCA objects to the changes to Policy 4.5F.4, which allows planned unit developments (PUDs) designed to preserve open space, environmentally sensitive lands, and agricultural land uses. These PUDs can be located in areas currently designated Agricultural and can include residential lots greater than two acres in size if certain criteria are met. MCCA contends that this policy is inconsistent with Policy 4.13A.1, which restricts residential densities in agricultural areas to 20-acre residential lots. The allowance in Policy 4.5F.4 for PUDs with residential lots smaller than 20 acres already exists. Therefore, in whatever manner the County currently reconciles Policies 4.5F.4 and 4.13A.1, that reconciliation pre-dates the EAR-based amendments. The FLUE amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 845 do not alter the situation. Furthermore, a PUD created under Objective 4.5F requires a plan amendment. It appears that one of the purposes of this requirement is to re-designate any agricultural lands to a residential future land use designation.4/ FLUE Objective 4.7A MCCA objects to the removal of the word “shall” from existing FLUE Objective 4.4.G.1 (which would be re-designated as Objective 4.7A). MCCA argues that the existing objective prohibits commercial uses outside the Primary USDs and that the removal of the word “shall” will allow commercial uses outside the USDs. However, the objective does not prohibit commercial uses outside the Primary USDs. The objective states that the County “shall concentrate higher densities and intensities of development” in the Primary USDs. To concentrate a land use in one location does not mean to prohibit it elsewhere. It is Policy 4.7A.2 that requires new commercial uses to be located in the Primary USDs. In this particular context, the removal of the word “shall” does not require a different interpretation or application of Objective 4.7A. It is not a substantive change. FLUE Policy 4.9H.2 MCCA objects to new Policy 4.9H.2, regarding residential PUDs, because the policy indicates that commercial uses can be included in a residential PUD, even if the PUD is located outside the Primary USDs. Policy 4.7A.2 requires all new commercial development to be located in the Primary USDs. Objective 4.5F and its associated policies allow for residential PUDs in agricultural areas outside the USDs, but do not indicate that the PUDs in agricultural areas can include commercial uses. Policy 4.9H.2 conflicts with Policy 4.7A.2 and with Objective 4.5F and its associated policies FLUE Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(d) MCCA objects to new Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(d), which allows one “accessory dwelling unit” on a residential lot. Accessory units cannot be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit and are not counted as separate units for purposes of density calculations. MCCA's argument regarding accessory dwelling units assumes that the new policy allows accessory units in the rural areas of the County, outside the Primary USDs. However, Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(d) appears under the heading "General policies for all urban Residential development." The term "urban" is not defined in the CGMP, but there are several FLUE policies that direct urban residential densities to the Primary USDs, such as Policies 4.7A.2 and 4.7A.3. Objective 4.7A directs densities greater than two units per acre to the Primary USDs, which indicates that densities greater than two units per acre are urban densities. In order to maintain internal consistency, accessory units would have to be confined to areas of the FLUM designated for urban residential density. See FLUE Objective 4.13A.7. The County's proposal to not count accessory uses for density purposes was shown to be a professionally acceptable planning practice. Accessory units are similar to residential additions, converted garages, and other changes that can add bedrooms and residents on a residential lot, but which traditionally have been disregarded when calculating density. FLUE Policy 4.13A.8.(5) MCCA contends that changes made to Policy 4.13A.8.(5), regarding Expressway Oriented Transient Commercial Service Centers ("Expressway Centers"), combined with the proposed deletion of Section 4.6.D.3 of the "Implementation Strategies," allows for more commercial development without data and analysis to support the need for additional commercial development. Policy 4.13A.8.(5) creates Expressway Centers at three large Interstate 95 interchange locations in the County as a special land use designation to accommodate the unique needs of people traveling through the County. Section 4.6.D.3 (which ordinance No. 845 would delete) allows a waiver for Expressway Centers from the general requirements applicable to the USDs if an applicant for a waiver meets certain criteria. MCCA contends that the waiver process weighs "the traveling public’s needs against the value of the urban boundary." That is not an accurate description of the waiver process, because none of the criteria mentions the urban boundary. MCCA contends that the waiver process has been replaced with a "market need test" in Policy 4.13A.8.(5) without supporting data and analysis and that the change encourages urban sprawl. Policy 4.13A.8.(5) requires a market feasibility analysis to show that "the uses proposed are warranted by the traveling public they are intended to serve." MCCA presented no evidence on the County's past applications of Section 4.6.D.3 and Policy 4.13A.8.(5). MCCA failed to show how the demonstration required for a waiver under Section 4.6.D.3 is substantively different and more protective than the demonstration required to establish an Expressway Center under Policy 4.13A.8.(5). MCCA failed to show how the creation of Expressway Centers or the specific amendments to Section 4.6.D.3 and Policy 4.13A.8.(5) will lead to more commercial uses outside the Primary USDs, so as to encourage urban sprawl. State Comprehensive Plan MMCA failed to present evidence or argument to demonstrate that any of the Plan Amendments is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Other Issues MCCA raised other issues in its petitions for which it did not present evidence at the final hearing. With regard to all the issues raised by MCCA that are not specifically addressed above, MCCA failed to prove an inconsistency. The Groves' Issues The Groves’ principal objection to the Plan Amendments is with the County’s methodology for determining the need for residential dwelling units, which is based in large part on the a residential capacity analysis (RCA) set forth in FLUE Policy 4.1D.4, adopted by Ordinance No. 845. The Groves contend that the RCA overestimates the capacity or supply of dwelling units on vacant lands that can be used to meet projected population growth. Because need is derived from a comparison of supply and demand, the Groves contend that the RCA’s overestimation of supply will always cause the County to underestimate the need for additional dwelling units. FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 provides: The County shall consider the following factors in its residential capacity analysis: The current peak population, based on the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) medium population, shall be used to demonstrate the unit need in the fifteen year planning period; A market factor of 125 percent shall be applied to the unit need; The Eastern Urban Service District and the Indiantown Urban Service District shall be considered separately; Maximum density shall be calculated for Future Land Use categories in which residential development is allowed; Wetland acreage shall be subtracted from the vacant, undeveloped acreage; Because some land will be taken up by non-residential uses such as roads and utilities, a reduction of 8.5 percent shall be calculated to account for such uses. In the past, Martin County used a similar methodology for determining residential need, but it was not a part of the CGMP. New FLUE Policy 4.1D.3 requires that a new RCA be performed every two years. The RCA is to be used to evaluate future plan amendments and future changes to USD policies. The Groves did not dispute the County’s calculation of residential demand, the number of dwelling units needed to serve the projected population through the planning period 2010 to 2025. As stated in FLUE Policy 4.1D.4, demand is based on mid- range population projections from the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research, which is then adjusted by a 125 percent market factor. A market factor is a multiplier that is applied to account for factors that prevent the full or efficient use of densities allowed by a FLUM. FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 requires that the Eastern USDs and the Indiantown USDs be considered separately. This requirement is based on an historical pattern of higher population growth east of the Florida Turnpike and the expectation that the pattern will continue into the foreseeable future. The County projected an increase of 17,598 new residents in the Eastern USDs and an increase of 754 in the Indiantown USDs by 2025. When these figures are divided by average persons per household (2.21), the result is a demand for 7,963 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs and 341 dwelling units in the Indiantown USDs. Applying the market factor of 125 percent results in a demand for 9,954 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs, and 426 units in the Indiantown USDs for the 2010-2025 planning period. To calculate the residential supply of dwelling units that can be developed on existing vacant lands, FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 directs that the calculation begin by determining the maximum density allowed under each future land use category of the vacant lands. In the following discussion, the maximum density allowed under a future land use designation will be referred to as the “theoretical” maximum density. It is the general practice of the Department to require local governments to use theoretical maximum densities in a need analysis unless there are policies in the comprehensive plan preventing landowners from attaining the theoretical maximum densities. However, like the Department's general practice to accept a market factor no greater than 125 percent, these are not requirements explicitly stated in Department rules from which the Department never deviates. FLUE Policy 4.1D.4 incorporates two limiting factors that prevent the attainment of theoretical maximum densities: (1) wetlands and (2) roads rights-of-way and utility easements. Development is generally prohibited in wetlands. However, landowners whose lands contain wetlands can transfer half of the “lost” density associated with the wetland acreage to the uplands. Therefore, in calculating the acreage of vacant lands that are available for residential development, the RCA subtracts half the wetland acreage. The County also reduces the total vacant land acreage by 8.5 percent to account for the loss of developable acreage due to the presence of road rights-of-way and utility easements within which development is prohibited. After reducing the total acres of vacant lands in the USDs to account for wetlands and for rights-of-way and utilities, the County determined that there is a supply or vacant land capacity of 5,790 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs and 5,335 units in the Indiantown USDs. The County then adjusted these numbers to account for approved residential developments that have not yet been constructed. This adjustment resulted in final calculation of the existing supply in the Eastern USDs of 9,339 dwelling units and an existing supply in the Indiantown USDs of 6,686 dwelling units. The Groves' Critique of the RCA The Groves argue that the RCA overestimates supply by failing to account for other policies of the CGMP that restrict development and prevent a landowner from attaining the theoretical maximum density. Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 9.1G.4 requires the preservation of a wetland buffer around a wetland. There was conflicting evidence about whether the County credits the landowner for the acreage set aside as a wetland buffer. The Groves contend that no credit is given and cites Table 4-2 of the FLUE, which indicates that wetland buffer acreage is not subtracted to arrive at the total available acreage that can be developed. The Groves also point to the testimony of a County planner, who stated that the County intended to subtract buffer acreage from vacant land acreage, but ultimately did not do so "based on adamant public comment." However, the County's planning director, Nicki Van Vonno, stated that "[Y]ou do get the full density off of the buffer land." It would be logical for the County to not subtract wetland buffer acreage when calculating residential capacity if the landowner is getting full credit for the buffer acreage. Therefore, it is found that the County allows a full transfer of the density associated with wetland buffer acreage to the uplands. COSE Policy 9.1G.5 requires that 25 percent of upland native habitat on a site be preserved. The landowner is allowed to transfer density from these native upland habitat areas to the unaffected areas of the property. Nevertheless, the Groves contends that COSE Policy 9.1G.5 impairs the ability of landowners to attain the theoretical maximum density. The CGMP also requires a portion of the site be set aside for sufficient water retention and treatment. The RCA does not account for any loss of density caused by water retention and treatment areas. The County had proposed to reduce the theoretical maximum density by 15 percent to account for "surface water management and required preservation,” but abandoned the idea when the Department objected to it as not adequately supported by data and analysis. The evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to establish that the requirements of the CGMP associated with surface water management and preservation reduces the theoretical maximum density of residential lands by 15 percent. The County has a mixed-use land use category called Commercial-Office-Residential (COR). The County allows only a third of a COR parcel to be developed for residential uses and this practice reduces the theoretical maximum density of COR lands. However, the RCA assumes 100 percent of the COR acreage is available for residential use. The County attempted to justify this discrepancy by pointing out that the limitation of residential uses on COR lands is not incorporated into the CGMP. However, it is an undisputed fact (datum) that the County's practice reduces residential capacity on COR lands. The RCA fails to account for this fact. If the RCA accounted for the limitation of residential development on COR lands, the supply of dwelling units in the Eastern USDs would be reduced by 733 units. FLUE Policy 4.13A.7.(1)(a) establishes a 40-foot height limit countywide which sometimes prevents a landowner from attaining the theoretical maximum density. The RCA does not account for any loss of density caused by building height restrictions. FLUE Policies 4.1F.1 through 4.1F.3 require transitional density zones when land is developed at a higher density than adjacent lands. FLUE Policy 4.1F.2 establishes a zone (or “tier”) abutting the adjacent land, equal to the depth of an existing adjacent residential lot in which development is restricted, to the same density and compatible structure types (e.g., height) as on the adjacent property. The RCA does not account for any loss of density due to the tier policies. Although the landowner is allowed to transfer density to the unaffected portion of the property in the case of some development restrictions imposed by the CGMP, there is not always sufficient acreage remaining to make full use of the transferred density. The Groves' expert witness, Rick Warner, reviewed residential development projects that had been approved or built during the past 15 years in the Eastern USDs and compared the actual number of approved or built units to the theoretical maximum density allowed by the applicable land use designation for the property at the time of approval. Warner determined that, on average, the projects attained only about 45 percent of the theoretical maximum density. The Groves presented the testimony of Morris Crady, who testified that, of the 14 development projects in the County that he was involved in, CGMP policies caused the projects to be developed at 1,285 units fewer than (about 41 percent of) the maximum theoretical density. Comparing the County’s estimated demand for 9,954 dwelling units in the Eastern USDs through 2025 with the County’s estimated supply of 9,339 dwelling units, indicates a deficit of 615 dwelling units. Comparing the County’s estimated demand for 426 dwelling units in the Indiantown USDs through 2025 with the County’s estimated supply of 6,686 dwelling units, indicates a surplus of 6,260 dwelling units. The County decided to make no changes to the FLUM because it believes the projected population can be accommodated with existing land use designations. The Groves argue that, because the RCA overestimates supply, the deficit in the Eastern USDs is actually substantially larger.5/ For example, taking into account the County's policy regarding limiting residential uses on COR lands, the deficit would be 1,348 units in the Eastern USDs. The deficit would be enlarged by the effects of the other factors discussed above that reduce a landowner's ability to attain the theoretical maximum density. The County contends that there is additional residential capacity outside the USDs that should be considered. The County also points to the large surplus of available dwelling units in the Indiantown USDs. The County asserts that there is excess supply to meet the need when all the available dwelling units in the County are considered. These other considerations, however, are not a part of the RCA and, therefore, are in conflict with the RCA. Acres vs. Dwelling Units The Groves assert that County's determination of residential does not identify the amount of land needed for each category of land use as required by law, but, instead, expresses need solely in terms of total dwelling units. The Department has accepted residential need analyses expressed in dwelling units. Dwelling units can be converted into acreages, but only if one is told what density to apply. A local government must determine how many dwelling units it wants in each land use category in order to convert a need expressed in total dwelling units into a need expressed in acreages. Martin County believes that it has a sufficient supply of dwelling units to meet the projected population through the planning period. Apparently, the County is also satisfied with the existing size and distribution of future land use categories as depicted on the FLUM. The existing vacant land acreages for each land use category, set forth in the CGMP, represents the amount of land in each land use category that the County believes is needed to meet the projected population. However, there is an imbalance in the various types of residential land uses in the Eastern USDs. For example, there are only 13 acres of high density residential land and 57 acres of medium density residential land remaining in the Eastern USDs. In contrast, there are 2,950 acres of rural residential lands. The County has acknowledged that its past emphasis on low-height and low-density has contributed to a lack of affordable housing. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council noted that the small amount of vacant land in the County available for medium and high residential development contributes to the lack of affordable housing in the County. The Plan Amendments include policies which are designed to address the imbalances in land uses and the lack of affordable housing. These policies include permitting accessory dwelling units for urban residential development; allowing a 10 du/ac density bonus and an affordable housing density bonus in Medium Density Residential developments; reducing the criteria for an affordable housing density bonus in High Density Residential developments; and reviewing residential capacity in the Indiantown USDs. Commercial Need There is no state-wide standard for the amount of commercial, industrial, institutional, conservation, or agricultural lands that a local government must identify in its comprehensive plan in order to accommodate its projected population. The County acknowledges that there is a deficit of commercial land necessary to accommodate economic needs, but no changes in the FLUM are proposed as part of these EAR-based amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that Plan Amendments are “in compliance,” except for the following policies adopted by Martin County Ordinance No. 845, which the Department should determine are not "in compliance": FLUE Policy 4.1D.4; and FLUE Policy 4.9H.2. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plans and plan amendments pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, also known as The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Act). The Association is a non-profit Florida Corporation, whose members reside, own property, or conduct business generally within the boundaries of the City of Gainesville and specifically the College Park Neighborhood (College Park). The purpose of the Association is to maintain and improve the quality of life for the residents of College Park. The Association submitted written objections concerning the plan during the review and adoption proceedings. Further, the Association participated more in the comprehensive plan development process than any other part of the City. The City is a local government required to adopt a revised comprehensive plan pursuant to Sections 163.3164(12) and 163.3167, Florida Statutes. City Background The City is located in north central Florida and is the county seat for Alachua County. The City encompasses approximately 20,000 acres, of which approximately 3,600 acres remains vacant. The City is approximately 83%-85% "built out". The development of the remaining 15%-17% vacant and undeveloped land will be limited by constraints of soil types, floodplains and wetlands. There is an acute lack of unimproved land suitable for higher density development, necessitating the major focus of the comprehensive plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE) upon redevelopment of underdeveloped areas of the City. As of 1991, the City had an estimated population of 92,723, with a projected population in the year 2001 of approximately 97,116. The population is more densely concentrated around the major activity centers which include the Oaks Mall area, the University of Florida (University) campus and the older central part of the City. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA The University and the surrounding areas, make up an area described by the plan as the University Oriented Area. The area includes the College Park neighborhood and is one of the biggest activity centers in North Central Florida. The University is the major activity generator within the City limits. The University itself occupies approximately 1,100 acres within the City limits and has an enrollment of approximately 36,000 students. The data and analysis indicates that the students and faculty of the University will play a major role in the future development of the City. The University provides on campus housing for approximately 6,800 single students in dormitories located throughout the campus. The University also provides approximately 987 units for single parent and married students. Total housing provided by the University accounts for only 18-20% of the total student population and future development of on-campus housing will be limited due to the lack of room to build future dormitory facilities. The University is heavily dependent upon "off campus" housing offered by the areas surrounding the campus to meet student housing needs. SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION AREA In order to permit further redevelopment in the University Oriented Area, the City needed a mechanism to permit that further development in view of the potential degrading of level of service standards for traffic circulation. This was particularly so since the City had experienced traffic circulation deficiencies in the University Oriented Area, including College Park. To mitigate the traffic congestion in the vicinity of the University, the City proposed to make these areas a Special Transportation Area (STA). As defined by data and analysis, an STA is a compact geographic area for which the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the local government, in consultation with the Regional Planning Council and the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization, mutually agree to set specific standards for level of service standards and use and transportation services in order to reach growth management goals. By letter dated August 30, 1991, the FDOT approved an Interim STA for the central city which included the University Oriented Area and College Park. The specific strategies to be developed in the Interim STA are set forth in Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) policy 1.1.7 and read as follows: The following specific strategies and guidelines shall be applied within the Interim STA consistent with the conditions of approval by FDOT: The level of service of all arterial roadways in the Interim STA shall be evaluated using the ART by FDOT, to evaluate such traffic variables as green flow in order to determine the exact condition of each facility. This evaluation shall be done cooperatively with FDOT and the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization (MTPO). The City shall coordinate with the MTPO and the FDOT through the Technical Advisory Committee of the MTPO to review strategies for improved level of service such as signalization, adjustments in green dedicated turn lanes, and roundabouts. The City shall limit the development of new drive service or sales to customers while in their automobiles. In the STA, the City shall prohibit additional or expanded drive constrained roadways. Drive facilities on other roads within the STA shall be regulated by special use permit. Criteria shall include minimum separation of 400 feet for such facilities and shall provide minimal interruption of the urban streetscape. COLLEGE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD College Park consists of approximately 145 acres and is located immediately north of the University. College Park is bordered on the south by West University Avenue, on the east by NW 13th Street, on the west by NW 20th Street, and on the north by NW 5th Avenue. College Park also includes a small nine block area immediately northeast of the main boundaries. This additional area is bounded by NW 5th Avenue on the south, NW 15th Street on the west, NW 7th Avenue on the north and NW 13th Street on the east. College Park is one of the oldest residential neighborhoods in the City and has long served as a student residential area offering low to moderate apartment housing and duplex units. The area has a friendly environment for walking and biking. It has a number of crossing points to the campus and close proximity. The width of the street and the amount of on constrain the speed of the traffic to bicycling speed and walking speed so that it is compatible for walking and bicycling. The southern and eastern outermost boundaries of College Park, University Avenue and NW 13th Street respectively, consist of a mixture of commercial and institutional land uses. The western boundary, NW 20th Street, is predominantly fronted by single family residential land uses. The northern border, NW 5th Avenue, consists of single family and duplex dwellings, small apartment buildings and institutional facilities which include several churches and their ancillary buildings. Many of the single family housing units that previously existed in the core of College Park have been converted into multi- unit or garden apartment dwellings to better accommodate demands for student housing. The innermost core of College Park is almost devoid of true single family homes and the single family neighborhood character of the neighborhood has long since evolved into a student community. The large number of streets in College Park are arranged in a traditional grid pattern. Most of the streets in the neighborhood do not have curbs or gutters. COLLEGE PARK DENSITIES In 1970 the City, by ordinance, adopted the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Gainesville Urban Area (1970 Plan). The 1970 Plan had the provision of a framework for logical development decisions, both by the private and public sectors as its primary goal. The 1970 Plan in several provisions addresses the framework for allowable densities in College Park. One of those provisions, Premise C, Principle 7 provides: High density residential development should be encouraged to locate near concentrations of non-residential activities such as the University of Florida and the Central Business District, and adjacent to the major traffic arteries. Another provision, Premise B, Principle 2 provides: mixed dwelling types and housing densities should be permitted in those areas where prior planning will permit such a mixture. Prior to the 1970 Plan, the density in the innermost core of College Park was unlimited. The City Commission, in preparing the 1970 plan, determined that unlimited densities were not appropriate anywhere in the City. The actual numerical densities for College Park were established at that time by zoning regulations with the highest density being 43 units per acre in the innermost core. With the creation of the first Growth Management Act in 1975, local governments were asked to develop comprehensive plans. The City used the opportunity to enhance the existing 1970 plan. The revised plan was entitled "Gainesville Comprehensive Plan 1980 to 2000" (1980 Plan). The 1980 Plan continued to promote higher densities around the University of Florida, including College Park. The 1980 Plan also contained guiding principles which directly assisted the improvement of public facilities in College Park and incorporated recommendations made in a special neighborhood study of College Park conducted in 1975. The recommendations supported a number of zoning categories in a transitional approach, with higher densities near NW 13th Street and West University Avenue and decreasing densities moving into the core of the neighborhood. The actual densities in College Park through the zoning code followed the density transition approach with the core of the neighborhood remaining a maximum of 43 units per acre. The City also, through the revised zoning ordinance, incorporated urban design standards which contained development within the neighborhood. With the 1985 amendment of the Growth Management Act, the creation and adoption of a comprehensive plan by the City became mandatory. The City used this opportunity to improve upon the already existing 1980 Plan. In a further effort to better plan for development in College Park, the City hired renowned urban planner Andres Duany. After surveying the College Park neighborhood and interacting with the residents of the neighborhood, Duany developed the Master Plan for College Park. The Master Plan made many recommendations as to how growth should proceed within College Park. Based on the recommendations of the Master Plan, the City's 1990 comprehensive plan created a land use category for College Park which allowed up to 75 units per acre in the neighborhood core. 1990 PLAN College Park is referenced in several provisions of the 1990 plan and supporting data and analysis. In the second paragraph of the section entitled "Redevelopment" on page 38 of the Future Land Use Data And Analysis Report (accepted in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1.), the following information is provided: Neighborhoods north, east, and south of the University have a large percentage of student residents, but do not accommodate a large enough share of student housing. It is especially desirable to accommodate student housing close to the University to reduce the transportation demand that student housing in outlying areas places on the City and the University. As stated earlier, students at the University of Florida are currently included in the City's population figures. As new students enroll in the University dormitories, existing students move out. These are the students that should continue to be housed near the University. Over time, this will have the effect of reducing peak hour traffic problems and help to revitalize downtown. This would also provide the density that is needed to support the mass transit system. Future Land Use Element Policy 2.4.1 of the 1990 comprehensive plan provides that the City shall prepare special area plans for certain areas of the City. Specifically, the plan in Policy 2.4.2 provides: Special Area plans for the College Park Neighborhood, . . . shall be the first priority. The Future Land Use Element goes on to specifically address development in College Park in Policies 2.4.7, 2.4.8, and 2.4.9., respectively, as follows: The City shall only allow development and redevelopment within the College Park Neighborhood that is consistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood. Residential development in the neighborhood shall be allowed in Type II buildings with 3.5 stories and Type III buildings with 2.5 stories (measured in the number of floors, each not to exceed 13 feet, floor to ceiling). * * * The following criteria shall be used to guide development in the College Park Neighborhood south of N.W. 5th Avenue: Type I buildings which allow retail, office and residential uses within four story buildings shall be allowed in areas designated Mixed Use-Low, Retail uses shall be restricted to the first 2 floors, office uses shall be allowed on all fourth floors and residential shall be allowed on the second through the fourth floor. The Type II buildings which allow office and residential uses within a 3.5 story building shall be allowed in areas designated Mixed Use-Residential, Office uses accessory to the residential use shall be restricted to the first floor. The Type III buildings which allow residential uses within a 2.5 story building shall be allowed in areas designated Residential Medium Density, Residential uses along with home occupations shall be the only uses allowed. * * * By June 1992, The City shall adopt Land Development Regulations and a Special Area Plan for the College Park Neighborhood based on a Master Plan being prepared for the neighborhood. The Special Area Plan shall be adopted by amending the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations shall establish the overall density and intensity of uses. A review of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) indicates that the following densities and corresponding intensities are allowed in College Park: Residential Medium development is designated for land located in northern portions bordering 5th avenue at densities ranging from 8-30 units per acre. This designation also applies to predominantly all the areas in the 9 block extension of the northeast corner of College Park. Mixed Use Low Intensity development is designated along the borders of West University Avenue and NW 13th Street at a density of 8- 30 units per acre and a floor area ratio intensity of 1.00-2.00. In most areas this land use category extends into the neighborhood approximately one block. Public facilities development is designated for the one area in College Park located on NW 2nd Avenue between NW 16th Street and NW 17th Street. The maximum lot coverage in this category is 80%. Mixed use residential development is designated for the entire core area of College Park at a density of 75 units per acre with the intensity of office use not to exceed more than 10% of the total residential floor area per development. Residential low development is designated in the northwest portion of College Park at a density of 5.8 to 12 units per acre. Single family development makes up the remainder of the northwest portion of College Park at a density of 0 to 8 units per acre. The several land use designations found within the neighborhood are arranged so that the most intensive development (75 units per acre) is located in the innermost core of the neighborhood and the lesser intense development on the outermost core (8-30 units per acre). This density arrangement ensures that the adjacent neighborhoods with single family character will be buffered from the more intensive University oriented development of College Park. The major change in land use planning proposed by the 1990 plan which relates specifically to College Park is that within the mixed use residential land use category the maximum allowable densities in certain areas increased from 43 units per acre to 75 units per acre. Additionally, an intensity for commercial use of not more than 10% of the total residential floor area for the development was also added, although there is no allocation of solely commercial use in the interior of College Park. The mixed use residential category applies to approximately 36 acres within College Park. Objection to the increase in density and the addition of commercial intensity in this category forms the foundation of Petitioner's challenge. The mixed use residential category definition in FLUE Policy 2.1.1 of the comprehensive plan reads as follows: This residential district provides for a mixture of residential and office uses. Office uses that are complementary to and secondary to the residential character of the district may be allowed. An essential element of the district is orientation of structures to the street and the pedestrian character of the area. Office use as located within this district shall be scaled to serve the immediate neighborhood and pedestrians from surrounding neighborhoods and institutions. Land Development Regulations shall set the district's size; appropriate densities (up to 75 dwelling units per acre); the distribution of uses; appropriate floor area ratios; design criteria; landscaping, pedestrian, mass transit and bicycle access, and streetlighting. Land Development Regulations shall specify the criteria for the siting of public and private schools, places of religious assembly, and community facilities within this category when designated in a manner compatible with the adoption of a special area plan for that area. The intensity of office use cannot exceed more than 10 percent of the total residential floor area per development. As a review of the FLUE data and analysis reveals, land use analysis have been performed to determine the development and redevelopment possibilities within the City limits. Such analysis adequately supports the land use category designations on the FLUM. Specifically the analysis includes traffic circulation, potable water, natural groundwater aquifer recharge, sanitary sewers, stormwater and solid and hazardous waste. A plan policy is not required to contain actual data and analysis. Rather, the plan's Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) are required to be based on appropriate data and analysis. The Gainesville Urban Area Land Use Model was used to determine land use requirements. The model focused on market demand and existing and projected relationships between demand and developed space. Future land use and development was allocated by the model to nine market areas. College Park is located in Market Area 3. Data and analysis submitted by the City in support of the plan indicate that the City will require approximately 15 acres of commercial/office acreage through the year 2001. The data further indicates that there are 260 vacant acres which the FLUM designates for commercial/office usage. College Park contains approximately 5 vacant acres of land designated commercial/office land use, but no commercial/office use is required or needed in Market Area 3. The lack of projected need for the 5 acres of designated commercial/office land use in College Market would appear to suggest a conclusion that such additional commercial/office land uses should not be permitted in Area 3 and specifically College Park. However, such a conclusion ignores several other criteria which also must be factored into the analysis of the data. Much of the 260 vacant acres that could accommodate commercial/office land uses appears environmentally constrained. Therefore, in actuality many of the 260 acres will not accommodate future commercial/office development. An example of this can be seen in Market Area 5 which has a surplus of 108 vacant acres. Most of this land, however, is located near a hazardous waste Superfund site or near the airport. These areas clearly would not be appropriate for the provision of commercial/office land uses and justify planning for the accommodation of commercial/office land uses within College Park. The overall planning goals of the City include the redevelopment of urban areas and the promotion of infill and compact development. The City has made a policy decision that in order to further the regional and state planning goal of discouraging urban sprawl, commercial office development will be encouraged in College Park rather than outside of the City's central business core. Even with this new land use category, the actual increase in commercial uses will not be significantly different than what currently exists in College Park. It is not proven beyond fair debate that Policy 2.1.1 of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically the inclusion of such commercial/office land uses within College Park lacks the support of appropriate data and analysis. Traffic impacts in College Park that will be caused by the non residential uses allowed by the mixed use land use category have been analyzed by the City. The data and analysis which accompanies the TCE is replete with data concerning traffic circulation and traffic levels of service for the entire City, including College Park. The City readily acknowledges that certain areas of the City, including the University Oriented Area, have traffic circulation problems. In an effort to correct the traffic circulation deficiencies the City with the approval of FDOT created the Central City STA discussed earlier at paragraph 9. With the creation of the STA, the City analyzed the impacts of future development not only within College Park but within the entire University Oriented Community. This action establishes beyond fair debate that the City has analyzed traffic impacts. In terms of parking impacts, allowing the non-residential mixed uses will not increase the parking demands within College Park. There will be no significant increase of commercial land uses in the College Park Area over the commercial uses that already exist, absent compliance with concurrency management system requirements. If facilities are not in place at the time development of additional non-residential uses is desired, development can not proceed. Further, introduction of non-residential uses into College Park will not de-stabilize the neighborhood. Rule 9J- 5.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, specifically encourages local governments to use mixed use categories, provided policies for implementing the mixed uses are included. The plan provides these in FLUE Policies 2.4.7 and 2.4.8., set forth above. These policies, combined with the requirement that any additional office use allowed in the core area of College Park be allowed only in places where people live, will directly prevent de-stabilization. Accordingly, it has not been shown to the exclusion of fair debate that allowing mixed uses in College Park will de- stabilize the neighborhood. The FLUE is required by Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)7., Florida Administrative Code, to contain policies which implement standards or intensities of use for each land use category. In reviewing FLUE Policy 2.1.1, specifically the mixed use residential land use category, it is clear that the policy establishes a maximum density (75 units per acre) and an intensity (intensity of office use not to exceed 10% of the total residential floor area). The Mixed Use Residential Land Use category provides that the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) will control the actual implementation of such things as appropriate floor area ratios, design criteria and distribution of uses. Such language does not inappropriately defer implementation of the plan to LDRs. The Act requires that local governments adopt appropriate regulations to implement their plans. As required by Section 163.3202(2), Florida Statutes, such regulations "shall contain specific and detailed" provisions necessary to implement the adopted plan. The Plan should, and does, contain general criteria upon which LDRs will be developed. FLUE Policy 2.1.1, specifically the mixed use residential category, contains many general standards which will guide and narrow the focus of future LDRs. The City has recognized that the mixed use category criteria of FLUE Policy 2.1.1 must be implemented carefully. The plan in FLUE Policy 2.1.3 places a moratorium on zoning changes within the mixed land use categories until new LDRs are developed and the comprehensive plan amended to reflect the new LDRs. In the interim, the plan indicates that Chapter 29, City of Gainesville Code of Ordinances, shall regulate development. It is clear that Policy 2.1.1 in combination with other policies in the FLUE taken as a whole does not inappropriately defer implementation to LDRs. Increasing density from 43 to 75 units per acre in College Park will not necessarily result in overcrowding and undue concentrations of population. While the previous maximum of 43 units per acre permitted intense urban development, the increase to 75 units per acre requires compliance with design standards that were previously absent. FLUE Policy 2.4.8 establishes the design standards for use in conjunction with the 75 units per acre density. Notably, criteria in FLUE Policy 2.4.8 were incorporated into the plan at the request of the Association. Those criteria and other policies in the FLUE indicate that no undue concentration of population will be allowed. For example, as noted in Policy 2.4.7, set forth above, "[t]he City shall only allow development and redevelopment within the College Park Neighborhood that is consistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood." It has not been proven to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 2.1.1 and the FLUE will result in overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population. Densities greater than the 75 units per acre found objectionable in College Park by Petitioner exist in several locations as illustrated by depictions on the FLUM of other neighborhoods surrounding the University which currently have densities upwards of 100 units per acre. As discussed earlier, the City is 83%-85% buildout and development on much of the remaining undeveloped land will be constrained since the land that can be developed will only accommodate low density development. To accommodate City wide future growth, the data and analysis indicates that redevelopment of already existing underdeveloped areas is necessary. Further, redevelopment and infill of areas is required to discourage urban sprawl. The data and analysis indicates that College Park is one of the few remaining underdeveloped areas where redevelopment can occur. As a result, the higher densities proposed for College Park appear justified. Just as allowing mixed uses in College Park will not result in de- stabilization, the same is true of the proposed higher densities. Although the higher density levels would, if realized, exceed the projected population for College Park, planning for this area of the City must be combined within the overall planning decisions of the City as a whole. The data and analysis clearly provides that the City has limited areas which can accommodate future high density development. The population projections for the City indicate an increase in population of approximately 10,000 people over the next 10 years. This population increase will include University students. Sound planning demands that the City not rely on the County to bear the burden of housing this future population increase and thereby promote even more urban sprawl outside of the City with further traffic problems and demands for additional services such as mass transit, police, and fire protection. Also, the higher densities in College Park are in part an effort to provide developers with an incentive to develop this area rather than the outlying urban areas. This effort is consistent with the conclusions found in the FLUE data and analysis that the FLUE must accommodate high densities close to campus. The overall impact of the increased density will be less urban sprawl, and a more efficient use of existing infrastructure. Such sound planning decisions do not show to the exclusion of fair debate that the FLUE inappropriately overallocated or that the increase in density will de-stabilize College Park. It has been alleged that FLUE Objective 2.4 and Policies 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 are not supported by data and analysis which substantiate the need for redevelopment of College Park. FLUE Objective 2.4 provides: Redevelopment shall be encouraged to promote urban infill, improve the condition of blighted areas, to reduce urban sprawl and foster compact development patterns. Policy 2.4.3 provides: Before June 1992, the City shall adopt a special area plan for the College Park neighborhood to identify the appropriate uses and intensity of uses and to provide urban design guidelines for development in the area. In the preparation of the plan the City shall consider recommendations made by the College Park Neighborhood Plan prepared by Wallace, Todd and Roberts. Policy 2.4.4 provides: The City's Future Land use Plan shall accommodate increases in student enrollment at the University of Florida and the relocation of students from the urban fringe by designating appropriate areas for high density residential development and/or appropriate mixed use development within one and half mile of the University of Florida and J. Hillis Miller Medical Center. As previously noted, the FLUE contains data and analysis which supports the allowance of mixed uses at a density of 75 units per acre within College Park. The FLUE data and analysis also justifies the City's policy decision to increase the potential for redevelopment and infill development within College Park. Housing Element (HE) data and analysis further indicates the amount of dilapidated and substandard housing conditions within College Park. As indicated by HE Map 3, the area which includes College Park contains between 16% and 30% substandard housing units. As HE Appendix C Tables 46 and 47 clearly indicate, College Park contains approximately 1,342 housing units. Of these units 23.10% are substandard or dilapidated. Based on these figures, the FLUE and HE data and analysis indicates that College Park is one of the areas in the City which should be redeveloped. It has not been shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the challenged plan provisions are not supported by data and analysis or that redevelopment is not appropriate for College Park. FLUE Policy 2.1.1 is consistent with Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(c)2., Florida Administrative Code, and provides for compatibility of adjacent land uses. The mixed use residential category and the potential densities of 75 units per acre established by the policy does not appear incompatible with the adjacent single family neighborhoods when the existing land development patterns in the area are considered. Currently, College Park is buffered from the adjacent single family neighborhoods by several churches along 5th Avenue, and J.J. Finley Elementary School. The churches make up much of the northern border of College Park. 5th Avenue itself also works as a separator between College Park and the adjacent neighborhoods. Further, although there has been no showing that the previous 43 unit per acre density caused incompatibility problems, potential compatibility issues are addressed in FLUE Policies 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.7, 2.4.8, and 2.4.9. These policies interact with each other and the FLUM to form a step down in densities. This step down approach means that the lowest allowable densities in College Park will be next to the adjacent neighborhoods. The step down approach of the FLUE policies also ensures that land uses within College Park are compatible. It has not been proven to the exclusion of fair debate that FLUE Policy 2.1.1 fails to provide measures which ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. It is alleged that Traffic Circulation Element (TCE) Policies 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 are not in compliance with Section 163.3177(3)(a), F.S., and Rules 9J- 5.007(2)(a) and (b) 9J- 5.007(3)1. and 9J-5.005(1)2., Florida Administrative Code. TCE Policy 1.1.8 provides: The City shall designate areas on the FLUM for housing, which serves the needs of employees and students within walking distance of the University. TCE Policy 1.1.9 provides: Eighteen months from the adoption of this plan the City, in cooperation with FDOT and the MTPD, shall seek permanent designation of the Central City Interim Special Transportation Area or an extension of the interim designation or the elimination of the STA. These plan provisions outline principles for correcting deficiencies in traffic circulation. TCE Policy 1.1.8 directs the City to provide housing closer to the University so that fewer trips will be entering the area from further out in the urban area, thereby eliminating some of the traffic congestion that now exists. Further, TCE Policy 1.1.9 mentions the STA which was the City and FDOT solution to the problem of correcting existing deficiencies while still allowing growth. TCE Policies 1.1.4 through 1.1.10 combine to further provide controls to prevent degradation of traffic level of service standards. It is clear beyond fair debate that TCE Policies 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 outline principles for correcting deficiencies. Degradation of level of service standards as the result of increased densities in College Park has not been shown to the exclusion of fair debate. The Mass Transit Element (MTE) data and analysis indicates that the relevant transportation bus routes for College Park include Routes 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. As shown by Table 11 of the MTE data and analysis, each of these routes currently have at a minimum a 54% excess capacity available for ridership. In fact, Route 9 has a 90% excess capacity available for ridership. While TCE Policies 1.1.8 and 1.1.9 do not specifically provide for capital improvement implementation, each plan provision does not need to trigger capital improvements or concurrency requirements. The plan however does address concurrency and the triggering of capital improvements in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE). For example, CIE Policies 1.2.1, 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 establish how capital improvements through development orders will be implemented. In part, CIE Policy 1.2.1 provides: By June 1992, the City shall issue final development orders conditioned on the following: The availability of existing public facilities associated with the adopted LOS (level of service standards); The funding of public facilities (based on existing or projected funding sources) listed in the 5 year schedule of Capital Improvements that are needed to maintain adopted level of service standards. Petitioner has alleged that FLUE Objective 1.5 and Policy 2.4.4 are not in compliance with Rules 9J-5.015(1)(a) and 9J- 5.015(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, in that the City failed to assemble and assess data from the Alachua County School Board and the University regarding the shifting of student populations. The referenced rules require a local government to coordinate with adjacent local governments, school boards and other units of local government. Such intergovernmental coordination should address specific problems and needs within each jurisdiction and attempt to resolve the problems and needs through better plan provisions. FLUE, Objective 1.5 provides that the City will: Ensure that the future plans of state government, the School Board of Alachua County, the University of Florida, and other applicable entities are consistent with this comprehensive plan to the extent permitted by law. FLUE Policy 2.4.4 is set forth above in paragraph 49. As established by data and analysis of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE), the City coordinated planning action with the University of Florida and the Alachua County School Board. The School Board did have concerns about the City's 1990 plan designation of J.J. Finely Elementary School as a recreational facility. Through the intergovernmental coordination process, the City and School Board resolved the issue. In terms of justifying a shift of student population, the purpose of FLUE Policy 2.4.4 is not to shift student populations. Instead, the City is attempting to accommodate future population and development within College Park since the growing University population will not be completely accommodated on campus. FLUE Objective 1.5 and Policy 2.4.4 are in compliance with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. MTE Goal 1 and Objective 1.4 comply with requirements of Rules 9J- 5.008(2)(b) and 9J-5.008(3)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, and demonstrate that projected mass transportation levels of service are consistent with the proposal to locate increased student populations in College Park. MTE Goal 1 provides that the City shall: Encourage increased transit usage to reduce the impacts of private motorized vehicles on the social, cultural and natural environment, and provide basic transit for disadvantaged City residents to employment, education facilities and basic services. Objective 1.4 provides: The future land use plan shall distribute land uses in a way that promotes transit ridership. Objective 1.4 satisfies the requirements of Rule 9J- 5.008(3)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, that the plan contain an objective to address the provision of efficient mass transit. Further, as previously noted, there is more than adequate mass transit capacity in the City's system. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that MTE Goal 1 and Objective 1.4 do not comply with provisions of Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner alleges that Stormwater Management Element (SME) Objective 1.3 is not in compliance with Rule 9J-5.011(2)(b)1. and 2., Florida Administrative Code, in that the plan fails to address deficiencies in stormwater and drainage in College Park or coordinate the extension of, or increase in the capacity of those facilities to meet projected future needs. SME Objective 1.3 provides: The City shall ensure that proper and adequate stormwater management facilities are provided to meet future needs. Appendix C of the SME provides a stormwater need assessment list for the City. Need number 69 of the list specifically references College Park and the need to upgrade inadequate facilities. The City made the correction of these inadequate facilities a priority. In SME Policy 1.2.2, the plan calls for a Hogtown Creek Stormwater master plan to address deficiencies. The Hogtown Creek Master Plan is further accounted for in Table 14 of the Capital Improvements Element of the Plan. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that SME Objective 1.3 fails to address deficiencies in stormwater and drainage in College Park. A final issue raised by Petitioner is whether FLUE Objective 1.4 is in compliance with Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)3. and 4., Florida Administrative Code, requirements for provision of adequate facilities and services to accommodate densities and intensities of residential and commercial uses in College Park with regard to drainage and stormwater management, open space and convenient on- site traffic flow and vehicle parking. FLUE Objective 1.4 reads as follows: Upon Plan adoption, the City shall ensure the provisions of services and facilities needed to meet and maintain the LOS standards adopted in this Plan. Between Plan adoption and implementation of the Concurrency Management System, the City shall adjust existing facility capacity to reflect the demand created by final development orders as they are issued. As addressed earlier, the Plan, and supporting data and analysis, make provision for adequate facilities and services to accommodate densities and intensities of residential and commercial uses in College Park with regard to these matters. Petitioner has failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that FLUE Objective 1.4 is not in compliance. State And Regional Plans The City's comprehensive plan is consistent with, compatible with, and furthers the state comprehensive plan construed as a whole. A comprehensive plan not only has to meet the minimum criteria of Rule 9J Administrative Code and be generally found consistent with the regional policy plan, it also has to further and promote the goals within the state comprehensive plan. The promotion of infill development, maximizing existing facilities, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and downtown revitalization, are efforts in furtherance of the state comprehensive plan. Higher densities within downtown areas are generally considered to be not only sound planning principles but they achieve many of the state's goals. The plan is also consistent with, compatible with, and furthers the North Central Florida Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan). The North Central Florida Regional Planning Council's Regional Policy Goals IV, page 1, provides that "Urban sprawl should be minimized and urban development should be directed to a designated urban development area." Regional Policy Goals 16, 4 and 11, IV.2, lists six or seven goals dealing with future development directed to urban development areas. By increasing residential densities and high intensity urban areas, the City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plan implements regional as well as state Growth Management objectives. By providing opportunities for infill development, the plan increases development of potential existing urban areas, thus discouraging urban sprawl. This also serves to encourage the redevelopment of older areas and serves to direct new population growth to areas with existing facilities, thereby promoting the full utilization of those facilities before the expansion of new facilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding the comprehensive plan of the City of Gainesville to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. In lieu of proposed findings, Petitioner submitted a document entitled "Suggested Preliminary Finding". The document consisted of 28 pages containing unnumbered paragraphs with no citation to the record established at the final hearing, contrary to requirements of Rule 22I-6.031(3), Florida Administrative Code. Nonetheless, Petitioner's submittal has been reviewed. Many of the assertions contained in the document appeared to be a cumulative restatement of Petitioner's arguments heard at the final hearing, or proposed findings which are cumulative or subordinate to the findings of the Hearing Officer. To the extent possible, the remainder of Petitioner's suggestions have been reviewed and are addressed by the foregoing findings of fact. Respondent City's Proposed Findings. 1.-3. Accepted. 4.-6. Rejected, legal argument. 7. Accepted. 8.-9. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 10.-20 Accepted. 21. Rejected, unnecessary. 22.-24. Accepted. 25.-28. Rejected, unnecessary. 29. Accepted. 30.-34. Rejected, cumulative. 35.-45. Accepted. 46.-47. Rejected, conclusion of law. 48.-49. Rejected, unnecessary. 50.-59. Accepted. 60. Rejected, argumentative. 61.-65. Accepted. 66. Rejected, argumentative. 67.-71. Accepted. 72.-74. Rejected, argumentative. 75.-84. Accepted. 85.-86. Rejected, cumulative. 87.-90. Accepted. 91.-92. Rejected, unnecessary. Accepted. Rejected, unnecessary. 95.-96. Accepted. 97.-98. Rejected, argumentative. 99.-106. Rejected, unnecessary and cumulative. 107.-114 Accepted, not verbatim. 115. Rejected, unnecessary. 116.-135. Accepted. 136.-139. Rejected, cumulative. 140.-142. Accepted. 143.-146. Rejected, cumulative. 147.-157. Accepted. 158. Rejected, no record citation. 159.-161. Subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 162.-166. Adopted in substance, not verbatim. 167.-172. Adopted in substance. 173.-180. Adopted by reference. Respondent Department's Proposed Findings. 1.-26. Accepted. 27.-50. Adopted in substance, not verbatim. 51.-58. Accepted. 59. Adopted by reference. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Dr. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Dr. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Dr. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Elizabeth A. Waratuke, Esquire Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 1110 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Thomas D. Rider, 1624 Northwest 7th Place Gainesville, Florida 32603
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 475.25(1)(b) & (c), Florida Statutes (2007), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker associate in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 3057283. At all times material to this Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed with Re/Max Professionals, Inc., a real estate corporation. At the time of hearing, Respondent was licensed with Access Realty of North Florida, Inc., a licensed real estate corporation. Respondent's address of record is 757 West Duval Street, Lake City, Florida 32055. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the listing agent for a property known as 831 South West 5th Street, Live Oak, Florida (5th Street property). On March 4, 2008, Respondent listed the property as having a Commercial Intensive (CI) zoning. At the time of the listing, zoning classifications for property in Live Oak were not available on line, and could only be obtained by calling for the information. At the present time, George Curtis is employed by the City of Live Oak and handles inquiries regarding zoning for properties in the City of Live Oak. He does not recall receiving a telephone call from Respondent regarding the zoning classification for the 5th Street property. However, at the time of Respondent's inquiry, Mr. Curtis was just starting his employment with the city, and did not yet have an office. Inquiries were at that time directed to the City Clerk's office. Mr. Curtis could not state that no call was received by that office, or, if received, what information was given. The listing for the property states at the bottom, "[t]his information is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed." Respondent listed the property zoning as CI after calling to inquire regarding the appropriate zoning for the property. While she testified that her call was to the Suwannee County office as opposed to the City of Live Oak, it is found that the call must have been made to the City, given the telephone call described below. The property described in the listing is not zoned CI, but rather Commercial Neighborhood (CN). In Live Oak, CI zoning is the most intense zoning district, and is limited to major arterial roads in the city. It is intended to meet the needs of a regional population. CN zoning is intended to provide for commercial use on a more limited scale, in terms of the size of the building that can be placed and the types of uses. It is intended to meet the needs of a neighborhood area. A funeral home would not be a permitted use for property zoned CN. It would require a zoning change. A funeral home would be permitted on a property zoned as commercial general (CG). The CG category is between CI and CN. In September 2008, Respondent contacted the City of Live Oak and was referred to George Curtis about the possible use of the property on SE 5th Street as a daycare. During their telephone conversation, he told her that in order to operate a daycare on the property, the owner would need to receive a special exception to the zoning requirements. He obtained her e- mail address and sent her an e-mail with attachments regarding obtaining special exceptions. Respondent believed, based upon their conversation, that the same would be true for any business to be located on the property. Mr. Curtis does not recall telling Respondent at that time that the property was not zoned as CI. On October 16, 2008, Respondent sent the following e- mail to Mr. Curtis: Hi George, the contract for a day care on 831 SW 5th Street, Live Oak (lots 14, 15, 16, Block E, Hildreth) fell through. I now have a pending contract but the buyers want to use the property for a funeral home. Do you see any problem with this? Anne The e-mail was sent at 5:01 p.m. At 5:22 p.m., Mr. Curtis sent the following reply: Hello Anne: I believe this property was Neighborhood Commercial between Green and Ammons on the south side of 5th. C-N does not have any allowances for a Funeral Home, even as a Special Exception. A petition could be proposed to the City Council for Residential- Office or Office Zoning that does allow for the Funeral Home (with also a Special Exception) but other criteria would have to be evaluated to be sure that parting and buffering requirements could be met after any zoning change took place--which is also a process that is not guaranteed but a possibility--there is no way to predict whether the rezoning and the special exception would be approved. This would probably be a 4-6 month process start to finish plus the associated fees to try. Funeral Homes are allowed by right in General Commercial Zoning but you have to front a major street (129/90/51, etc. to get considered for that zoning…) Hope this helps -- wish I had better news… Respondent claims that she never received this e-mail, and that she never deleted it from her computer. She testified that when she did not receive a response, she called the zoning office and was told that a special exception would be required for a funeral home. She passed this information on to Mr. Wright. On October 17, 2008, Russell Wright made an offer to purchase the property on S.W. 5th Street for $45,000. The contract (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) has been reduced and copied several times, and as a result, is illegible in most respects. However, it can be ascertained that the contract was made on October 17, 2008, and signed by the sellers on October 22, 2008. The contract specified that closing was to take place October 31, 2008, which it did. The contract also specified that the Buyers would pay $5,000 down, and the Sellers would finance the remainder at 8 percent, with payments of $485.31. As part of the closing, the Buyers and Sellers signed an Affidavit of Buyer and Seller Regarding Contract Compliance, which stated "all of the contingencies and conditions set forth in the contract (and all addendums thereto) between the Seller and Buyer have been satisfied, performed or waived by the Buyer and the Seller " Because of the condition of Petitioner's Exhibit 3, it cannot be determined whether the form contract made any representations regarding zoning and who was responsible for determining the appropriate zoning for the property. On October 23, 2008, Respondent sent an e-mail to Russell Wright with attachments labeled "Petition for Special Exemption," "How the Future Land Use Plan Map - Brochure," and "Sec. 12.2 Special Exceptions." The message in the e-mail reads: Hi Russ, here's the contact person who deals with the zoning in Live Oak, and the forms for filing. I received 1 of the forms back from you, the As Is Rider but I still need the corrected Lead based paint disclosure that I sent with the AS Rider in yesterday's fax. Please complete this form and fact back to me. The Seller's [sic] are going to close at 9:00 am on Friday 31st, please let me know as soon as possible a time that would be convient [sic] for you and your wife to attend. Regards, Anne. Mr. Wright acknowledged receiving an e-mail, but not the documents. He sent Respondent the other documents required for closing. After the closing, he called her and stated that he could not locate the paperwork related to special exceptions, and on November 3, 2008, she mailed it to him. With the paperwork was the following note: Dear Russell and Marcus: I have enclosed the paperwork for the Special exception. If you have any questions you may call George Curtis at 386-362-2276. Mr. Curtis is the development manager for the City of Live Oak. Regards, Anne Mr. Wright began making renovations on the property in order to open a funeral home. In July 2009, he began the process of getting his city occupational license. He could not obtain the license because the property was not zoned for his intended use. At that point, Mr. Wright contacted city officials, including George Curtis and the Mayor of Live Oak. Mr. Curtis advised Mr. Wright that he had sent an e-mail to Respondent advising her that a funeral home could not be operated on the property with its present zoning. Mr. Wright wrote to Respondent, demanding that she compensate him for the fact that he could not open the funeral home without a zoning change. The letter stated in pertinent part: The Mayor of Live Oak and Mr. George Curtis has informed me that I can apply for a zoning change so that My Wife and I can open our business. But it will cost $750.00 to file the initial papers. And that is NOT a guarantee. To date with the down payment and monthly payments and renovation cost, your dealings have cost us $25,000 plus pain and suffering and embarrassment. And we have property that we can't use for the intention it was purchased. Ms. Hurst, we are allowing you and your firm to settle this matter out of court. Ms. Hurst we will settle this matter for the amount of $50,000.00 which is damages plus pain and suffering. If you and ReMax Professionals, Inc., are not willing to settle with us out of Court, we will retain the Attorney with whom my Wife and I have consulted. . . . It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Wright chose to believe that he could open a funeral home on the property without any further administrative action either to change the zoning or to obtain a Special Exception for its intended use. Neither belief is consistent with the credible evidence that Respondent sent him information regarding Special Exemptions and the process to obtain them. All of the information given to him is consistent with his need to follow up with the City's zoning department, which he did not do. Based on the more persuasive evidence presented in this classic, "he-said, she-said" case, it is found that Respondent did not receive the October 17, 2008 e-mail from George Curtis, but believed that a Special Exemption would be required to operate a funeral home on the property, and that she supplied information to Mr. Wright to that effect. Mr. Wright's claim that Respondent represented that the property could be used as a funeral home with no further action is rejected.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Count One in the Administrative Complaint; finding a violation of section 475.25(1)(c), as alleged in Count Two; imposing a reprimand and fining Respondent $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William Haley, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Bullock, P.A. Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Joseph A. Solla, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Thomas W. O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether a Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan, known as Apoxsee,2 was adopted in 1981. In 1989, the County adopted a revised and updated version of that Plan. The current Plan was adopted in 1997 and is based on an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) approved by the County on February 20, 1996. After a lengthy process which began several years earlier, included input from all segments of the community, and involved thousands of hours of community service, on February 28, 2002, the County submitted to the Department a package of amendments comprised of an overlay system (with associated goals, objectives, and policies) based on fifty- year projections of growth. The amendments were in response to Future Land Use Policy 4.7 which mandated the preparation of a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, which had served as an urban growth boundary in the County since the mid-1970s. Through the overlays, the amendments generally established areas in the County for the location of villages, hamlets, greenways, and conservation subdivisions. On May 10, 2002, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC). In response to the ORC, on July 10, 2002, the County enacted Ordinance No. 2001-76, which included various changes to the earlier amendment package and generally established six geographic overlay areas in the County, called Resource Management Areas (RMAs), with associated goals, objectives, and policies in the Future Land Use Chapter. The RMAs include an Urban/Suburban RMA, an Economic Development RMA, a Rural Heritage/Estate RMA, a Village/Estate/Open Space RMA, a Greenway RMA, and an Agriculture/Reserve RMA. The amendments are more commonly known as Sarasota 2050. The revised amendment package was transmitted to the Department on July 24, 2002. On September 5, 2002, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. On September 26, 2002, Manasota-88, Compton, and Ayech (and four large landowners who subsequently voluntarily dismissed their Petitions) filed their Petitions challenging the new amendments. In their Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Manasota-88 and Compton contend that the amendments are not in compliance for the following reasons: vagueness and uncertainties of policies; an inconsistent, absent or flawed population demand and urban capacity allocation methodology; inconsistent planning time frames; overallocation of urban capacity; urban sprawl; failure to coordinate future land uses with planned, adequate and financially feasible facilities and services; failure to protect wetlands, wildlife and other natural resources; failure to meet requirements for multimodal and area-wide concurrency standards; failure to provide affordable housing; land use incompatibility of land uses and conditions; indefinite mixed uses and standards; lack of intergovernmental coordination; and inadequate opportunities for public participation the Amendment is internally inconsistent within itself and with other provisions of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, is not supported by appropriate data and analysis and is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Regional Policy [P]lan of the Southwest Regional Planning Council. In the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Ayech has relied on the same grounds as Manasota-88 and Compton (except for the allegation that the amendments lack intergovernmental coordination). In addition, she has added an allegation that the amendments fail to adequately plan "for hurricane evacuation." The Parties The Department is the state planning agency responsible for review and approval of comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto. The County adopted the amendments being challenged here. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that Petitioners either reside, own property, or own or operate a business within the County, and that they made comments, objections, or recommendations to the County prior to the adoption of the Amendment. These stipulated facts establish that Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and have standing to initiate this action. Given the above stipulation, there was no testimony presented by Manasota-88 describing that organization's activities or purpose, or by Compton individually. As to Ayech, however, she is a resident of the County who lives on a 5-acre farm in the "Old Miakka" area east of Interstate 75, zoned OUE, which is designated as a rural classification under the Plan. The activities on her farm are regulated through County zoning ordinances. The Amendment Generally Under the current Plan, the County uses a number of growth management strategies including, but not limited to: an urban services area (USA) boundary; a minimum residential capacity "trigger" mechanism, that is, a minimum dwelling unit capacity of 133 percent of housing demand projected for a ten- year plan period following each EAR, to determine when the USA boundary may need to be moved; a future urban area; and concurrency requirements. Outside the USA, development is generally limited to no greater than one residential unit per five acres in rural designated areas or one unit per two acres in semi-rural areas. The current Plan also includes a Capital Improvement Element incorporating a five-year and a twenty-plus-year planning period. The five-year list of infrastructure projects is costed and prioritized. In the twenty-plus-year list, infrastructure projects are listed in alphabetical order by type of facility and are not costed or prioritized. The construction of infrastructure projects is implemented through an annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with projects generally being moved between the twenty-plus-year time frame and the five-year time frame and then into the CIP. All of the County's future urban capacity outside the USA and the majority of capacity remaining inside the USA are in the southern part of the County (south of Preymore Street extended, and south of Sarasota Square Mall). As the northern part of the County's urban capacity nears buildout, the County has experienced considerable market pressure to create more urban designated land in the northern part of the County and/or to convert undeveloped rural land into large lot, ranchette subdivisions. Because of the foregoing conditions, and the requirement in Future Land Use Policy 4.1.7 that it prepare a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, the County began seeking ways to encourage what it considers to be a "more livable, sustainable form of development." This led to the adoption of Sarasota 2050. As noted above, Sarasota 2050 consists of six geographic overlay areas in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), called RMAs, with associated goals, objectives, and policies. As described in the Plan, the purpose and objective of the Amendment is as follows: The Sarasota County Resource Management Area (RMA) Goal, Objectives and Policies are designed as a supplement to the Future Land Use Chapter of Apoxsee. The RMAs function as an overlay to the adopted Future Land Use Map and do not affect any rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or the Land Development Regulations of Sarasota County or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that Policy TDR 2.2 shall apply to land located within the Rural/Heritage Estate, Village/ Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. To accomplish this purpose and objective, the RMAs and their associated policies are expressly designed to preserve and strengthen existing communities; provide for a variety of land uses and lifestyles to support diverse ages, incomes, and family sizes; preserve environmental systems; direct population growth away from floodplains; avoid urban sprawl; reduce automobile trips; create efficiency in planning and provision of infrastructure; provide County central utilities; conserve water and energy; allocate development costs appropriately; preserve rural character, including opportunities for agriculture; and balance jobs and housing. The Amendment creates an optional, alternative land use policy program in the Plan. To take advantage of the benefits and incentives of this alternative program, a property owner must be bound by the terms and conditions in the goal, objectives, and policies. Policy RMA1.1 explains it this way: The additional development opportunities afforded by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies are provided on the condition that they are implemented and can be enforced as an entire package. For example, the densities and intensities of land use made available by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies may not be approved for use outside the policy framework and implementing regulatory framework set forth herein. Policy RMA1.3 expresses the Amendment’s optional, alternative relationship to the existing Plan as follows: The Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall not affect the existing rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Development Regulations or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that TDR 2.2 [relating to transfer of development rights] shall apply to land located within the Rural Heritage/ Estate, Village/Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. Therefore, if a landowner chooses to pursue the alternative development opportunities, he essentially forfeits his current development rights and accepts the terms and conditions of Sarasota 2050. The RMAs The RMAs were drawn in a series of overlays to the FLUM based on the unique characteristics of different areas of the County, and they result in apportioning the entire County into six RMAs. They are designed to identify, maintain, and enhance the diversity of urban and rural land uses in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Urban/Suburban RMA is an overlay of the USA and is comparable to the growth and development pattern defined by the Plan. Policies for this RMA call for neighborhood planning, providing resources for infrastructure, and encouraging development (or urban infill) in a portion of the Future USA identified in the Amendment as the Settlement Area. The Economic Development RMA consists of land inside the USA that is located along existing commercial corridors and at the interchanges of Interstate 75. In this RMA, the policies in the Amendment provide for facilitating economic development and redevelopment by preparing critical area plans, encouraging mixed uses, providing for multi-modal transportation opportunities, creating land development regulations to encourage economic development, and providing more innovative level of service standards that are in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Greenway RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are of special environmental value or are important for environmental connectivity. Generally, the Greenway RMA is comprised of public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, existing preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands adjacent to the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow- ways and wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Priority Protection Program (ESLPPP), and lands deemed to be of high ecological value. This RMA is accompanied by a map depicting the general location of the features sought to be protected. The Rural/Heritage Estate Resource Management RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are presently rural and very low density residential in character and development and are planned to remain in that form. In other words, the RMA's focus is on protecting the existing rural character of this area. To accomplish this objective, and to discourage inefficient use of land in the area, the Amendment contains policies that will create and implement neighborhood plans focusing on strategies and measures to preserve the historic rural character of the RMA. It also provides incentives to encourage the protection of agricultural uses and natural resources through measures such as the creation of land development regulations for a Conservation Subdivision form of use and development in the area. The Agricultural Reserve RMA is made up of the existing agricultural areas in the eastern and southeastern portions of the County. The Amendment contains policies that call for the amendment of the County’s Zoning and Land Development Regulations to support, preserve, protect, and encourage agricultural and ranching uses and activities in the area. Finally, the Village/Open Space RMA is the centerpiece of the RMA program. It consists of land outside the USA that is planned to be the location of mixed-use developments called Villages and Hamlets. The Village/Open Space RMA is primarily the area where the increment of growth and development associated with the longer, 2050 planning horizon will be accommodated. Villages and Hamlets are form-specific, using connected neighborhoods as basic structural units that form compact, mixed-use, master-planned communities. Neighborhoods provide for a broad range and variety of housing types to accommodate a wide range of family sizes and incomes. Neighborhoods are characterized by a fully connected system of streets and roads that encourage alternative means of transportation such as walking, bicycle, or transit. Permanently dedicated open space is also an important element of the neighborhood form. Neighborhoods are to be designed so that a majority of the housing units are within walking distance of a Neighborhood Center and are collectively served by Village Centers. Village Centers are characterized by being internally designed to the surrounding neighborhoods and provide mixed uses. They are designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental use and service needs of the residents of the Village. Densities and intensities in Village Centers are higher than in neighborhoods to achieve a critical mass capable of serving as the economic nucleus of the Village. Villages must be surrounded by large expanses of open space to protect the character of the rural landscape and to provide a noticeable separation between Villages and rural areas. Hamlets are intended to be designed as collections of rural homes and lots clustered together around crossroads that may include small-scale commercial developments with up to 20,000 square feet of space, as well as civic buildings or shared amenities. Each Hamlet is required to have a public/civic focal point, such as a public park. By clustering and focusing development and population in the Village and Hamlet forms, less land is needed to accommodate the projected population and more land is devoted to open space. The Village/Open Space RMA is an overlay and includes FLUM designations. According to the Amendment, the designations become effective if and when a development master plan for a Village or Hamlet is approved for the property. The Urban/Suburban, Agricultural Reserve, Rural Heritage/Estate, Greenway, and Economic Development RMAs are overlays only and do not include or affect FLUM designations. For these five RMAs, the FLUM designation controls land use, and any changes in use that could be made by using the overlay policies of the Amendment that are not consistent with the land's future land use designation would require a land use redesignation amendment to the Plan before such use could be allowed. Data and analysis in support of the amendment The County did an extensive collection and review of data in connection with the Amendment. In addition to its own data, data on wetlands, soils, habitats, water supplies, and drainage with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) were reviewed. Data from the BEBR were used in deriving population and housing demand forecasts for the 2050 planning period. Transportation system modeling was performed using data from the local Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPA). The MPA uses the Florida State Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS), which is commonly used throughout the State for transportation modeling and planning purposes. Expert technical assistance was also provided by various consulting firms, including the Urban Land Institute, Analytica, Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., Urban Strategies, Inc., Duany-Plater-Zyberk, Glatting Jackson, Fishkind & Associates, Stansbury Resolutions by Design, and Kumpe & Associates. In addition, the Urban Land Institute prepared a comprehensive report on the benefits of moving towards new urbanist and smart growth forms east of Interstate 75 and a build-out 2050 planning horizon. Finally, topical reports were prepared on each of the RMAs, as well as on public participation, financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality, market analysis, and infrastructure analysis. In sum, the data gathered, analyzed, and used by the County were the best available data; the analyses were done in a professionally acceptable manner; and for reasons more fully explained below, the County reacted appropriately to such data. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners have raised a wide range of objections to the Amendment, including a lack of data and analyses to support many parts of the Amendment; flawed or professionally unacceptable population and housing projections; a lack of need; the encouragement of urban sprawl; a lack of coordination between the future land uses associated with the Amendment and the availability of capital facilities; a flawed transportation model; a lack of meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines; internal inconsistency; a failure to protect natural resources; a lack of economic feasibility and fiscal neutrality; and inadequate public participation and intergovernmental coordination. Use of a 50-year planning horizon Petitioners first contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because it has a fifty-year planning time frame rather than a five or ten-year time frame, and because it does not have the same time frame as the Plan itself. Section 163.3177(5)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan must include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period occurring after the plan's adoption and one covering at least a 10-year period." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(4). However, nothing in the statute or rule prohibits a plan from containing more than two planning horizons, or for an amendment to add an additional fifty-year planning period. Therefore, the objection is without merit. Population and housing need projections For a fifty-year plan, the County had to undertake an independent analysis and projection of future population in the County. In doing so, the County extrapolated from BEBR medium range 2030 projections and calculated a need for 82,000 new homes over the 2050 period. Examining building permit trends over the prior ten years, the County calculated a high- end projection of 110,000 new homes. The County developed two sets of estimates since it is reasonable and appropriate to use more than one approach to produce a range of future projections. The County based its planning on the lower number, but also assessed water needs relative to the higher number. The data and sources used by the County in making the population and housing need projections are data and sources commonly used by local governments in making such projections. The County's expert demographer, Dr. Fishkind, independently evaluated the methodologies used by the County and pointed out that the projections came from the BEBR mid- range population projections for the County and that, over the years, these projections have been shown to be reliably accurate. The projections were then extended by linear extrapolation and converted to a housing demand in a series of steps which conformed with good planning practices. The projections were also double-checked by looking at the projected levels of building permits based on historical trends in the previous ten years' time. These two sets of calculations were fairly consistent given the lengthy time frame and the inherent difficulty in making long-range forecasts. Dr. Fishkind also found the extrapolation from 2030 to 2050 using a linear approach to be appropriate. This is because medium-term population projections are linear, and extrapolation under this approach is both reasonable and proper. Likewise, Dr. Fishkind concluded that comparing the projections to the projected level of building permits based on historical trends is also a reasonable and acceptable methodology and offers another perspective. Manasota-88's and Compton's expert demographer, Dr. Smith, disagreed that the County’s methodology was professionally acceptable and opined instead that the mid- range 2050 housing need was 76,800 units. He evidently accepted the BEBR mid-range extrapolation done by the County for the year-round resident population of the County through 2050, but disagreed on the number of people associated with the functional population of the County. To calculate the actual number of persons in the County and the number of homes necessary to accommodate those persons, it is necessary to add the persons who reside in the County year-round (the "resident population") to the number of people who live in the County for only a portion of the year (the "seasonal population"). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(2)(e)("The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections.") The BEBR projections are based on only the resident population. The County’s demographer assigned a 20 percent multiplier to the resident population to account for the seasonal population. This multiplier has been in the Plan for many years, and it has been used by the County (with the Department's approval) in calculating seasonal population for comprehensive planning purposes since at least 1982. Rather than use a 20 percent multiplier, Dr. Smith extrapolated the seasonal population trend between the 1990 census and the 2000 census and arrived at a different number for total county housing demand. Even so, based on the fifty- year time frame of the Amendment, the 2050 housing demand number estimated by Dr. Smith (76,800 units) is for all practical purposes identical to the number projected by the County (82,000). Indeed, Dr. Fishkind opined that there is no statistically significant difference between the County's and Dr. Smith's projections. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth [and] the projected population of the area." The "need" issue is also a factor to be considered in an urban sprawl analysis. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. (urban sprawl may be present where a plan designates for development "uses in excess of demonstrated need"). There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans are judged. The County's evidence established that the allocation ratio of housing supply to housing need associated with the best-case scenario, that is, a buildout of existing areas and the maximum possible number of units being approved in the Villages, was nearly 1:1. Adding the total number of remaining potential dwelling units in the County at the time of the Amendment, the total amount of potential supply for the 2050 period was 82,500 units. This ratio is more conservative than the ratios found in other comprehensive plans determined to be in compliance by the Department. In those plans, the ratios tend to be much greater than 1:1. Petitioners objected to the amount of allocation, but offered no independent allocation ratio that should have been followed. Instead, Manasota-88's and Compton's expert undertook an independent calculation of potential units which resulted in a number of units in excess of 100,000 for the next twenty years. However, the witness was not capable of recalling, defending, or explaining these calculations on cross-examination, and therefore they have been given very little weight. Moreover, the witness clearly did not factor the transfer of density units or the limitations associated with the transfer of such units required by the policies in the Amendment for assembling units in the Villages. Given these considerations, it is at least fairly debatable that Sarasota 2050 is based on relevant and appropriate population and housing need projections that were prepared in a professionally acceptable manner using professionally acceptable methodologies. Land use suitability Petitioners next contend that the identification of the RMAs is not based on adequate data and analyses of land use suitability. In this regard, Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that future land use plans be based, in part, on surveys, studies, and data regarding "the character of undeveloped land." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(2), which sets forth the factors that are to be evaluated when formulating future land use designations. The Amendment was based upon a land use suitability analysis which considered soils, wetlands, vegetation, and archeological sites. There is appropriate data and analyses in the record related to such topics as "vegetation and wildlife," "wetlands," "soils," "floodplains," and "historical and archeological sites." The data were collected and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner, and the identification of the RMAs reacts appropriately to that data and analyses. The County's evidence demonstrated that the locations chosen for the particular RMAs are appropriate both as to location and suitability for development. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment is supported by adequate data and analyses establishing land use suitability. Urban sprawl and need Petitioners further contend that the Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5), and that it is not supported by an appropriate demonstration of need. Need is, of course, a component of the overall goal of planning to avoid urban sprawl. The emerging development pattern in the northeast area of the County tends toward large-lot development. Here, the RMA concept offers a mixture of uses and requires an overall residential density range of three to six units per net developable Village acre, whereas most of the same residential areas of the County presently appear to have residential densities of one unit per five acres or one unit per ten acres. If the Villages (and Hamlets) are developed according to Plan, they will be a more desirable and useful tool to fight this large-lot land use pattern of current development and constitute an effective anti-urban sprawl alternative. Petitioners also allege that the Amendment will allow urban sprawl for essentially three reasons: first, there is no "need" for the RMA plan; second, there are insufficient guarantees that any future Village or Hamlet will actually be built as a Village or similar new urbanist-type development; and third, the Amendment will result in accelerated and unchecked growth in the County. The more persuasive evidence showed that none of these concerns are justified, or that the concerns are beyond fair debate. The Amendment is crafted with a level of detail to ensure that a specific new urbanist form of development occurs on land designated as Village/Open Space land use. (The "new urbanistic form" of development is characterized by walkable neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing for a range of ages and family sizes; provide civic, commercial, and office opportunities; and facilitate open space and conservation of natural environments.) The compact, mixed-use land use pattern of the Villages and Hamlets is regarded as Urban Villages, a development form designed and recognized as a tool to combat urban sprawl. "New town" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(80) as follows: "New town" means a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct or geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town shall be of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. A new town shall be based on a master development plan, and shall be bordered by land use designations which provide a clear distinction between the new town and surrounding land uses. . The Village/Open Space RMA is consistent with and furthers the concept embodied in this definition, that is, the creation of an efficient urban level of mixed-use development. Urban Villages referenced in the Rule are also a category and development form expressly recognized to combat urban sprawl. The Village/Open Space RMA policies include the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, and the density or intensity of each use. Villages must include a mix of uses, as well as a range of housing types capable of accommodating a broad range of family sizes and incomes. The non-residential uses in the Village, such as commercial, office, public/civic, educational, and recreational uses, must be capable of providing for most of the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental needs of the residents, and must be phased concurrently with the residential development of the Village. The policies set the minimum and maximum size for any Village development. Other policies establish standards for the minimum open space outside the developed area in the Village. The minimum density of a Village is three dwelling units per acre, the maximum density is six dwelling units per acre, and the target density is five dwelling units per acre. An adequate mix of non-residential uses must be phased with each phase or subphase of development. The maximum amount of commercial space in Neighborhood Centers is 20,000 square feet. Village Centers can be no more than 100 acres, the maximum amount of commercial space is 300,000 square feet, and the minimum size is 50,000 square feet. The Town Center may have between 150,000 and 425,000 square feet of gross leasable space. Villages must have sufficient amounts of non-residential space to satisfy the daily and weekly needs of the residents for such uses. Percentage minimums and maximums for the land area associated with uses in Village Centers and the Town Center are also expressed in the policies. Hamlets have a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre and a minimum density of .4 dwelling unit per acre. The maximum amount of commercial space allowed in a Hamlet is 10,000 square feet. The number of potential dwelling units in the Village/Open Space RMA is limited to the total number of acres of land in the Village/Open Space and Greenway RMAs that are capable of transferring development rights. Calculations in the data and analyses submitted to the Department, as well as testimony at the hearing, set this number at 47,000-47,500 units once lands designated for public acquisition under the County’s ESLPPP are properly subtracted. To take advantage of the Village option and the allowable densities associated with Villages, property owners in the Village/Open Space RMA must assemble units above those allowed by the Plan's FLUM designation by acquiring and transferring development rights from the open space, the associated greenbelt and Greenway, the Village Master Plan, and other properties outside the Village. The means and strategy by which transfer sending and receiving areas are identified and density credits are acquired are specified in the Amendment. There are three village areas (South, Central, and North) in the Village/Open Space RMA, and the amendment limits the number of Villages that may be approved in each of the areas. In the South and Central Village areas, a second village cannot be approved for fifteen years after the first village is approved. The amount of village development in the South Village must also be phased to the construction of an interchange at Interstate 75 and Central Sarasota Parkway. In the North Village area, only one village may be approved. In addition, to further limit the amount and rate of approvals and development of Villages, village rezonings and master plans cannot be approved if the approval would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban residential development within the unincorporated county to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period. To evaluate the housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period, among other things, Policy VOS2.1(a)2. sets forth the following items to be considered in determining housing demand: Housing demand shall be calculated by the County and shall consider the medium range population projections of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research for Sarasota County, projected growth in the Municipalities and residential building permit activity in the Municipalities and unincorporated County. Petitioners contend that Policy VOS2.1 is an illegal population methodology. However, the County established that the Policy merely sets forth factors to be considered and does not express a specific methodology. The County’s position is consistent with the language in the policy. Petitioners also contend that the policy is vague and ambiguous because the outcome of the application of the factors is not ordained (since weights are not assigned to each factor), and because building permit activity is not a valid or proper factor to consider in making housing demand projections. The evidence establishes, however, that the factors are all proper criteria to consider in making housing projections, and that a fixed assignment of weights for each item would be inappropriate. In fact, even though Manasota- 88's and Compton's demographer stated that building permit activity is not an appropriate factor to consider, he has written articles that state just the opposite. The County also established that Sumter County (in central Florida) had examined and used building permit activity in projecting population in connection with their comprehensive plan, and had done so after consulting with BEBR and receiving confirmation that this factor was appropriate. That building permit activity demonstrated that population projections and housing demand were higher in Sumter County than BEBR was projecting at the time, and that Sumter County’s own projections were more accurate than BEBR's projections. Petitioners essentially claim that the County should only use BEBR's medium range projections in calculating future housing needs. However, the evidence does not support this contention. Future housing need is determined by dividing future population by average household size. Because BEBR's medium population projections for a county include all municipalities in the county, they must always be modified to reflect the unincorporated county. Moreover, BEBR's projections are the result of a methodology that first extrapolates for counties, but then adjusts upward or downward to match the state population projection. A projection based on this medium range projection, but adjusted by local data, local information, and local trends, is a more accurate indicator of population, and therefore housing need, than simply the BEBR county-wide medium range projection. At the same time, future conditions are fluid rather than static, and the clear objective of Policy VOS2.1 is to project housing demand as accurately as possible. Assigning fixed weights to each factor would not account for changing conditions and data at particular points in time and would be more likely to lead to inaccurate projections. As specified in Policy VOS2.1, the factors can properly serve as checks or balances on the accuracy of the projections. Given that the clear intent of Policy VOS2.1 is to limit housing capacity and supply, accurately determining the housing demand is the object of the policy, and it is evident that the factors should be flexibly applied rather than fixed as to value, weight, or significance. There is also persuasive evidence that the RMA amendments can be reasonably expected to improve the Plan by providing an anti-sprawl alternative. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) directly addresses this situation in the following manner: If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. (emphasis added) Petitioners did not offer persuasive evidence to refute the fact that the RMAs would improve the existing development pattern in the County. While Petitioners alleged that the Amendment allows for the proliferation of urban sprawl in the form of low-density residential development, the evidence shows, for example, that the County's current development pattern in the USA has an overall residential density between two and three units per acre. The Rural Heritage/Estate and Agricultural Reserve RMAs may maintain or reduce the existing density found in the Plan by the transfer of development rights. The three to six dwelling units per net developable residential acre required for Village development in the Village/Open Space RMA, coupled with the Amendment's specific policies directing the location of higher density residential uses, affordable housing, and non- residential uses, provide meaningful and predictable standards for the development of an anti-sprawl land use form. They also provide a density of focused development that diminishes, rather than exacerbates, the existing potential for sprawl found in the Plan. In reaching his opinions on urban sprawl, Manasota- 88's and Compton's expert indicated that he only assessed the question of sprawl in light of the thirteen primary indicators of sprawl identified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g). Unlike that limited analysis, the County's and the Department's witnesses considered the sprawl question under all of the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and concluded that the Amendment did not violate the urban sprawl prohibition. As they correctly observed, there are other portions of the law that are critically relevant to the analysis of sprawl in the context of this Amendment. Urban villages described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.003(80) are a category and development form expressly designed to combat urban sprawl. In addition, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) recognizes urban villages and new towns as two "innovative and flexible" ways in which comprehensive plans may discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the Village form contained in the Amendment will discourage urban sprawl. The types and mix of land uses in the amendment are consistent with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and will serve to discourage urban sprawl. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the County and serves to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. It is also beyond fair debate that the Amendment describes an innovative and flexible planning and development strategy that is expressly encouraged and recognized by Section 163.3177(11), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) as a means to avoid and prevent sprawl. Natural resource protection and wetlands impacts Petitioners next allege that the Amendment fails to protect natural resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. and 9J-5.013(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (b). At a minimum, by providing for a Greenway area, clustering of development, large open space requirements, wildlife crossings, floodplain preservation and protection, greenbelts and buffers, transfers of development rights placing higher value on natural resources, best management practices, and the encouragement of development in the RMA pattern, the RMA plan creates a level of natural resource protection greater than the County’s existing Plan. Though Petitioners disagreed with the extent and breadth of the protections afforded by the Amendment, they could only point to one area where protections may not be as significant as in the Plan: wetland impacts in Villages where the Village Center is involved. On this issue, Policy VOS1.5 provides that: The County recognizes that prevention of urban sprawl and the creation of compact, mixed-use development support an important public purpose. Therefore, the approval of a Master Development Plan for a Village may permit impacts to wetlands within the Village Center itself only when it is determined that the proposed wetland impact is unavoidable to achieve this public purpose and only the minimum wetland impact is proposed. Such approval does not eliminate the need to comply with the other wetland mitigation requirements of the Environmental Technical Manual of the Land Development Regulations, including the requirement for suitable mitigation. The Board of County Commissioners will review such proposals on a case-by-case basis as part of the Master Development Plan review process. Contrary to Petitioners' claims, the Policy does not encourage wetland destruction. Impacts to wetlands with appropriate mitigation are allowed under this policy only when the impact is "unavoidable" and "the minimum impact is proposed." The term "unavoidable impact" is not an ambiguous term in the area of wetland regulation. It is not unbridled in the context of the policy, nor is it ambiguous when properly viewed in the context of the overriding concern of the amendment to "preserve environmental systems." The term "unavoidable impact" is used and has application and meaning in other wetland regulatory programs, such as the federal Clean Water Act and the regulations implementing that law. Regulations based on "unavoidable impacts," both in this policy as well as in the state and federal regulations, can be applied in a lawfully meaningful way. Considering the policies regarding environmental systems, habitats, wildlife, and their protection, especially when read in conjunction with the protections required in the Plan, the Amendment as a whole reacts appropriately to the data and can be expected to afford protection of natural resources. The Greenway RMA was based on data and analyses that generated a series of environmental resource overlays, that when completed, comprised the Greenway RMA. The overlays layered public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands associated with the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow-ways, wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s ESLPPP, lands deemed to be of high ecological value, and appropriate connections. The evidence establishes that the staff and consultants reviewed and consulted a wide range of professionally appropriate resources in analyzing and designating the Greenway RMA. Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Greenway RMA is inadequate in the sense that the RMA does not include all appropriate areas of the County. This claim was based on testimony that the Greenway did not include certain areas west and south of Interstate 75 in the Urban/Suburban and Economic Development RMAs, as well as a few conservation habitats (preserve areas) set aside by Development of Regional Impacts or restricted by conservation easements. However, the preserve areas and conservation easement properties will be preserved and maintained in the same fashion as the Greenway, so for all practical purposes their non-inclusion in the Greenway is not significant. The area located south of Interstate 75 was found to be the Myakka State Forest, which is in the planning jurisdiction of the City of North Port. Manasota-88's and Compton's witness (an employee of the FFWCC) also advocated a slightly different greenway plan for fish and wildlife resources, which he considered to be a better alternative than the one selected by the County. The witness conceded, however, that his alternative was only one of several alternative plans that the County could properly consider. In this regard, the County’s Greenway RMA reacts to data on a number of factors, only one of which is fish and wildlife. One important factor disregarded by the witness was the influence of private property rights on the designation of areas as greenway. While the FFWCC does not factor the rights of property owners in its identification of greenways, it is certainly reasonable and prudent for the County to do so. This is because the County’s regulatory actions may be the subject of takings claims and damages, and its planning actions are expected to avoid such occurrences. See § 163.3161(9), Fla. Stat. Petitioners also alleged that the lack of specific inclusion of the term "A-E Flood Zone" in the Greenway designation criteria of Policy GS1.1 does not properly react to the data and analyses provided in the Greenway Final Support Document. (That policy enumerates the component parts of the Greenway RMA.) Any such omission is insignificant, however, because in the Greenway RMA areas, the A-E Flood Zone and the areas associated with the other criteria already in Policy GS1.1 are 90 percent coterminous. In addition, when an application for a master plan for a Village is filed, the master plan must specifically identify and protect flood plain areas. At the same time, through fine tuning, the development review process, the open space requirements, and the negotiation of the planned unit development master plan, the remaining 10 percent of the A-E Flood Zone will be protected like a greenway. Greenway crossings The Greenway RMA is designed in part to provide habitat and corridors for movement of wildlife. In the initial drafts of the Amendment, future road crossings of the Greenway were located to minimize the amount of Greenway traversed by roads. After further review by the County, and consultation with a FFWCC representative, the number of crossings was reduced to eleven. The road crossings in the Amendment are not great in length, nor do they bisect wide expanses of the Greenway. All of the proposed crossings traverse the Greenway in areas where the Greenway is relatively narrow. Of the eleven crossings in the Greenway, three crossings presently exist, and these crossings will gain greater protection for wildlife through the design requirements of Policy GS2.4 than they would under the current Plan. Petitioners also expressed concerns with the wording of Policy GS2.4 and contended that the policy was not specific enough with regard to how wildlife would be protected at the crossings. The policy provides that Crossings of the Greenway RMA by roads or utilities are discouraged. When necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry, however, transportation corridors within the Greenway RMA shall be designed as limited access facilities that include multi-use trails and prohibit non- emergency stopping except at designated scenic viewpoints. Roadway and associated utility corridors shall be designed to have minimal adverse impacts to the environment, including provisions for wildlife crossings based on accepted standards and including consideration of appropriate speed limits. Accordingly, under the policy, wildlife crossings must be designed to facilitate minimal adverse impacts on wildlife, and such designs must be "based on accepted standards." While Petitioners contended that what is required by "accepted standards" is vague and ambiguous, the County established that this language, taken individually or in the context of the policies of the Amendment, is specific and clear enough to establish that a crossing must be properly and professionally designed for the target species that can be expected to cross the Greenway at the particular location. It was also appropriate to design the crossing at the time of the construction of the crossing to best react to the species that will be expected to cross. Although Petitioners disagreed that the policy was acceptable, their witness agreed that it is essential to know what species are inhabiting a particular area before one can design a wildlife crossing that will protect the wildlife using the crossing. He further acknowledged that he typically designs crossings for the largest traveling species that his data indicates will cross the roadway. In deciding where to locate roads, as well as how they should be designed, crossings for wildlife are not the only matter with which the local government must be concerned. Indeed, if it were, presumably there would likely be no roads, or certainly far fewer places where automobiles could travel. To reflect legitimate planning, and to reasonably react to the data gathered by the local government, the County’s road network should reflect recognition of the data and an effort to balance the need for roads with the impacts of them on wildlife. The Amendment achieves this purpose. In summary, Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the crossings of the Greenway do not react appropriately to the data and analyses, or that the policies of the crossings are so inadequate as to violate the statute or rule. Transportation planning Manasota-88 and Compton next contend that the data and analyses for the transportation planning omit trips, overstate the potential intensity and density of land uses, and understate trips captured in the Villages. The transportation plan was based on use of the FSUTMS, a model recommended by the State and widely used by transportation planners for trip generation and modeling for comprehensive plan purposes. In developing the transportation plan, the County relied upon resources from the Highway Capacity Manual, the Transportation Research Board, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It also reviewed the data and analyses based on the modeling performed in September 2001 in the Infrastructure Corridor Plan, an earlier transportation plan used by the County. To ensure that the 2001 model was still appropriate for the Amendment, the County conducted further review and analyses and determined that the modeling was reasonable for use in connection with the Amendment even though the intensity of development eventually provided for in the Villages was less than had been analyzed in the model. The evidence supports a finding that the data was the best available, and that they were evaluated in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence further shows that the Amendment identifies transportation system needs, and that the Amendment provides for transportation capital facilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. Transportation network modeling was performed for the County both with and without the 2050 Amendment. Based on the modeling, a table of road improvements needed to support the Amendment was made a part of the Amendment as Table RMA-1. Because the modeling factored more residential and non- residential development than was ultimately authorized by the Amendment, the identification of the level of transportation impacts was conservative, as were the improvements that would be needed. Manasota-88 and Compton correctly point out that the improvements contained in the Amendment are not funded for construction. Even so, this is not a defect in the Amendment because the improvements are not needed unless property owners choose to avail themselves of the 2050 options; if they do, they will be required to build the improvements themselves under the fiscal neutrality provisions of the Amendment. Further, the County’s CIP process moves improvements from the five-to-fifteen year horizon to the five-year CIP as the need arises. Thus, as development proposals for Villages or Hamlets are received and approved in the areas east of I-75, specific improvements would be identified and provided for in the development order, or could be placed in the County’s appropriate CIPs, as needed. The improvements necessary under the Amendment can be accommodated in the County’s normal capital improvements planning, and the transportation system associated with the Amendment can be coordinated with development under the Amendment in a manner that will assure that the impacts of development on the transportation system are addressed. It is noted that the Amendment requires additional transportation impact and improvement analysis at the time of master plan submittal and prior to approval of that plan. Accordingly, the Amendment satisfies the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 for transportation planning. The County used the best available data and reacted to that data in a professionally appropriate way and to the extent necessary as indicated by the data. As noted above, the transportation impacts and needs were conservatively projected, and the County was likely planning for more facilities than would be needed. It is beyond fair debate that the Amendment is supported by data and analyses. Utilities Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because the policies relating to capital facilities are not supported by data and analyses, and that there is a lack of available capital facilities to meet the demand. The County analyzed data on water supplies and demands and central wastewater facilities needs under the Amendment. The data on water supplies and demands were the best available data and included the District water supply plan as well as the County's water supply master plan. The data were analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner and the conclusions reached and incorporated into the Amendment are supported by the analyses. The utilities system for water and wastewater has been coordinated in the Amendment with the County’s CIP in a manner that will ensure that impacts on the utilities are addressed. The County established that there are more than adequate permittable sources of potable water to serve the needs associated with the Amendment, and that the needed capital facilities for water and wastewater can reasonably be provided through the policies of the Amendment. The evidence showed that the Amendment provides for capital facilities for utilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. The total water needs for the County through the year 2050 cannot be permitted at this time because the District, which is the permitting state agency, does not issue permits for periods greater than twenty years. Also, there must be a demonstrated demand for the resources within a 20- year time frame before a permit will issue. Nonetheless, the County is part of a multi-jurisdictional alliance that is planning for long-term water supplies and permitting well into the future. It has also merged its stormwater, utilities, and natural resources activities to integrate their goals, policies, and objectives for long-term water supply and conservation purposes. No specific CIP for water or wastewater supplies and facilities was adopted in the Amendment. The County currently has water and wastewater plans in its Capital Improvement Element that will accommodate growth and development under the land use policies of the Plan. From the list contained in the Capital Improvement Element an improvement schedule is developed, as well as a more specific five-year CIP. Only the latter, five-year program identifies funding and construction of projects, and the only projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element are projects that the County must fund and construct. Because of the optional nature of the Amendment, supplies and facilities needed for its implementation will only be capable of being defined if and when development under the Amendment is requested. At that time, the specific capital facility needs for the development can be assessed and provided for, and they can be made a part of the County’s normal capital facilities planning under the Plan's Capital Facilities Chapter and its related policies. Policy VOS 2.1 conditions approval of Village development on demonstrating the availability and permitability of water and other public facilities and services to serve the development. Further, the Amendment provides for timing and phasing of both Villages and development in Villages to assure that capital facilities planning, permitting, and construction are gradual and can be accommodated in the County's typical capital improvement plan programs. Most importantly, the fiscal neutrality policies of the Amendment assure that the County will not bear financial responsibility for the provision of water or the construction of water and wastewater capital facilities in the Village/Open Space RMA. Supplies and facilities are the responsibility of the developers of the Villages and Hamlets that will be served. Additionally, Policy VOS3.6 requires that all irrigation in the Village/Open Space RMA (which therefore would include Villages and Hamlets) cannot be by wells or potable water sources and shall be by non-potable water sources such as stormwater and reuse water. The supplies and improvements that will be associated with the optional development allowed by the Amendment have been coordinated with the Plan and can be accommodated in the County's normal capital improvement planning. Through the policies in the Amendment, the water and wastewater facility impacts of the Amendment are addressed. Indeed, due to the fiscal neutrality policies in the Amendment, the County now has a financial tool that will make it easier to fund and provide water and wastewater facilities than it currently has under the Plan. Finally, to ensure that capital facilities are properly programmed and planned, the Amendment also contains Policy VOS2.2, which provides in pertinent part: To ensure efficient planning for public infrastructure, the County shall annually monitor the actual growth within Sarasota County, including development within the Village/Open Space RMA, and adopt any necessary amendments to APOXSEE in conjunction with the update of the Capital Improvements Program. It is beyond fair debate that the capital facilities provisions within the Amendment are supported by adequate data and analyses, and that they are otherwise in compliance. Financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality The Capital Improvement Element identifies facilities for which a local government has financial responsibility, and for which adopted levels of service are required, which include roads, water, sewer, drainage, parks, and solid waste. Manasota-88 and Compton challenge the "financial feasibility" of the Amendment. As noted above, there is significant data and analyses of existing and future public facility needs. The data collection and analyses were conducted in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence shows that as part of its analyses, the County conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Village development and determined that Village and Hamlet development can be fiscally neutral and financially feasible. Dr. Fishkind also opined that, based upon his review of the Amendment, it is financially feasible as required by the Act. Policy VOS2.9 of the Amendment provides in part: Each Village and each Hamlet development within the Village/Open Space RMA shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the levels of service standards adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or fiscally beneficial to Sarasota County Government, the School Board, and residents outside that development. The intent of Fiscal Neutrality is that the costs of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the Villages or Hamlets shall be funded by properties within the approved Villages and Hamlets. Policies VOS2.1, VOS2.4, and VOS2.9 provide that facility capacity and fiscal neutrality must be demonstrated, and that a Fiscal Neutrality Plan and Procedure for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality must be approved at the time of the master plan and again for each phase of development. In addition, under Policy VOS2.9, an applicant's fiscal neutrality analysis and plan must be reviewed and approved by independent economic advisors retained by the County. Monitoring of fiscal neutrality is also provided for in Policy VOS2.2. Finally, Policy VOS2.10 identifies community development districts as the preferred financing technique for infrastructure needs associated with Villages and Hamlets. The evidence establishes beyond fair debate that the policies in the Amendment will result in a system of regulations that will ensure that fiscal neutrality will be accomplished. Internal inconsistencies Manasota-88 and Compton further contend that there are inconsistencies between certain policies of the Amendment and other provisions in the Plan. If the policies do not conflict with other provisions of the Plan, they are considered to be coordinated, related, and consistent. Conflict between the Amendment and the Plan is avoided by inclusion of the following language in Policy RMA1.3: If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. As to this Policy, Manasota-88's and Compton's claim is really nothing more than a preference that the Plan policies should also have been amended at the same time to expressly state that where there was a conflict between themselves and the new Amendment policies, the new Amendment would apply. Such a stylistic difference does not amount to the Amendment's not being in compliance. Therefore, it is fairly debatable that the Amendment is internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Public participation and intergovernmental coordination Petitioners next contend that there was inadequate public participation during the adoption of the Amendment as well as a lack of coordination with other governmental bodies. Ayech also asserted that there were inadequate procedures adopted by the County which resulted in less than full participation by the public. However, public participation is not a proper consideration in an in-compliance determination. In addition, the County has adopted all required procedures to ensure public participation in the amendment process. The County had numerous meetings with the municipalities in the County, the Council of Governments (of which the County is a member), and meetings and correspondence by and between the respective professional staffs of those local governments. The County also met with the Hospital Board and the School Board. The evidence is overwhelming that the County provided an adequate level of intergovernmental coordination. Regional and state comprehensive plans Petitioners have alleged violations of the state and regional policy plans. On this issue, Michael D. McDaniel, State Initiatives Administrator for the Department, established that the Amendment was not in inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. His testimony was not impeached or refuted. Petitioners' claim that the Amendment is not consistent with the regional policy plan is based only on a report prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) at the Amendment’s transmittal stage. There was no evidence (by SWFRPC representatives or others) that the report raised actual inconsistencies with the SWFRPC regional policy plan, nor was any evidence presented that the SWFRPC has found the amendment, as adopted, to be inconsistent with its regional plan. There was no persuasive evidence that the Amendment is either in conflict with, or fails to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies in, either the state or regional policy plan. Other objections Finally, all other objections raised by Petitioners and not specifically discussed herein have been considered and found to be without merit. County's Request for Attorney's Fees and Sanctions On April 5, 2004, the County filed a Motion for Attorneys Fees and Sanctions Pursuant to F.S. § 120.595 (Motion). The Motion is directed primarily against Ayech and contends that her "claims and evidence were without foundation or relevance," and that her "participation in the proceeding was 'primarily to harass or cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose.'" The Motion also alleges that Manasota-88 and Compton "participated in this proceeding with an intent to harass and delay the Amendment from taking effect." Replies in opposition to the Motion were filed by Petitioners on April 12, 2004. The record shows that Ayech aligned herself (in terms of issues identified in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation) with Manasota-88 and Compton. While her evidentiary presentation was remarkably short (in contrast to the other Petitioners and the County), virtually all of the issues identified in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation were addressed in some fashion or another by one of Petitioners' witnesses, or through Petitioners' cross-examination of opposing witnesses. Even though every issue has been resolved in favor of Respondents (and therefore found to be either fairly debatable or beyond fair debate), the undersigned cannot find from the record that the issues were so irrelevant or without some evidentiary foundation as to fall to the level of constituting frivolous claims. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation by the parties, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The parties Respondent, Marion County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. In this case, the County has adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan which is the subject of the dispute. Petitioners, Dick and Mary McGinley, are residents of Marion County. Since 1956 they have owned a rectangle-shaped parcel of property consisting of approximately 1,280 acres. The parcel is situated on State Road 484 two and one-half miles west of Interstate 75 between Belleview and Dunnellon and ten miles south-southwest of the City of Ocala. Approximately 318.57 acres lie north of State Road 484 while the remaining 961.38 acres lie south of that roadway. The County's plan amendment affects that part of petitioners' property which lies south of State Road 484. During the adoptive phase of the amendment, petitioners submitted written comments in opposition to the reclassification of their property. As such, they are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. The nature of the dispute The County adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. After the plan was determined by the DCA to be not in compliance, the County and DCA entered into a stipulated settlement agreement in March 1993, which required the County to adopt various remedial amendments. The first set of remedial amendments adopted by the County were determined to be not in compliance. After a second stipulated settlement agreement and addendum were entered into by the same parties, the County adopted further remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, one of which changed the land use designation on a portion of petitioners' property. A cumulative notice of intent to find the plan and remedial amendments in compliance was then issued by the DCA on May 30, 1994. On July 27, 1994, petitioners timely filed an amended petition for administrative hearing in which they contended the plan amendment which affected their property was not in compliance. In their complaint, petitioners alleged that the "future land use (of their property) was not based on accurate data regarding the area as required by Florida law." As further clarified by petitioners in the prehearing stipulation, they allege that the amendment is not based on adequate data and analysis, and it is not consistent with, or does not further the goals of, applicable statutes and rules. As to the latter allegation, petitioners have clarified this to mean that, as to their property, they do not agree that the plan amendment meets its stated goal of discouraging urban sprawl. The Plan Amendment As noted earlier, the County adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. Prior to the adoption of the plan, petitioners' property had been zoned A-1, agricultural district, since at least 1973. Under the January 1992 plan, petitioners' property was placed in an urban expansion area with a low density residential land use which allowed one dwelling unit per acre. Because of an objection by the DCA that the plan allocated too much land to the urban expansion area, the County agreed to adopt remedial amendments to cure that deficiency. In August 1993, the County adopted a remedial amendment to the plan which, among other things, continued an urban expansion designation for petitioners' property. Again, however, the DCA found the amendment not to be in compliance on the ground the plan still allocated too much land to urban uses. To satisfy this continuing concern, and in accordance with a settlement agreement with the DCA, the County agreed to reduce the amount of land allocated to urban uses by reclassifying various tracts of land in the County from urban expansion to urban reserve. In its remedial amendments adopted on April 7, 1994, among other things, the County proposed to change the land use designation on that part of petitioners' property (961.38 acres) lying south of State 484 from urban expansion area to urban reserve category with a rural land use designation, which allows one residential unit per ten acres, or less than 100 units. In contrast, that portion of petitioners' property lying north of State Road 484 (318.57 acres) will continue to remain in the urban expansion area with a medium density residential land use designation, which allows for four dwelling units per acre, or almost 1,400 units. Petitioners' Concerns Petitioners allege that the plan amendment is not based on adequate data and analysis and it fails to achieve its stated objective of preventing urban sprawl. In addition, at hearing petitioners suggested that the reclassification, if ultimately approved, constituted an unlawful taking of their property in violation of the United States Constitution. As to this claim, jurisdiction to adjudicate the same lies within that of a circuit court rather than with the undersigned, and in any event, it cannot be raised until after all administrative remedies, including this one, have been pursued. Petitioners' property is located in the middle of the northern half of a large, vested Development of Regional Impact (DRI) known as Marion Oaks, a project begun in the early 1970's. Their land is surrounded on all sides by mainly residential lots, many of which are vacant, and almost two dozen streets originating within the project end at their property line. Marion Oaks now has two golf courses, a school, library, fire station, bank and utilities. Thus, it contains a mixture of residential, commercial, recreational and other uses. As of the time of hearing, Marion Oaks had around 7,800 residents. Even though 78 percent of Marion Oaks' 24,564 residential lots have been sold, less than 10 percent of the lots have been developed. Therefore, most of the land in the project is vacant, and at its present rate of construction of around 130 residential units per year, Marion Oaks will not be built out for around 190 years. When the amendment was adopted, there was virtually no development in the western part of the DRI, the northern part was "sparsely" developed, a "little more" development was present in the southern part, and the bulk of the development was in the eastern part of the project. Indeed, the only commercial development, albeit very limited in nature, found in the project is approximately one and one-half miles east of petitioners' property. Therefore, it is fair to chararacterize Marion Oaks in its totality as being non-urban in character. Although petitioners have never applied for a development permit, they desire to develop their property by constructing a small shopping center consisting of a bank and supermarket which will serve as an anchor for other "neighborhood" type businesses. In addition, they plan to construct a golf course, perhaps an airport fly-in center, and more than a thousand "affordable- type" housing units to blend in with the other housing in Marion Oaks. With the dual land use designation on their property, however, petitioners point out that this type of development is not feasible. This was confirmed at hearing by their engineer. Petitioners first claim that the plan amendment is not consistent with the County's goal of discouraging scattered development and sprawl. They reason that, since the large Marion Oaks DRI surrounds their parcel of property, urban development is already present. It is true, as petitioners claim, that their property has road accessibility (State Road 484), the availability of centralized utilities and fire protection, and soil suited for development, all of which are necessary for urban development. Even so, Marion Oaks is largely undeveloped at this time, it can be characterized as non-urban, and at present growth rates it will not be built out for 190 years. Given these considerations, it cannot be said to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan is not consistent with, or does not further, the plan's goal of discouraging urban sprawl. Petitioners further contend that they were unfairly treated in this process. They point to another tract of land consisting of around 400 acres that was reclassified urban expansion even though it lies south of Lake Weir in southeastern Marion County in a predominately undeveloped area. Even if this is true, however, the classification of one isolated tract of land in this manner would not mean that petitioners' property would also qualify for the urban expansion category. In addition, petitioners contend that to allow them to develop their property at a medium residential density would be nothing more than infilling the center of an already developed tract of land, namely, the Marion Oaks DRI. Urban infill is defined by statute [s. 163.3164(27)] as follows: the development of vacant parcels of otherwise built-up areas where public facilities such as sewer systems, roads, schools, and recrea- tion areas are already in place and the aver- age residential density is at least five dwelling units per acre, the average non- residential intensity is at least a floor area ratio of 1.0 and vacant, developable land does not constitute more than 10 percent of the area. Since petitioners' property is not in an otherwise "built-up" area having a density of five units per acre as required by law, a designation or development of petitioners' property at urban densities would not be consistent with the concept of infilling. Finally, petitioners contend that the County's plan amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis with respect to the County's imposition of a dual land use designation on their property. As to this contention, the County established that, prior to adopting the amendment, it performed a detailed field survey of all urban areas of the County, including petitioners' parcel. In addition, a property owner's matrix was prepared, and approximately 400 parcels of property, including petitioners, that were proposed for reclassification to another land use category were reevaluated. The only remaining question is why the amendment allows urban development at a density of four residential units per acre on the northern part of petitioners' property but only allows one residential unit per ten acres on the southern part when the entire parcel is surrounded on all sides by the same land use, namely, an existing DRI and subdivision. In other words, absent some data and analysis to the contrary, logic would dictate, and it can be reasonably inferred, that the same land use classification should apply to the entire parcel. However, the County's representation that a property survey and matrix support this change was not credibly contested. Further, on page 53 of the data and analysis supporting the amendment is found the following summary regarding the change on the northern 318.57 acres of petitioners' property from urban reserve residential to urban expansion medium density residential: The County recognizes that development of the complete enclave area will require DRI/ Comprehensive Plan Amendment review, and establishing the small Urban Expansion Area will accommodate some preliminary development prior to the need to commence the DRI/Amend- ment process while maintaining the continuity of the remaining non-urban enclave area lying south of CR 484, a Major Collector roadway. Given these considerations, it cannot be said to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment, as it affects petitioners' property, is not supported by adequate data and analysis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining the challenged plan amendment to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4387GM Petitioners: Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order did not contain a section entitled "Findings of Fact." Where proposed findings are found in other portions of the order, they have been partially accepted in findings of fact 8-16. Respondents: 1-3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. 4-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 8. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4 and 5. 9-11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 15-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 17-18. Rejected as being unnecessary. 19-20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Note - Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the evidence, cumulative or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dick and Mary McGinley 5295 Southwest 135th Street Ocala, Florida 34473 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690
