The Issue Whether Respondent, while serving as an appointed member of the Ocoee Planning and Zoning Commission, violated section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2015)1/ by having a contractual relationship that conflicted with his official responsibilities; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the complaint, Respondent served as an appointed member of the Ocoee P & Z Commission. Respondent is subject to the requirements of part III, chapter 112, Florida Statutes, the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, for his acts and omissions during his tenure on the P & Z Commission. As a member of the P & Z Commission, Respondent is subject to the “Ocoee Florida Land Development Code, Section 3, Planning and Zoning Commission [Land Development Code].” Section 3-2 of Land Development Code provides in part as follows: Establishment and Membership The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City Commission and one member appointed by the School Board of Orange County as a non- voting member. The member appointed by the School Board of Orange County shall attend those meetings at which the Planning and Zoning Commission considers comprehensive plan amendments and rezonings that would, if approved, increase residential density on the property that is the subject of the application. No member shall be an employee of the City of Ocoee and all members, except the member appointed by the School Board of Orange County, shall be residents of the City of Ocoee. When selecting members to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Commission shall attempt to select persons from different geographical areas within the City so as to create geographical diversity and representation. * * * E. Compliance with Laws The Planning and Zoning Commission, and its individual members, shall comply with all applicable laws relative to public bodies, including disclosure of interests and procedure[s] for refraining from participation [when] a conflict of interest exists. * * * G. Duties and Responsibilities To act as the Local Planning Agency (LPA) of the City of Ocoee, pursuant to Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes, and to prepare on its own initiative recommendations for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Ocoee, including text and/or maps, and to forward such amendments to the City Commission for consideration. No such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To review and make recommendations to the City Commission on applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. No such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To prepare on its own initiative recommendations for amendments to this Code, text and/or maps, and to forward such amendments to the City Commission for consideration. No such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To review and make recommendations to the City Commission on applications for amendments to this Code, including applications for annexation or change of zoning. Pursuant to Section 163.3174(4)(c), Florida Statutes, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also have the responsibility to review and make a finding as to the consistency of the proposed land development regulation with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and to report such finding to the City Commission. No such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To review and make recommendations to the City Commission on applications for various development approvals or permits as provided within this Code, including, but not limited to Planned Unit Developments (PUD), special exceptions, subdivisions, and any other application for which the City Commission requests a report and/or recommendation. Where a public hearing is required by the applicable procedural section, no such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To act in an advisory capacity to the City Commission on land use and land development issues and to make such studies and to conduct such investigations as may be requested from time to time by the City Commission. To review zoning of newly annexed lands when it represents an increase in intensity of use or a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to requirements of State law and City ordinance. In addition to serving on the P & Z Commission, Respondent buys and sells commercial real estate. Respondent is a manager and shareholder in W.O.R.Y. INVESTORS, LLC (WORY), an entity that is also in the business of buying and selling commercial real estate. Respondent, in his individual capacity, owned approximately four acres, which abutted six acres owned by WORY. Both properties have an address on West Road in Ocoee, Florida, and will be referred to collectively herein as the “West Road property.” The Contract On or about November 11, 2015, Respondent, in his individual capacity, and as manager for WORY, executed an “Agreement of Sale” wherein the West Road property was to be purchased by Charter Schools Development Group, LLC (buyer), for $1,890,540. According to the Agreement of Sale, the buyer wanted to “develop and construct on the Property a K-8 public charter school.” The Agreement of Sale contained a number of contingencies, referred to in the contract as “Buyer Required Approvals,” that Respondent was required to satisfy prior to finalization of the sale of the West Road property. Paragraph six of the Agreement to Sale sets forth a number of the pre-sale contingencies imposed on Respondent, and the same provides as follows: 6. Development The Buyer intends to develop and construct on the Property a K-8 public charter school and adjacent commercial development acceptable to Buyer consisting of buildings and other improvements including, but not limited to recreation fields, related landscaping, open space, storm water, and appropriate parking (the "Project"). Buyer's obligation to complete the purchase of the Property from Seller in accordance with the terms of this Agreement is contingent upon the satisfaction of each of the following conditions with regard to the Property (each of which may be waived in whole or in part in writing by Buyer): Buyer has obtained final, unappealed and unappealable approvals from all necessary governmental authorities (including governmental agencies), for zoning, utilities and any other approvals (including necessary parking requirements) Buyer deems necessary, in its sole discretion, permitting the construction and use of the improvements comprising the Project, including but not limited to any required special exception. Buyer has obtained final, unappealed and unappealable approvals and/or permits required by any and all governmental authorities (including governmental agencies) so that the Property shall have immediate and adequate access to water, sewer and all other utilities in accordance with the final approved site development plan. Buyer has obtained final, unappealed and unappealable approvals and/or permits required by any and all governmental authorities (including governmental agencies) for storm water management; including easements and agreements for constructing and maintaining storm water basins; all wetlands studies and approvals in such form that wetlands, if any, shall not preclude construction of roads, utilities, storm water management facilities, any other required improvements for erection of buildings on the Property. Buyer has obtained all permits and approvals, and all conditions thereof shall have been satisfied, so as to allow for recording of the final plan and issuance of building permits subject only to satisfaction of the following requirements by Buyer at or after Closing (i) submission of construction drawings in accordance with applicable law, (ii) execution by the Buyer of the necessary development agreements, (iii) execution and funding by Buyer of the necessary escrow agreements for municipal improvements, and sewer and water improvements, and (iv) payment by the Buyer of all municipal fees and charges associated therewith. Subject to Seller's obligation set forth in Section 6(f) below, Buyer has obtained any and all other easements, approvals and/or permits that may be necessary to construct and use the improvements comprising the Project. Buyer shall obtain, at no additional cost to Seller, all easements and roads that in Buyer's sole reasonable discretion are necessary for property access, utilities and signage to the Property in accordance with Buyer's final approved site development plan. The items referred to in subsections 6(a) through 6(f) hereof shall hereafter be referred to as the "Buyer Required Approvals." After the end of the Inspection Period, Buyer shall diligently proceed with the filing of all applications necessary for obtaining the Buyer Required Approvals. Seller agrees, at no expense to Seller, to cooperate with buyer in connection with the Buyer Required Approvals to the extent of signing all applications necessary for obtaining the buyer Required Approvals and appearing and testifying at the various hearings. Seller's cooperation as aforesaid shall not entitle Seller to any additional compensation. All permit fees, studies, deposit and investigation costs incurred in connection with the Buyer Required Approvals shall be the sole responsibility of buyer and buyer agrees to affirmatively use its good faith efforts to obtain all of the Buyer Required Approvals without delay and as expeditiously as reasonably possible. Seller hereby grants to Buyer a power of attorney to file, on Seller's behalf, all applications related to the Buyer Required Approvals; provided, however, that the Land shall not be rezoned prior to the expiration of the Inspection Period. Seller acknowledges that buyer will likely contact, meet with and/or obtain consents for the Project from neighboring property owners during the Inspection Period and in the process of obtaining the Buyer Required Approvals. (emphasis added). None of the provisions of paragraph six of the Agreement of Sale were waived by either party. Paragraph 15(b) of the Agreement of Sale provides as follows: (b) If Seller shall violate or fail (in breach of its obligations hereunder) to fulfill or perform any of the terms, conditions or undertaking set forth in this Agreement within ten (10) days written notice from Buyer or (five (5) days written notice in the event of a monetary default), Buyer shall be entitled to: (i) terminate this Agreement and receive the return of the Deposit and reimbursement of Buyer's documented out-of-pocket due diligence expenses up to $15,000.00, and, thereupon, the parties hereto will be released and relieved from all provisions of this Agreement, or (ii) pursue specific performance. Paragraph 17 of the Agreement of Sale states that “[b]uyer and Seller agree to cooperate with each other and to take such further actions as may be requested by the other in order to facilitate the timely purchase and sale of the Property.” Paragraphs 6, 15(b) and 17 of the Agreement of Sale obligated Respondent to take all steps necessary, including “appearing and testifying at the various hearings,” for ensuring that the “Buyer Required Approvals” were satisfied, which in turn would allow Respondent to receive his share of the purchase price for the West Road property. Section 112.311(1), provides in part that “[i]t is essential to the proper conduct and operation of government that public officials be independent and impartial and that public office not be used for private gain other than the remuneration provided by law.” Rezoning and Respondent’s Role In order for a charter school to be built on the West Road property, it was necessary to rezone the existing planned unit development land use plan covering the property. Ocoee City Planner Michael Rumer testified that there are two types of rezoning. There is a straight rezoning to a zoning category listed in the land development code and there is rezoning to a planned unit development (PUD). Both types of zoning use the following process: an application is filed; then there is a review process by a development review committee, which is a staff level review; that review is forwarded to the P & Z Commission for a recommendation; and then it goes to the Ocoee City Commission for two readings of an ordinance for rezoning if the rezoning is approved. This is the process that was followed for the West Road property PUD. On February 9, 2016, the issue of whether to recommend rezoning of the West Road property to allow for the charter school referenced in the Agreement of Sale came before the P & Z Commission. Respondent was present for the meeting. During the meeting, Respondent spoke in favor of the rezoning request for the West Road property. When a fellow commissioner made a request for more time to review the rezoning issue, Respondent opposed the delay by stating “[i]f you don't give them a go now, you basically kill the deal because it's a time sensitive thing that they want the kids in there in August.” During the meeting, the commissioners struggled with whether to recommend denial of the West Road property zoning request, recommend approval of the request without conditions, or recommend approval of the request with conditions. After two previous motions regarding the zoning request died for lack of a “second,” a third motion was made wherein approval was recommended “with the condition that we’re all going to look at the traffic movement with the final site plan design.” When it appeared as though this motion was also likely to fail for lack of a “second,” Respondent encouraged the chairman of the P & Z Commission to voice a “second” for the motion since Respondent was unable to do so.2/ Respondent’s actions during the meeting of February 9, 2016, were consistent with his obligations under the Agreement of Sale to assist the buyer of the West Road property with securing the “Buyer Required Approvals.”
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a civil penalty of $10,000.00 be imposed against Respondent due to his violation of section 112.313(7)(a) and that Respondent also be publicly censured and reprimanded. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 10th day of April, 2017.
The Issue There are four issues in this proceeding. Whether the Petitioner, Edgewater Beach Owners Association, Inc. (the Association) has been denied a right to a quasi-judicial proceeding regarding Walton County Resolution 95-82 (the December 1995 Amendment). Whether the December 1995 Amendment improperly revives a development of regional impact development order. Whether the development approved by the December 1995 Amendment is vested from compliance with the local comprehensive plan adopted by the County in April 1993 (the 1993 Comp Plan). If not vested, whether the development approved by the December 1995 Amendment is consistent with the 1993 Comp Plan.
Findings Of Fact Background The Association, a Florida condominium association, is the owner of property developed pursuant to a development of regional impact (DRI) order, Walton County Resolution Number 82-12 (Original D.O.), issued by the County on June 8, 1982. The Original D.O. stated that it would remain in effect for ten years or until development was completed, whichever occurred first. It also stated that, upon application of the developer, the duration of the development order could be extended by the County. The Original D.O. authorized the construction of a six-phase condominium development, to consist of 476 residential units and associated recreational amenities. Phases I and II of the proposed six phase development were completed in 1984 and consist of 175 residential (both ownership and rental) units with associated amenities. Phase I and II consists of one building ranging, in a staircase fashion, from nineteen stories to three stories, with the lower portion of the building being located closest to the beach. This building is located on property now owned by the Association. In 1987, before any construction on the remaining four phases began, the original developer lost its interest in the undeveloped property through foreclosure. The Respondent, KPM, Ltd. Company (KPM), which is a Florida limited liability company, acquired title to the undeveloped property in March 1992. On May 25, 1992, in response to a request from KPM, the County voted to extend the termination date of the Original D.O. However, the Florida Department of Community Affairs subsequently informed the County and KPM that, in order to effect such an extension, the developer would be required to file a formal notice of proposed change and undergo further review pursuant to chapter 380, Florida Statutes. In September 1992, KPM filed a notice of proposed change asking the County to revive the Original D.O. KPM subsequently amended its notice to request a reduction in the number of units to be included in Phase III. In January 1993, the County approved KPM's proposed changes, revived the Original D.O., and extended the duration of the development order to January 1, 1999. This approval was formalized in Walton County Resolution Number 93-2 (the 1993 Amendment) and included the proviso that KPM submit an updated traffic analysis before Phases IV through V could be constructed. The Association filed a Section 380.07 appeal of the 1993 Amendment (EBOAI) and, in that appeal, specifically challenged the County's authority to revive the Original D.O. Following a formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, FLWAC entered a final order dismissing EBOA's appeal of the 1993 Amendment on October 24, 1995. The FLWAC final order is presently pending on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal. Neither FLWAC nor the court have entered an order staying the effectiveness of the final order. In April, 1993, the County adopted the 1993 Comp Plan. KPM submitted a second notice of proposed change in January 1995, requesting certain changes in the phasing of the project. Included with the materials submitted to the County was the updated traffic analysis required by the county as a precondition to the approval of future phases III and IV to 71 and 124, respectively. The number of units included in Phase V was reduced to 86 and Phase VI was deleted altogether. The net effect was that the total number of units to be included in the undeveloped phases of the project remained at 281. The Association filed a FLWAC appeal challenging the April 1995 Amendment. Since the April 1995 Amendment is pending on appeal to FLWAC, it is not yet effective. The Association also brought two separate suits challenging the April 1995 Amendment in circuit court, one under Section 163.3215, Florida Statues, and the other under common law certiorari. All three actions have been abated and remain pending. In June 1995, KPM transferred its interest in the undeveloped property to the Respondent, Grand Dunes, Ltd. (Grand Dunes). Grand Dunes is a limited partnership, of which KPM is a limited partner. In addition, KPM retains the right to reacquire the undeveloped property should Grand Dunes decide against developing it. On or about October 5, 1995, the Developers jointly filed another notice of proposed change, through which they sought authorization to increase the number of units in Phase III to 89, decrease the number in Phase IV to 89, and delete Phases V and VI altogether. The net effect of the proposed change is a reduction in the total number of units in the undeveloped phases from 281 to 178. The December 1995 Amendment, which is the subject of this proceeding, reflects the County's approval of these proposed changes. Quasi-judicial Proceedings The Association asserts that the County's December 12, 1995, hearing (the County hearing) was deficient in two respects: 1/ 1) the transportation report appended to the notice of proposed change was not competent substantial evidence; and 2) the Association was not afforded appropriate procedural rights. The Transportation Report The transportation analysis submitted by the Developers as part of their notice of proposed change was dated October 7, 1994, and was identical to the report submitted in support of the April 1995 Amendment. No further updated transportation information was provided to the County by either the Developers or the Association prior to or during the County hearing. The author of that report, David Muntean, is an expert in transportation engineering. Muntean explained at final hearing that the purpose of the analysis reflected in the report was to determine whether the development changes being considered by KPM in the fall of 1994--ultimately embodied in the April 1995 Amendment--would have a significant impact on area roadways. Two specific issues are addressed in making this determination: 1) at build-out (1998), whether traffic generated by the proposed development, considered together with the already built Phases I and II and all other traffic on an area roadway, will result in traffic volumes that exceed the traffic capacity recommended for the roadway (i.e. cause a degradation in the level of service); and 2) at build-out, whether the proposed development, together with Phases I and II, will generate five (5) percent or more of the traffic volume recommended for a roadway. In order to determine whether there may be a degradation in the level of service, Muntean made a projection of the volume of traffic that would be generated by sources other than the proposed development (the background traffic) in 1998. He accomplished this by extrapolating between the background traffic reflected in the latest Department of Transportation traffic figures then available (1993) and the projected traffic volume for the year 2015, as calculated in the Fort Walton Beach Urban Area Transportation Update. Since Phase I and II of the Original D.O.-- the Association's buildings-- were completed back in 1984, traffic generated by those phases was included in the calculation of background traffic. Muntean then projected the number of trips that would be generated by the proposed development itself, using data supplied by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This source provides a formula for calculating projected numbers of vehicular trips based upon the type of development being proposed. Once a raw figure was calculated using the ITE formula, certain adjustment factors were applied. These included adjustments for household size and for internal capture. Internal capture represents the number of trips that might otherwise be generated by a project if not for amenities available within the project itself that reduce the number of vehicular trips taken off the project premises. The adjustment factor used for internal capture was conservative, in order to ensure that the number of trips generated by the project would not be underestimated. In calculating the number of trips projected to be generated by the project, Muntean included not only those trips that would originate from the proposed new development, but also those trips that could be expected to originate from the already developed Phases I and II. Since the traffic from those completed phases was also included in the calculation of projected background traffic, Muntean's analysis double counts the Phases I and II traffic. The result is another overestimation of the traffic impacts of the project. Based upon a total development of 456 units, the traffic report established that there are projected to be two roadway segments which will operate below their recommended level of service at build-out. However, the trips generated by a 456 unit development was projected to account for less than five percent of the assigned level of service. (i.e. the maximum recommended traffic volume). Similarly, the report projects that, at build-out, trips generated by a 456 unit development would account for more than five percent of the maximum recommended traffic volume for two roadway segments. Those two roadways, however, will continue to operate well within their assigned levels of service. While the initial report projects the traffic impacts of a 456 unit development, the development approved by the December 1995 Amendment will have fewer total units--only 353. (The 175 already constructed units owned by the Association and 178 to be built by the Developers). The Association offered no evidence suggesting that the conclusions reflected in the initial traffic report were faulty or inapplicable to the development at hand. Nor did the Association offer any reports or analysis of its own. While the projections reflected in the report may not predict 1998 traffic with absolute accuracy, it reflects a best estimate of the traffic impacts of the development. Accordingly, the initial traffic report constitutes competent substantial evidence. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the initial report also supplies a sufficient evidentiary basis on which to make a finding regarding traffic impacts. However, the Developers provided further support by commissioning Muntean to prepare a second traffic report, based upon the most up-to-date traffic information. Muntean used basically the same methodology utilized for the previous report. 2/ However, in the second report, Muntean did decrease the total number of units being analyzed for traffic impacts to reflect the 353 that the County actually approved during the County hearing. The conclusions reflected in the second report do not deviate significantly from those reported in the first. At build-out, three roadway segments are projected to operate below their assigned levels of service, but, in each case, the traffic from the 353 unit development will account for less than five percent of the maximum capacity allowable under the assigned level of service. On one other roadway segment, traffic from the total project is projected to account for more than five percent of the maximum allowable volume for the roadway's assigned level of service, but that roadway will continue to operate well within its assigned level of service, even with the build-out development's traffic. The evidence presented by the Developers establishes that the proposed development, even when considered together with the already constructed phases now owned by the Association, will not significantly impact any area roadway. Consequently, the County's determination, that the proposed development does not constitute a substantial deviation, is supported by competent substantial evidence. Procedural Opportunities The County hearing was preceded by notice published in a local newspaper on November 16, 1995. That notice clearly identifies the date and time of the hearing regarding the Developers' proposed changes. The Association has not alleged that it failed to receive said notice. As is the practice of the County for all agenda items, the agenda indicated that ten minutes were set aside for consideration of the Developers' proposed changes. However, the transcript of that hearing indicates that both the Developers and the Association were afforded as much time as they desired to make arguments or present evidence. Both the Association and the Developers were represented at the County hearing by their attorneys, but neither offered any live testimony, even though the transcript clearly establishes that both the Association and the Developers were afforded that opportunity. Counsel for the Association did have one exhibit admitted into the record. In addition, the only documentary evidence admitted into the record consisted of the documents filed as part of the notice of proposed change itself, supplements to the notice submitted by the Developer prior to the County hearing, the reports and comments of regulatory agencies, and the general warranty deed reflecting transfer of the property from KPM to Grand Dunes. The record is devoid of any evidence establishing that the Association requested either the Developers or the County to make witnesses available at the County hearing for cross-examination. Nor does the record include any evidence that, prior to the County hearing, the Association requested that it be made a party to the proceeding. There can be no question that, even if all appropriate procedural rights were not already offered to the Association at the County hearing, the present proceeding provided ample opportunity for the Association to offer evidence, either in the form of documents or testimony, and to cross-examine the Developers' witnesses. Notably, the exhibits entered into the record before the County, were admitted as joint exhibits in this proceeding, without any limitation as to their weight or relevance. Revival of the Original D. O. Even the closest scrutiny of the December 1995 Amendment reveals the complete absence of any provision extending the termination date of the Original D.O. In essence, the Association attempts, through this proceeding, to obtain review of action taken by the County in January, 1993, while stipulating that the County revived the Original D.O. in January 1993. Since the Original D.O. had already been revived, approval of the December 1995 Amendment did not require the County to revive anything. Vesting and Consistency with the Local Comprehensive Plan The development approved by the December 1995 Amendment will include eighteen stories of living space, with two stories of parking underneath. The resulting density will exceed twelve units per acre. The December 1995 Amendment expressly states that the proposed development is not subject to the height and density requirements of the 1993 Walton County Local Comprehensive Plan (the 1993 Comp Plan). The County has consistently treated DRI developments as vested from compliance with the 1993 Comp Plan, even when there has been a change in ownership. This position has been endorsed by the Department of Community Affairs. When the 1993 Comp Plan was being drafted, the County staff specifically intended that the height and density limitations in that plan not apply to already approved DRI developments. Approved DRIs were seen as sources of tax revenue that would alleviate losses attributable to the development restrictions imposed by the 1993 Comp Plan. The Department of Community Affairs has taken the position, and has consistently advised local governments, that, if a DRI development order is amended to reflect a decrease in the intensity of the project -- a decrease in the number of units, for example -- the development would not lose its statutory vesting. The Association's Purpose for Commencing This Proceeding The association's president repeatedly stated in her deposition that the Association's membership intend to do everything that they can to prevent the revival of the Original D.O. and to ensure that, whatever the Developers build, it is consistent with the 1993 Comp Plan. In addition to the present proceeding, the Association has also initiated six other legal proceedings challenging development proposed for the Developers property, Section 380.07, Florida Statutes appeals of both the 1993 and the April 1995 Amendments, two actions for certiorari challenging both of the April and the December 1995 Amendments, and two actions under Section 163.2115, Florida Statutes, challenging both of the 1995 Amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order approving the development proposed by the Developers and dismissing the Association's appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1996.
The Issue Whether the proposed amendment to the St. Johns County 2015 Future Land Use Map (FLUM), adopted by Ordinance No. 2002-31, is "in compliance" with the relevant provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part, II, Florida Statutes. A second issue raised by St. Johns County (County) and The Estuaries Limited Liability Company (Estuaries) is whether, if the proposed amendment is not "in compliance," it is nevertheless valid and authorized pursuant to Chapter 70, Florida Statutes, the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Julie Parker, resides in St. Augustine, Florida, less than one and one-half miles from the proposed project site. Parker also owns other property in St. Johns County. Parker submitted oral comments to the County at the adoption hearing on May 28, 2002, regarding the FLUM Amendment and Ordinance No. 2002-31. The parties agreed that Parker has standing in this proceeding. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The County proceeded with the evaluation and appraisal report process in 1997 and 1998. This process ultimately resulted in the adoption of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Goals, Objectives, and Policies, and Adopted EAR-Based Comprehensive Plan Amendment in May 2000 (May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment), which was subjected to a sufficiency review by the Department and found "in compliance." Estuaries owns the 9.99 acres (the Property) that is the subject of the FLUM Amendment. Estuaries also owns approximately 8.5 acres outside, adjacent to, and west of the Property. The 8.5 acres are subject to a Conservation Easement, which prohibits any development activity thereon. (The total contiguous land owned by Estuaries is approximately 18.5 acres.) The parties stipulated that the legal description of the Property attached to Ordinance No. 2002-31 contains less than 10 acres. Estuaries submitted comments to the County at the adoption hearing on May 28, 2002, regarding the FLUM amendment. Estuaries has standing to participate as a party in this proceeding. The Property The Property is part of a larger tract owned by Estuaries, i.e., approximately 9.9 acres out of a total tract of approximately 18.5 acres. The entire 18.5 acre tract is located on Anastasia Island, a barrier island, which extends from the St. Augustine Inlet to the Matanzas Inlet. According to the 2000 Census, there are approximately 12,000 dwelling units on Anastasia Island. This includes condominium units and single-family units. The approximately 18.5-acre site is also located in the Coastal High Hazard Area under the County May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment. The Property is part of Butler Beach (bordering the Atlantic Ocean), which is an historic area because it was settled in the early 1900's by black citizens and provided them with access to the beach, which was previously unavailable. However, no historic structures or uses have occurred on the Property. The entire 18.5 acre tract is located on the south side of Riverside Boulevard. The Property is located approximately 300 feet west of Highway A1A South (A1A runs north and south). The Intracoastal Waterway and the Matanzas River are west and adjacent to the 18.5 acres. The Estuaries site is also located adjacent to the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR). The Property is vacant, partially wooded, and also consists of undeveloped wetlands. Of the 9.99 acres, approximately 6.7 acres are uplands and developable, and 3.29 acres are wetlands. As noted, the remaining approximately 8.5 acres of the Estuaries' property, and to the west of the Property, is subject to a Conservation Easement in favor of the County. The properties adjacent to the Property include the following: Single-family residential units are located along and on the north side Riverside Boulevard. The existing FLUM designations for this area are Residential Coastal Density A and C, with the existing zoning of open rural (OR). (Residential Coastal Density C permits 2.0 to 4.0 units per acre.) The Intracoastal portion of Butler State Park is to the south of the Property, with a FLUM designation of parks and open space and existing zoning of OR and is not in a conservation area. To the east of the Property is a utility substation site, Butler Avenue, various commercial uses, Island House Rentals or Condominiums (three-story oceanfront condominiums), and the Mary Street Runway. There is another condominium called Creston House, directly south of the Butler Park (ocean portion) area (distinguished from the Butler State Park), consisting of three stories. (Butler Park and Creston House are located east of A1A and southeast of the Estuaries property.) The existing FLUM designations are Coastal Residential Coastal Density A and C, and have existing zoning designations of Residential General (RG)-1 and Commercial General (CG). There are no Residential Density D FLUM land use designations in the contiguous area. In short, the Property is proximate to a state park, a densely developed area comprised of small residential lots of 25 by 100 feet lots, and the two three-story condominiums, which were built prior to the adoption of the County's 1990 Comprehensive Plan. The County's Comprehensive Plan and EAR-Based Amendments On September 14, 1990, the County adopted a Comprehensive Plan-1990-2005, with amendments (the 1990 Plan). Under the 1990 Plan, the Property was assigned a Residential Coastal-A land use designation under the existing FLUM, which meant that residential development was restricted to no more than one residential unit per upland (non-wetland jurisdictional) acre. Under this designation, approximately seven units could have been built on the Property. The zoning on the Property was and is RG-1. According to the County, at least as of a June 11, 1999, letter from the County's principal planner, Timothy W. Brown, A.I.C.P., to Kevin M. Davenport, P.E., the total units which would be allowed on the Property were 116 multi-family units, derived after making a detailed density calculation based in part on using 40 percent of the wetlands used for the density calculation. In May 2000, the County adopted the EAR-Based Plan Amendment, with supporting data and analysis, which the Department of Community Affairs found to be "in compliance." As required by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, this would have included data and analysis for the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), which was adopted as part of these plan amendments. This is part of the data and analysis which supports the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment continued the Residential Coastal A land use designation of the Property, which allows 0.4 to 1.0 units per acre. (Residential Coastal B allows 2.0 units per acre; Residential Coastal C allows 2.0 to 4.0 units per acre; and Residential Coastal D allows 4.0 to 8.0 units per acre.) The Residential Coastal A designation authorizes residential and non-residential uses, such as schools, public service facilities, police, fire, and neighborhood commercial. Restaurants and banks without drive-thru facilities, gasoline pumps, and professional office buildings are examples of neighborhood commercial uses. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment does not limit the lot size, subject to limitations on, for example, impervious surface ratios, which do not change regardless of whether the land use designation is Residential Coastal A or D. Also, any development would also have to comply with the textural provisions of the May 2000 EAR- Based Plan Amendment, including the coastal and conservation elements. The Circuit Court Litigation There are many documents in this case which pertain to the litigation between Estuaries and the County. The civil action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for St. Johns County, Florida, and styled The Estuaries Limited Liability Company v. St. Johns County, Florida, Case No. CA-00271. On February 11, 2000, Estuaries filed a Complaint against the County "relating to certain representations made by the County in connection with the development of certain real property located south of St. Augustine Beach in St. Johns County, Florida." A Second Amended Complaint was filed on or about May 30, 2001. Estuaries claimed that County staff made representations to Estuaries, which resulted in Estuaries having a vested right to develop its Property up to a maximum of 116 multi-family residential units. (The County took the position that Estuaries could build no more than 25 units on the Property.) Estuaries claimed that it had vested rights based upon a claim of equitable estoppel against the County. (One of Estuaries' claims was brought pursuant to the Bert Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, Chapter 70, Florida Statutes.)1 After discovery and the denial of motions for summary judgment, the parties entered into a "Settlement Agreement and Complete Release" (Settlement Agreement). The "General Terms of Settlement" in the Settlement Agreement provided in part: Estuaries shall prepare and file an application to amend the future land use map of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan to amend the designation of only that portion of the Property such that Estuaries may build 56 multi-family residential units on the Property and such that the amendment be a "Small-scale Amendment" as defined by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. Estuaries agrees on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns to build not more than 56 units on the Property. County will waive or pay the application fee and will expedite its processing. The parties will forthwith prepare and submit to the Court a joint motion for the approval of this Agreement pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, §70.001(4)(d)2. During the review and consideration of the amendment application, the County will expeditiously process the Estuaries' revised construction plans and, in connection therewith, the construction codes in effect as of November 13, 2001 (to the extent the County may do so without violating county, state or federal law), the existing certificate of concurrency and the terms of the vesting letter as it relates to the Land Development Code, of Sonya Doerr dated September 27, 1999, shall continue to apply. In all other respects, the revised construction plans shall comply with all other Comprehensive Plan and County ordinances and regulations. On or about November 16, 2001, counsel for the parties signed a Joint Motion, requesting the circuit court to approve the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 70.001(4)(d)2., Florida Statutes. On November 16, 2001, Circuit Judge John Michael Traynor, entered an "Order Approving Settlement Agreement pursuant to Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act." Judge Traynor stated in part: The central issue in this litigation has been the number of dwelling units that would be permitted on the Property. The issues in the case are legally complex and, although the credibility of the testimony and authenticity of the exhibits expected to be introduced was not expected to be substantially in dispute or challenged, the meaning of the testimony and the meaning and inferences to be drawn from such evidence was very much in dispute. The issues included the extent of vested rights, the extent to which estoppel may be applied to the County, contractual liability, and potential liability under the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act . . . and the relief requested included the request for a declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to build up to 116 dwelling units on the Property and damages against the County. Judge Traynor also "Ordered and Adjudged," in part: Pursuant to Florida Statute § 70.001(4)(a) & (c) and applicable law, this Court finds that proper notice of a Bert Harris Act claim was timely provided to the County, and other governmental entities, and the County did make a written settlement offer to the Plaintiff, in accordance with the Bert Harris Act, that was accepted by Plaintiff. Florida Statute § 70.001(4)(c) permits, inter alia, for an adjustment of land development provisions controlling the development of a plaintiff's property; increases or modifications in the density, intensity, or use of areas of development; the transfer of development rights; conditioning the amount of development or use permitted; issuance of a development order, a variance, special exceptions, or other extraordinary relief; and such other actions specified in the statute. While the parties may dispute whether an amendment is necessary to the County's Comprehensive Plan, the parties have agreed that the Plaintiff shall submit a small-scale amendment to the County for consideration and approval pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. . .; without waiver of either party's rights to contest and defend the necessity of submitting such an amendment, in light of this Court's approval of the settlement agreement pursuant to the Bert Harris Act and applicable law. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement and Complete Release is fair, reasonable and adequate; is in the best interests of the parties and protects the public interest served by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. . .; and is the appropriate relief necessary to prevent the County's regulatory efforts from inordinately burdening the Property with regard to density, impact on public services, the environment and the public health, safety and welfare of the community and the rights of individuals to reasonably utilize their property and to rely on the representations of government, taking into consideration the risks that both parties had in this litigation. This litigation has been ongoing for more than 18 months, and substantial discovery and record has been presented to the Court that provides ample basis for this Court's approval of this settlement as being fair, reasonable and adequate and appropriate under the Bert Harris Act. There is no evidence before the Court that would suggest that the proposed settlement is the result of any collusion among the parties or their counsel. In fact, the record is to the contrary, whereby counsel on both sides have aggressively and zealously pursued the interests of their respective clients. . . . Judge Traynor directed the parties to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement, "subject to the right of the public to comment at an appropriate public hearing pertaining to the above referenced small scale amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan, and shall cooperate to accomplish in good faith the responsibilities under the Settlement Agreement and Complete Release." There is no evidence that Judge Traynor's Order has been rescinded or otherwise modified. There is no statutory authority to collaterally attack Judge Traynor's Order in this proceeding nor is there any authority which provides that this Order can be ignored. Also, this is not the appropriate proceeding to determine whether Estuaries has, in fact, vested rights. Accordingly, Judge Traynor's Order, approving the Settlement Agreement, is accepted as binding authority. The Small Scale Development Application In compliance with Judge Traynor's Order and the Settlement Agreement, on March 26, 2002, Estuaries filed a "Small Scale Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Form" with the County. Estuaries requested a change in the Property's FLUM designation from Residential Coastal A, Zoning RG-1 to Residential Coastal D, Zoning RG-1. Estuaries represented, in part, that the Property consisted of 9.99 acres of vacant land, including 3.2 acres of wetlands and approximately 6.7 acres of developable land (uplands) "which will be developed into a 56 unit Multi-Family Condominium." County staff reviewed the application and recommended approval. As part of the agenda item for consideration by the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, County staff, in light of the criterion of "Consistency with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, State Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Florida Regional Policy Plan," stated: "[t]he approved Settlement Agreement was filed pursuant to Chapter 70.001." With respect to "Impacts on Public Facilities and Services," County staff stated: "The project has received a Certificate of Concurrency addressing the impacts on transportation, water, sewer, recreation, drainage, solid waste and mass transit. The Certificate of Concurrency is based on impacts of 84 multi-family dwelling units. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the project contains 56 multi-family dwelling units. St. Johns County provides central water and sewer." With respect to "Compatibility with Surrounding Area," County staff stated: "The area is developed with a mixture of residential, commercial, park (Butler Park), and vacant land of various zoning." According to Mr. Scott Clem, the County's Director of Growth Management Services, County staff felt that there were adequate public facilities for a 56-unit project, because Estuaries had previously demonstrated that facilities were available for an 84-unit project. However, County staff expressly noted in the Planning Department Staff Report submitted to the Planning and Zoning Agency that "[t]here are no development plans included in the Application. However, all site engineering, drainage and required infrastructure improvements will be reviewed pursuant to the Development Review Process to ensure that the development complies with all applicable federal, state and local regulations and permitting requirements. No permits shall authorize development prior to compliance with all applicable regulations." At this point in time, County staff were "analyzing the potential for 56 units to be on the property. It was a site specific analysis at that point." On April 18, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Agency unanimously recommended approval of the FLUM amendment. After a properly noticed public hearing, on May 28, 2002, the County approved the FLUM Amendment in Ordinance 2002- 31. In Ordinance 2002-31, the County approved the FLUM Amendment at issue, which changed the FLUM land use classification of the Property from Residential Coastal A to Residential Coastal D. Ordinance 2002-31 also provided: "The Land Uses allowed by this Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be limited to not more than 56 residential units, built in not more than four buildings with residential uses, not more than 35 feet in height." The Challenge Parker filed an Amended Petition challenging the lack of data and analysis to support the FLUM Amendment; challenging the increase in density of the Property located in a Coastal High Hazard Area; challenging the internal consistency of the FLUM Amendment with the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment; challenging the decision by the County to process the application as a small scale development amendment; and challenging the failure to provide Parker with adequate notice of a clear point of entry to challenge Ordinance No. 2002-31. Notice The County provided notice, by newspaper, of the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of May 28, 2002. Before this meeting, a sign was placed on the Property, providing notice of the meeting. Parker personally attended the May 28, 2002, meeting and addressed the Commission regarding the FLUM Amendment. Ordinance No. 2002-31 provided: "This ordinance shall take effect 31 days after adoption. If challenged within 30 days after adoption, this ordinance shall not become effective until the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the adopted small scale amendment is in compliance." This Ordinance does not advise a person of the right to challenge the Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the Uniform Rules of Procedure, or Section 163.3187(3)(a), Florida Statutes. This type of notice is not required for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law. Does the FLUM Amendment, covering 9.99 acres, involve a "use" of 10 acres or fewer, pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes? "A small scale development amendment may be adopted only [if] [t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes.2 In the Amended Petition and in her Prehearing Stipulation, Parker contends that the "use," which is the subject of the FLUM Amendment, relates to more than the 9.99 acre parcel and, therefore, the FLUM Amendment is not a small scale development amendment defined in Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker contended that because the FLUM Amendment authorizes a maximum of 56 residential units to be developed on the Property, and the maximum density under the Residential Coastal D and RG-1 zoning designations is 42.12 units, using the on-site wetlands density bonus, that Estuaries "must be using the off-site wetlands that are contained within the 18.5 acre parcel to obtain the density credit necessary to reach 56 units for the site under" the FLUM Amendment. The 56 residential unit maximum was the product of the circuit court litigation and Settlement Agreement, as approved by Judge Traynor, which resolved the differences between the County and Estuaries regarding the maximum residential density which could be authorized on the Property. Parker also contended that because Estuaries may use a proposed lift station owned by the County off-site, that this causes the proposed "use" of the Property to exceed 10 acres. It appears that at some prior time in the "vesting rights" chronology of events, Magnolia S Corporation, in order to downscale the project, agreed to sell a 40' by 80' parcel to the County, located adjacent to the Property and in the northeast portion, to expand the existing County lift station on Riverside Boulevard. There is a lift station adjacent to the Property that serves as "a repump station that serves the development along Riverside [Boulevard] west of the lift station and serves all the development in St. Johns County on the island south of Riverside Boulevard." It is proposed that sewage effluent from development on the Property would be deposited on site and then pumped into an adjacent force main which eventually ends up in the station. According to Mr. Kevin Davenport, Estuaries' civil engineer, "56 units added to that pump station would be extremely miniscule in the overall amount of sewage that goes through it." Thus, Estuaries anticipates having their own on-site lift station, which "would be pumped through a pipe to the Riverside right-of- way, where it would connect to an existing county-owned pipe which currently goes to the lift station." Mr. Clem stated that "[u]tilities are very commonly done off site where water or sewer distribution or transmission lines are constructed to the site." This would include the use of off- site lift stations. However, the proposed use of the lift station does not necessarily compel the conclusion that the FLUM Amendment exceeds 9.99 acres. If this were so, any proposed use of any off-site utilities would cause a pro rata calculation and increase of the size of the site providing the service, then be added to the 9.99 acres. This is not a reasonable construction of Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker also claimed that when the Estuaries granted the County a Conservation Easement for the approximately 8.5 acres (out of 18.5 acres) of wetlands adjacent to the Property, Estuaries "used" this property to secure the FLUM Amendment, and therefore, exceeded the 9.99 acres. The Conservation Easement precludes development activity on the approximately 8.51 acres. ("The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to assure that the Property will be retained forever in its existing natural condition and to prevent any use of the Property that will impair or interfere with the environmental value of the property." Prohibited uses include "[a]ctivities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, or fish and wildlife habitat preservation.") The "use" of the 8.51 acres as a potential visual amenity for potential residents on the Property is not a "use" within a reasonable reading of Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker also suggested that Estuaries will need to improve Riverside Boulevard (paving and drainage) and the public right-of-way consisting of approximately 1.51 acres, which is not owned by Estuaries. It appears that Riverside Boulevard is already open, improved, and paved. Also, Mr. Clem stated that it is common to have off-site improvements associated with a project, which might include intersection or roadway improvements that are not on or within the project site. Mr. Clem opined that while these improvements would be required for the project, they would have been off-site. Some improvements, such as improvements to Riverside Boulevard, would most likely benefit the general public, and not be limited to the future residents on the Property. It is common for local governments to require improvements to public infrastructure as a condition of development. These off-site improvements do not necessarily make the "development activity" larger than the size of the landowner's site, here the Property. Data and Analysis Parker contended that the FLUM Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and analysis. As noted herein, Estuaries sought approval of a FLUM Amendment for its Property, i.e., a land use change to the FLUM. No text (goals, objectives, and policies) changes to the May 2000 EAR-Based Amendment were requested nor made. This is normal for a "site-specific small scale development activity." Section 163.3187(1)(c)1.d., Florida Statutes. Consideration of the FLUM Amendment in this proceeding is unusual for several reasons. First, the necessity for the FLUM change arose as a result of the Settlement Agreement, approved by Judge Traynor, which resolved the differences existing between the County and Estuaries regarding the number of units which could, as a maximum number, be developed on the Property. Second, the data and analysis, which normally is presented to the local government, here the County, at the time the plan amendment is adopted, is not in its traditional format here, largely, it appears, because of the manner in which consideration of the FLUM Amendment arose. Nevertheless, this situation is not fatal for, under existing precedent, see, e.g., Conclusion of Law 96, data, which was in existence at the time the FLUM Amendment was adopted by the County, may be considered in determining whether there is, in fact, adequate data supporting the FLUM Amendment. The data relied on by the County and Estuaries to support the FLUM Amendment was compiled and initially presented to the County on or about July 6, 1999, when Estuaries sought authorization from the County for a proposed project to construct 84 multi-family residential units on the same general area as the Property. This started the County's development review process. Estuaries began the process at this time, believing that it had "vested rights" to develop the Property. Mr. Clem explained that the development review process is "extremely detailed. It involves 11 or 12 different programs within the [C]ounty, looking at everything from the actual site plan itself, water and sewer provision, for all the things that would go into site construction, roadway design, the environmental considerations. We basically look at how this site will be developed in accordance with the land development code and any other regulations. We ensure that the water management district permits are obtained, if applicable, or other state agencies." This record contains County Department comments which pertain to a host of issues, including but not limited to, drainage, traffic, fire services, urban forestry (trees and landscape on-site), utilities, zoning (e.g., buffers, setbacks), concurrency requirements, etc. County staff raised questions (identified as submittals) on at least four separate occasions followed by written responses by the applicant on at least three occasions. However, not all issues were resolved. A July 1999, Land Development Traffic Assessment, prepared by Beachside Consulting Engineers, Inc., was submitted to the County as part of the request for a concurrency determination. The analysis "indicates that the roadway segments within the impact area will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS through the construction of this project." The "Summary" of the assessment states: "This project meets traffic concurrency standards, as defined by the St. Johns County Concurrency Management Ordinance, for all roads within the traffic area." "Stormwater Calculations" for the 84-unit, multi-family housing development were also provided in a report dated July 7, 1999. The applicant also furnished the County with a "geotechnical report," which analyzed the soil conditions related to storm water ponds and to the placement of the buildings and the support of the buildings on the site. Soil borings and other testing revealed the capabilities of the soil for, for example, percolation rates for the storm water ponds. There is no evidence that there are any specific historic buildings or geological or archeological features on the Property. In July 1999, the applicant submitted an application for concurrency. At that time, County staff analyzed this information to ensure that public facilities and services were in place to serve the project. This application was reviewed in relation to the County's concurrency management provisions of the County's Land Development Code. On September 3, 1999, the County's Planning Department prepared a report regarding this application and recommended "approval of a Final Certificate of Concurrency with Conditions for the development of 84 residential condominium units." (Staff made findings of fact, which included a discussion of traffic, potable water/sanitary sewer, drainage, solid waste, and mass transit.) On September 8, 1999, the Concurrency Review Committee met and adopted the Staff's Findings of Fact with conditions, including but not limited to, the applicant providing a copy of the Department of Environmental Protection permits "necessary for connection to central water and wastewater service prior to Construction Plan approval," and "[t]he applicant receiving approval of construction/drainage plans from the Development Services Department prior to commencement of construction." The Final Certificate of Concurrency with Conditions was issued on October 1, 1999, and was due to expire on September 8, 2001. However, the Settlement Agreement provided, in part, that "the existing certificate of concurrency and the terms of the vesting letter as it relates to the Land development Code, of Sonya Doerr dated September 27, 1999, shall continue to apply." (Emphasis added.) (Ms. Teresa Bishop's (County Planning Director) November 7, 2001, letter indicated, in part, that Estuaries' request for "tolling [of the Final Certificate of Concurrency] cannot be reviewed until the outcome of the pending litigation is known. . . . After the litigation is concluded, your request for tolling may be resubmitted for review." The Settlement Agreement post-dates this letter.) In evaluating a small scale plan amendment, County staff evaluates the availability of public services which, according to Mr. Clem, is "one of the major components," and County staff "is looking at virtually the same issues that [the County] would look at in concurrency to evaluate and make recommendations on small scale amendments." Mr. Clem also advised that the County's analysis of the 84-unit project did not involve, and was not based on, "a specific site plan with buildings at a certain location or parking in a certain location. It was more an 84- unit project with certain data and analysis associated with that site or project." By letter dated October 4, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection indicated that it had received a "Notification for Use of the General Permit for Construction of an Extension to a Drinking Water Distribution System" submitted for the Estuaries project. The Department stated further: "After reviewing the notice, it appears that your project will have minimal adverse environmental effect and apparently can be constructed pursuant to a general permit as described in Chapter 62-555, F.A.C." The permit expires on October 4, 2004. This permit allows the applicant to demonstrate that it will offer a central water service, available to be served through the County's utility department. This would ensure that there is sufficient potable water available. By letter dated October 6, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection also issued a permit for the construction of a sewage collection/transmission system (domestic waste). By letter dated November 11, 1999, the St. Johns Water Management District issued a "formal permit for construction and operation of stormwater management system." This permit authorized "[a] new stormwater system with stormwater treatment by wet detention to serve Estuaries Multi-family Development, a 5.88 acre project to be constructed as per plans received by the District on 7/12/1999." This permit did not relieve the applicant "from the responsibility for obtaining permits from any federal, state, and/or local agencies asserting concurrent jurisdiction over this work." Mr. Clem believed that this permit was evidence that "the state agencies ha[d] considered the environmental issues relating to storm water and all the issues that they deal with in issuing a permit." The Property is located in a "development area boundary" as indicated on the FLUM, which means that these areas allow "development potential." Other areas, such as rural silviculture and agricultural lands, are outside the development area and only limited and low density development is allowed. Conservation areas are also designated on the FLUM. Given the location of the Property within the development area boundary, the County thereby eliminated the necessity of producing some of the data normally required.3 Mr. Clem explained: So by being within a development area boundary it's in essence already had rights to develop, depending on the classification what those rights are, whether it's residential, commercial, industrial. So by virtue of the fact that this site [the Property] was already in the developmental boundary, we didn't deal with issues such as need, which is a big issue in the county when we add developmental boundary. Is there need for additional residential units, and so forth. So that is one part of the answer. The other part is when we're looking at changing from one residential classification to another, we're not dealing with the same issues we might have if it was going from residential to commercial or residential to industrial. So in the context of a plan amendment like this, we're looking at what can this land support in terms of density and are there public facilities available? Is it generally compatible with the surrounding area? What are the potential impacts to natural resources? So those things are still analyzed, but they're done in a probably more confined context. And then the other factor is this being a small scale amendment further reduces the amount of data that is typically done. And if it was a major amendment, there's a whole new range of issues when we deal with major amendments. By definition, they can cause more of an impact. For Mr. Clem, the data and analysis which was generated during the concurrency process for the proposed 84-unit project was significant and would be applicable to a proposed 56-unit project. Mr. Clem opined that the data for this small scale amendment was "[f]ar in excess of anything [he had] seen in the county." Environmental Impacts of the FLUM Amendment The area on and around the Estuaries' property is an area of tidal marsh intermixed with upland scrub. Many wildlife species have been seen utilizing the wetlands on and adjacent to the Estuaries' site (the 18.5 acre parcel). These include woodstorks, snowy egrets, roseate spoonbills, little blue herons, tri-colored herons, white ibis, and ospreys. Owls, foxes, raccoons, opossums, fiddler crabs, clams, fish, shrimp, and turtles also frequent the area. Parker's environmental scientist and ecologist, Mr. Robert Burks, testified to the environmental effects of any development of the Property subject to the FLUM Amendment. Mr. Burks has worked with American Institute of Certified Planners (A.I.C.P.) designated planners, providing them with opinions with respect to environmental issues. But he is not an expert in land use planning. The National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) is a program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal program administered by the Department of Environmental Protection. It is a program to do research and education on estuarine systems. The estuarine ecosystem composed of the Guana, Tolomato, and Matanzas Rivers has been designated as a NERR. There is testimony that development and increases in population in the area, in general, have been responsible for, for example, the decline and closure of shell-fishing and decline of water quality in the area. Conservation Goal E.2 provides: The County shall conserve, utilize, and protect the natural resources of the area, including air, water, wetlands, water wells, estuaries, water bodies, soils, minerals, vegetative communities, wildlife, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge areas and other natural and environmental resources, insuring that resources are available for existing and future generations. Objective E.2.2 provides: Native Forests, Floodplains, Wetlands, Upland Communities, and Surface Water The County shall protect native forests, floodplains, wetlands, upland communities, and surface waters within the County from development impacts to provide for maintenance of environmental quality and wildlife habitats. Policy E.2.2.5.(a)(1)(b) provides: The County shall protect Environmentally Sensitive lands (ESLs) through the establishment of Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which address the alternate types of protection for each type of Environmentally Sensitive Land. Adoption and implementation of the Land Development Regulations shall, at a minimum, address the following issues: For Wetlands, Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), and Estuaries: establish and modify buffers between the wetlands/ OFW/ estuaries and upland development as stated in the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and as follows: * * * Except a minimum of a 50 ft. natural vegetative upland buffer shall be required and maintained between the development areas and the St. Johns, Matanzas, Guana and Tolomato Rivers and their associated tributaries, streams and other interconnecting water bodies. Policy E.2.2.13(b)(6) provides: By December 1999, the County shall develop and adopt guidelines and standards for the preservation and conservation of uplands through various land development techniques as follows: (b) The County shall recognize the following vegetative natural communities as Significant Natural Communities Habitat. Due to the rarity of these vegetative communities, a minimum of 10 percent of the total acreage of the Significant Natural Communities Habitat (excluding bona fide agriculture and/or silviculture operations) shall be preserved and maintained by the development. * * * (6) Scrub. Where on-site preservation of the native upland communities are not feasible, the County as an alternative shall accept a fee in lieu of preservation or off-site mitigation in accordance with the County Land Development Regulations. Mr. Burks opined that "generally," and if Goal E.2 is read "literally", the FLUM Amendment did not meet this Goal and afford protection for wetlands, vegetative communities, estuaries, wildlife and wildlife habitat. He perceives that "[a]nytime there's a development there will be impacts to the estuarine--the water bodies because of surficial runoff from the parking lots, from the impervious surfaces, and it will carry pollutants into those areas. And that includes soils also. . . . As far as upland habitat, when you develop an area like this, unless you leave certain parts, the upland habitat will be negatively impacted obviously. There won't be the trees there, the vegetation that was normally there before the development." For Mr. Burks, any development of the Property would generally be inconsistent with the Plan provisions recited above. But, his opinion is specifically based on how each system or plan for the site, or here, the Property, is actually designed--"it would depend on the design of the housing structures themselves and where they were placed. If you design anything in a manner which is going to protect that buffer and literally protect the water quality and the runoff in that area, then you may--it may not violate it." For example, if the Property were developed with 25-foot buffers instead of 50-foot buffers, Mr. Burks says that, from an ecology standpoint, there would be insufficient protection for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. He offered the same opinion if the FLUM Amendment did not require a minimum ten percent set aside of the total acreage for significant natural communities habitat on the Property, such as, scrub of approximately 6.7 acres, a protected vegetative community existing on the upland portion of the Property. Furthermore, Parker introduced into evidence proposed site plans for the Property dated May 24, 2002, which show, in part, a 25-foot buffer, not a 50-foot buffer.4 Parker contends that these site plans are the best available data and analysis regarding whether the FLUM Amendment is "in compliance." However, the purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether the FLUM Amendment is "in compliance," not whether specific draft, and not approved, site plans are "in compliance" with the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment or the LDRs. If site plans are approved and a development order issued by the County, Parker, and any other aggrieved or adversely affected party may file a challenge pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. But, this is not the appropriate proceeding to challenge proposed site plans. This is not to say that proposed site plans cannot be considered data and analysis; only that they are not incorporated in the FLUM Amendment and are not subject to challenge here. See The Sierra Club, et al. v. St. John County, et al., Case Nos. 01- 1851GM and 01-1852GM (Recommended Order May 20, 2002; Final Order July 30, 2002). Internal Consistency Parker contended that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment. Some of these issues have been discussed above in Findings of Fact 68 to 80, pertaining to environmental considerations. Another issue is whether the FLUM Amendment, which changes the maximum density on the Property, is inconsistent with Policy E.1.3.11 which provides: "The County shall not approve Comprehensive Plan Amendments that increase the residential density on the Future Land Use Map within the Coastal High Hazard Area." See also Policy A.1.5.6 which offers almost identical language. The FLUM Amendment changes the land use designation of the Property, and allows a land use "limited to not more than 56 residential units, built in not more than four buildings with residential uses, not more than 35 feet in height," and thus allows a potential increase in the density of the Property, located in the Coastal High Hazard Area. This resulted from the Settlement Agreement. In Policy A.1.11.6, [t]he County recognizes that the Plan's Objectives and Policies sometime serve to support competing interests. Accordingly, in such instances, and in the absence of a mandatory prohibition of the activity at issue, it is the County's intent that the Plan be construed as a whole and that potentially competing Objectives and Policies be construed together so as to render a balanced interpretation of the Plan. It is the further intent that the County interpretation of the Plan, whether by County staff, the Planning & Zoning Agency, or the Board of County Commissioners, shall be afforded appropriate deference. County interpretations of the Plan which balance potentially competing Objectives and Policies shall not be overturned in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the County interpretation has misapplied the Plan construed as a whole. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment Goals, Objectives, and Policies must be read in their entirety and individual provisions cannot be read in isolation. Objective E.1.3 requires the County to engage in "post disaster planning, coastal area redevelopment, and hurricane preparedness. The County shall prepare post-disaster redevelopment plans which reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazards." Mr. Clem opined that Policy E.1.3.11, see Finding of Fact 81, expressed "the general intent of limiting population increases that would result in adverse impacts to hurricane evacuation of the coastal areas," and, in particular, the "barrier islands." (Policy E.1.9.5, under Objective E.1.9 Hurricane Evacuation Time, provides: "St. Johns County shall attempt to limit the density within the Coastal High Hazard Area as allowed by law.") Mr. Clem further stated that the FLUM Amendment, which restricted the Property to a maximum of 56 residential units, from a possible 116 unit maximum, was consistent with the Policy which restricts density within the coastal hazard zone. In rendering his opinions, Mr. Clem balanced the above- referenced Policies with Objective A.1.16, pertaining to "private property rights." When these May 2002 EAR-Based Plan Amendment provisions are read together, it appears that Mr. Clem's interpretations are not unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Department of Community Affairs concluding that the FLUM Amendment adopted by St. Johns County in Ordinance No. 2002-31 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 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 17th day of December, 2002.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the decision of the Community Development Board (Board) to approve Flexible Development Application FLD2017-07012 filed by Gulfview Lodging, LLP (Gulfview), cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the Board, or that the decision of the Board departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The 0.59-acre project site is located at the northeast corner of South Gulfview Boulevard and Fifth Street and wraps around the McDonald’s parking lot and Frenchy’s Beach Café (Frenchy’s) to the west. The project site includes two parcels owned by Gulfview, and 2,195.09 square feet of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way, which will need to be vacated by the City. Gulfview’s proposal is to demolish all structures currently on the project site and build a seven-floor hotel with 150 units per acre, which would be 88 rooms if the City vacates the 2,195.09 feet of right-of-way. Gulfview’s application for development approval was filed with the City on July 28, 2017, including design plans. The subject property is zoned Tourist (T) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The subject site is located in the Beach Walk district of Beach by Design.2/ The maximum permitted density for the site pursuant to Beach by Design is 150 units per acre. The application contemplates a subsequent vacation process for the 2,195.09 square feet of City right-of-way. On July 20, 2017, the City Council approved the allocation of up to 59 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design (Case No. HDA2017-04001) and adopted a resolution to the same effect (Res. No. 17-19). Preston’s attorney admitted that he attended the July 20, 2017, City Council hearing that resulted in the July 28, 2017, Hotel Density Reserve Development Agreement (Development Agreement) between Gulfview and the City. Preston’s attorney attended the July 20 City Council hearing on behalf of Frenchy’s, but conceded to the Board and at oral argument that Frenchy’s is located on the land owned by Preston, as trustee, and Preston is the sole shareholder of Frenchy’s. The Development Agreement was recorded in Book 19727, Page 2465-2503 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, on August 2, 2017. The Development Agreement includes Exhibit “B”-- the same set of design plans that were filed with Gulfview’s July 28, 2017, application for development approval. Section 6.2.4 of the Development Agreement specifically states: The overall number of proposed units density provided for by this Agreement (88 units) is contingent upon the proposed vacation of the 2,195.09 square feet of South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way within the Beach Walk district. The City shall process a right-of- way vacation ordinance to vacate the 2,195.09 square feet of South Gulfview Blvd. right of way within the Beach Walk district conditioned upon submission of a complete set of building plans for construction of the improvements shown on Exhibit “B”. Regardless of whether or not the vacation is granted the maximum permitted density of the property may not exceed 150 units per acre. Gulfview’s application requires a Level Two approval. Under Section 4-206 of the Community Development Code, a Level Two approval requires mailing of a notice of application to owners of properties “within a 200-foot radius of the perimeter boundaries of the subject property.” The notice mailed by the City identifies both the north parcel and the south parcel by address and parcel number. The notice also describes the quasi-judicial public hearing process before the Board and ends with an invitation “to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal and review the site plan” with the assigned planner. The City Clerk mailed notice of Gulfview’s application to owners of parcels located within 200 feet of the two parcels identified in the notice, including Preston. Preston does not dispute receiving the notice. Section 4-206 of the Community Development Code also requires the posting of a sign on the “parcel proposed for development.” Preston does not dispute that the sign was posted. Preston objected that the mailed and posted notices did not reference the proposal to vacate 2,195.09 square feet of right-of-way. He argued that if he had known more than “a few days ago” when he received the Staff Report ahead of the October 17, 2017, Board meeting that the right-of-way was proposed to be vacated, he would have had expert witnesses at the hearing to give “an equal presentation” in response to Gulfview’s presentation. Preston requested a continuance citing lack of proper notice and insufficient time to prepare for the public hearing. Preston did not introduce any testimony or other evidence regarding the application. Preston’s primary objection to the project was vacation of the right-of-way and he wanted the opportunity to present witnesses regarding that issue. Vacating the right-of-way is a separate process and the hearing before the Board is not the proceeding in which the right-of-way vacation is decided. However, the substantial competent record evidence shows that Preston had actual notice as early as July 20, 2017, that the proposed project contemplated vacating 2,195.09 square feet of right-of-way. Preston’s other objection was that Gulfview’s design plans did not meet the requirements of Beach by Design’s Beach Walk District overlay. Preston argued to the Board that the hotel’s proposed design did not meet the redevelopment goals for addition of facilities and amenities generally described as areas for outdoor dining, outside cafes, and other seaside amenities.3/ However, although Preston had actual notice of the hotel design plans as early as July 20, 2017, he did not introduce any expert testimony or other evidence to support those objections. The Staff Report states that Beach by Design proposed to create a great beach front, known as “Beach Walk,” by relocating South Gulfview Boulevard from the existing right of way. Beach by Design recognized that the redevelopment and revitalization of the properties that front on South Gulfview were and, to a certain extent, still are generally constrained by several factors including small parcel sizes and the Coastal Construction Control Line. As a result, most of the motels and hotels which existed along the east side of South Gulfview would have limited opportunities for redevelopment even if Clearwater Beach were repositioned in the tourism market place. Beach by Design proposed to relocate South Gulfview to the west of its current alignment in order to achieve multiple purposes. First, it would create a drive with a real view of the Beach and the Gulf of Mexico. Second, it would allow the City to vacate the east 35 feet of the existing right of way in favor of the properties along the eastern frontage of existing South Gulfview as an incentive for appropriate redevelopment. Many of those existing properties would substantially benefit from an additional 35 feet of depth which could be used for the addition of facilities and amenities such as safe and comfortable areas for outdoor dining. The creation of Beach Walk and the realignment of South Gulfview Boulevard have all been realized. Several segments of the South Gulfview Boulevard have already been vacated and many of the properties along South Gulfview Boulevard have, in the years since the initial adoption of Beach by Design, been redeveloped with hotels. As noted, this proposal also includes a vacation of a portion of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way which will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject site with a new hotel playing an important role in the ongoing renewal and revitalization of the Beach. Specifically, the vacation will allow for the location of an outdoor seating area providing a strong link between Beach Walk and the proposed hotel as supported by Beach by Design. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this provision. (Emphasis added). The Staff Report concluded that the proposed project is consistent with applicable provisions of the Community Development Code, applicable components of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Beach Walk District of Beach by Design, and the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. Mark Parry, Senior Planner with the City, testified that “the proposed number of units, 88, is contingent on vacation of that right-of- way,” and if the right-of-way is not later vacated, it “would knock out about eight units.” Mr. Parry also testified that the proposed project provides amenities and an outdoor seating area as specified by Beach by Design. Preston only conducted a very short cross-examination of Mr. Parry, despite having party status to do so. Sue Ann Murphy, an experienced land use planner, also testified that the proposed development complied with all applicable Community Development Code, Comprehensive Plan and Beach by Design requirements. The project architect, Istvan Peteranecz, AIA, was accepted by the Board as an expert. Mr. Peteranecz answered questions from Board members regarding the design of the proposed hotel’s main entrance, including the porte cochere and public seating area adjacent to the Beach Walk and immediately south of Frenchy’s. Preston did not cross- examine Ms. Murphy or Mr. Peteranecz, despite having party status to do so. Substantial competent evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the proposed project is consistent with applicable provisions of the Community Development Code, applicable components of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Beach Walk District of Beach by Design, and the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board acknowledged Preston’s pending request for continuance and proceeded with discussion. After extensive discussion among the Board members, a motion was made and seconded for the Board “to approve case number FLD2017-07012 based on the evidence, the testimony presented, and the application, the staff report, and at today’s hearing, and to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in the staff report with all of the conditions of approval, as listed.” The motion carried. On October 19, 2017, the City entered a Development Order memorializing the Board’s decision. The Development Order includes a Finding of Fact that “[t]he total lot area includes 2,195 square feet of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way which would need to be vacated by the City,” and includes a Condition of Approval that “application for a building permit be submitted no later than October 17, 2019, unless time extensions are granted.” The City represented at oral argument that if the proposed development is not consistent with the Development Order (e.g., if the approximately 2,195 square feet of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way is not vacated), Gulfview will not be able to get a building permit without going through a minor amendment process for a less intense project.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the Appellants have standing to bring this appeal, and (2) whether the development plan application met the applicable criteria for approval under Section 30-3.46 of the City's LDC in light of the standard of review outlined in Section 30-3.57 of the City's LDC.
Findings Of Fact The Property The property consists of approximately 0.50 acres located at 422 Northwest Third Avenue, Gainesville, Florida (the Property). The Property currently has a Residential Low- Density (RL) future land use (FLU) category under the City's Comprehensive Plan. The RL FLU category includes five implementing zoning districts, and the Property is in the Residential Conservation (RC) zoning district. The Property is not located within the boundaries of the Pleasant Street Historic District. Blackwater owns the Property and submitted a minor development plan application, identified as AD-17-00143, for three buildings with six dwelling units and associated parking, stormwater facilities, and utility improvements. The three buildings have two dwelling units each, which is a use allowed by right in the RC zoning district. The use is described in Section 30-4.16 of the City's LDC as "Multi-family, small scale (2-4 units per building)." The Property was conveyed to Blackwater by a warranty deed recorded January 15, 2014. The warranty deed describes parcel 14518-002-000 as the east one-half of lot 7 and all of lots 8 and 9 in the south half of block 27 of "Brush's Addition to Gainesville," according to the Plat recorded in "Plat Book 'A,' Page 88 of the Public Records of Alachua County, Florida." Issues on Appeal The Appellants raised and argued four issues in this appeal. Whether the Property is a parcel or lot that can be developed under the City's LDC. The Appellants argue that the Property is not a "parcel" and also not a "lot" under the City's LDC. The LDC definitions are found in Section 30-2.1 of the City's LDC, which states: Parcel means a unit of land within legally established property lines. Legally established property lines means those lines created by a recorded plat, minor plat or lot split, those units of land recognized as lots formed prior to 1961 as recorded on a map kept by the building division, and those lots recognized by the county code enforcement department at the time of any annexation. Lot means a parcel of land contained within property lines of a specific area, including land within easements and building setback lines of the area, but excluding any land within street right-of-way. The Appellants contend that the Plat of Brush's Addition to Gainesville (the Plat) legally established property lines. The Appellants further contend the definitions mean that only the lots created by the Plat are parcels. In other words, the "unit of land within legally established lines" cannot consist of more than one of the originally platted lots. This is not the City's interpretation of its own LDC. The Property, as described by the warranty deed, is a parcel within the property lines first established on the Plat. As argued by the City and Blackwater during oral argument, the Appellants' interpretation is not reasonable and "could stop all multifamily development in the [C]ity." The City's interpretation of its own LDC is not clearly erroneous and has foundation in reason. Also, approval of the development plan was not an ultra vires act since the City was required to make a decision on the development plan application in accordance with the provisions of its LDC. Whether the Property meets minimum lot width standards under the City's LDC. The Appellants' second argument is that the development plan fails to meet the required minimum lot width standard under Section 30-4.17 of the City's LDC. The Appellants argue that since Lots 8 and 9 on the Plat are each 50 feet wide, then the permitted use should be "single-family," which has a minimum lot width of 35 feet. Based on the above finding, the Property is a parcel or lot that may be developed under the City's LDC. The Property's lot width is 125 feet, which meets the minimum width standard for the proposed "multi-family, small scale (2-4 units per building)" use. Whether the requirements for a masonry wall and Type B landscape buffer apply to the Property and the development plan. Section 30-4.8.D.2.e of the City's LDC provides: 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. The Appellants argue that the development plan should be required to meet this buffer standard because the RC zoning district is residential, and the Property abuts single-family dwellings. Under the LDC provision, the buffer is required to separate multi-family developments from properties "designated single-family residential." The City argues that designations refer to a property's FLU category as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Appellants argue that "designated single-family residential" simply refers to a single-family dwelling. Policy 4.1.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan describes certain FLU categories such as Single-Family (SF). Policy 4.1.4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan provides that the City can amend land use "designations" under certain circumstances. Policy 4.2.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan provides that the City shall adopt regulations that separate uses with performance measures, such as "buffering of adjacent uses by landscape." Based on the language of the City's Comprehensive Plan, it is a reasonable interpretation that use of the term "designated" refers to the FLU category. The Property and the abutting single-family dwellings have the same FLU category designation of RL. Thus, the masonry wall and Type B buffer requirements of Section 30-4.8 of the City's LDC do not apply to this development plan. Whether the Property's development plan meets applicable parking standards under the City's LDC. The Appellants argue that the development plan must provide 13 parking spaces, and it only provides nine parking spaces, which does not meet the parking standards of Sections 30- 7.2 and 30-7.5 of the City's LDC. In addition, the Appellants argue that the parking must be paved because the City's LDC only allows gravel parking areas with ten or fewer parking spaces. Under Section 30-7.5 of the City's LDC, the development plan must provide 13 parking spaces. The development plan provides nine parking spaces on the Property and four on-street spaces approved by the City, for a total of 13 parking spaces. The nine parking spaces on the Property satisfy the requirement of allowing gravel parking areas with ten or fewer parking spaces. Standing Appellants Vanessa Burt and Suzi Rumsey are the only residents who own property within 400 feet of the Property. Appellants Jason Atkins-Tuffs and Lauren Atkins are recent new home buyers in the Pleasant Street Neighborhood. Mr. Atkins-Tuffs is concerned that the development plan would not be a "good fit for our growing historic downtown family neighborhood." Appellant Dotty Faibisy is an almost 20-year resident and is concerned that the development plan "is a poor fit for the Historic Pleasant Street Neighborhood." Appellants John Rehfuss and Caroline Rehfuss are residents since 2013 in the Pleasant Street Historic District and are concerned that the development plan "is going to be a poor fit, both aesthetically and functionally, for our neighborhood." Appellant Tan Silva is a 23-year resident, who lives outside of but "on the edge" of the Pleasant Street Historic District and feels that compatible development should be maintained. Appellant Furman Wallace is an 84-year resident of the Pleasant Street Neighborhood. He is concerned with the character and type of buildings in the Pleasant Street Neighborhood. Appellant Thomas Hawkins was a 12-year resident of the Pleasant Street Neighborhood and is currently building a new home in the neighborhood. Mr. Hawkins is concerned that the development plan does "not compliment the neighborhood's historic architecture" and is not consistent with the City's LDC requirements.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the amendments to the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan (“the Comp Plan”) adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County by Ordinance No. 14-030 (“Proposed Amendments”) are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Alerts of PBC, Inc. (“Alerts”), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation doing business in Palm Beach County. Alerts made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Patricia Curry is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Ms. Curry made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Robert Schutzer is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Mr. Schutzer made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Petitioner Karen Schutzer is a resident and landowner in Palm Beach County. Ms. Schutzer made timely objections and comments to the County on the Proposed Amendments. Respondent Palm Beach County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted the Comp Plan, which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184. Intervenor Minto is a Florida limited liability company doing business in Palm Beach County. Minto is the owner of all of the 3,788.6 acres (“the Property”) which are the subject of the Proposed Amendments, with the exception of two parcels totaling 40.04 acres, which are owned by the Seminole Improvement District. Minto appointed the board of supervisors of the Seminole Improvement District pursuant to state law. Background FLUE Objective 1.1 establishes a unique Managed Growth Tier System “to protect viable existing neighborhoods and communities and direct the location and timing of future development.” The Property is located in the County’s Rural Tier and is bounded by Exurban Tier to the north and east. North of the Property is a large subdivision known as the Acreage, which was described by Respondents as “antiquated” because it was developed in a manner that was common decades ago before modern community planning concepts and growth management laws. The Acreage is dominated by 1.25-acre residential lots, laid out in a grid pattern with few other uses. Although the residents of the Acreage have a strong sense of community, it is apparently a matter of aesthetics, familiarity, and social intercourse, because the Acreage is not a community in the modern planning sense of providing a mix of uses where residents can live, shop, work, and play. It is a development pattern that is now discouraged by state law and the Comp Plan, because it is inefficient with respect to the provision and use of public services. The Property and the Acreage are within a 57,000-acre area known as the Central Western Communities (“CWC"). The CWC has been the subject of extensive planning efforts by the County for many years to address land use imbalances in the area. There are many residential lots, but few non-residential uses to serve the residents. In 2008, the previous owner of the Property, Callery- Judge Groves (“Callery”), obtained an Agricultural Enclave (AGE) future land use designation for essentially the same area as the Property. The Comp Plan was amended to establish an AGE future land use designation, AGE policies, a conceptual plan of development, and implementing principles (“the 2008 Amendments”). Under the 2008 Amendments, the site was limited to 2,996 residential units and 235,000 square feet of retail and office uses. No development has been undertaken pursuant to the 2008 Amendments. In 2013, the site was sold to Minto, which submitted a Comp Plan amendment application in November 2013, and a revised application in July 2014. On October 29, 2014, the County adopted the Proposed Amendments. The Proposed Amendments change the future land use designation of 53.17 acres (“the outparcels”) from RR-10 to AGE, and increase residential density to 4,546 units and increase intensity to two million square feet of non-residential uses, 200,000 square feet of civic uses, a 150-room hotel and a 3,000- student college, and revise the Conceptual Plan and Implementing Principles. The Proposed Amendments would also revise text in the Introduction and Administration, Future Land Use, and Transportation Elements. The Map Series would be amended to add 53.17 acres to the Limited Urban Service Area on Map LU 1.1 and Map LU 2.1, and to identify new Rural Parkways on Map TE 14.1. Petitioners’ Challenge Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are not “in compliance” because they fail to establish meaningful and predictable standards; do not comply with the agricultural enclave provisions of section 163.3164(4); are not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis; promote urban sprawl; are incompatible with adjacent communities and land uses; and create inconsistencies within the Comp Plan. Many of the issues raised and the arguments made by Petitioners fail to acknowledge or distinguish the 2008 Amendments that address future development of the Property. In several respects, as discussed below, the 2008 Amendments already authorize future development of the Property in a manner which Petitioners object to. In several respects, the types of impacts that Petitioners are concerned about are actually diminished by the Proposed Amendments from what is currently allowed under the 2008 Amendments. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioners contend that proposed FLUE Policies 2.2.5-d, 2.2.5-e, and 2.2.5-f, and Maps LU 1.1 and 2.1 fail to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and fail to provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations, in violation of section 163.3177(1). The Proposed Amendments add more detail to the standards that were adopted in the 2008 Amendments. The Proposed Amendments establish substantially more direction for the future development of the Property than simply a land use designation and listing of allowed uses, which is typical in comprehensive plans. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments lack adequate standards because they refer to the use of “appropriate new urbanism concepts,” which Petitioners say is vague. New urbanism refers to land use planning concepts such as clustering, mixed-use development, rural villages, and city centers. See § 163.3162(4), Fla. Stat. (2014). In land use planning parlance, new urbanism creates more “livable” and “sustainable” communities. The term “appropriate new urbanism concepts” used in the Proposed Amendments is the same term used in section 163.3162(4), dealing with the development of agricultural enclaves. There are many concepts that are part of new urbanism, which can be used in combination. Which concepts are “appropriate” depends on the unique opportunities and constraints presented by the area to be developed. Use of the term “appropriate new urbanism concepts” in the Proposed Amendments adds detail to the future development standards applicable to the Property. It does not create vagueness. Petitioners contend the proposed amendments of Maps LU 1.1 and 2.1 do not provide meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines. However, the maps are only being amended to show that 53.17 acres of outparcels within the Property are being added to the existing Limited Urban Service Area. The map amendments do not diminish the meaningfulness or predictability of any standards in the Comp Plan. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments establish meaningful and predictable standards. Agricultural Enclave Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments fail to meet the requirements for an agricultural enclave in section 163.3164. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, consistency with section 163.3164 is not a component of an “in compliance” determination. Furthermore, the Property is already designated Agricultural Enclave in the Comp Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend the amendment of the Limited Urban Service Area is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis as required by section 163.3177(1)(f). The inclusion of the outparcels is logical and reasonable. It is consistent with the Comp Plan policies applicable to Limited Urban Service Areas. It is supported by data and analysis. Petitioners contend the increases in density and intensity allowed by the Proposed Amendments are not supported by data and analysis showing a need for the increases. However, the increases are supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, including population projections and extensive analysis of the need for non-residential uses in the CWC. Population projections establish the minimum amount of land to be designated for particular uses; not the maximum amount of land. See § 163.3177(1)(f)3., Fla. Stat (2014). Petitioners make several claims related to the availability of public utilities and other services to the Property. The data and analysis show sufficient capacity for roads, transportation, schools, water supply, wastewater treatment, fire, emergency and police either already exists or is contemplated in the Comp Plan to accommodate the development authorized by the Proposed Amendments. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments are supported by relevant data and analysis. Urban Sprawl Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments do not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is defined in section 163.3164(51) as “a development pattern characterized by low density, automobile-dependent development with either a single use or multiple uses that are not functionally related, requiring the extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient manner, and failing to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses.” Petitioners contend the Property does not qualify for the presumption against urban sprawl under the criteria in section 163.3162(4), but Minto did not rely on that statutory presumption. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments create five of the 13 primary indicators of urban sprawl set forth in section 163.3177(6)(a)9.: Promotes, allows, or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses. Promotes, allows, or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while not using undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money, and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The evidence presented on this issue by Petitioners was inconsistent with generally accepted land use planning concepts and principles. The Proposed Amendments do not promote urban sprawl. They go far to rectify existing sprawl conditions in the CWC. Findings relevant to the five indicators have already been made above. Compatibility with adjacent uses is discussed below. There are ample data and analysis which show the Proposed Amendments discourage urban sprawl. Respondents’ characterization of the Proposed Amendments as the opposite of urban sprawl is not unreasonable. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Compatibility Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are “incompatible with the lifestyle of the existing and surrounding communities and adjacent agricultural and other land uses.” Protection of Petitioners’ lifestyle cannot mean that surrounding areas must remain undeveloped or must be developed in a similar suburban sprawl pattern. Land use imbalances in the CWC are rectified by the Proposed Amendments while providing large buffers and a transition of land uses on the Property to protect adjacent land uses. The Acreage is more accurately characterized as suburban rather than rural. Moreover, the Proposed Amendments include a conceptual plan and development guidelines designed to create a clear separation between urban uses on the Property and less dense and intense external uses. Residential densities near the perimeter of the Property would correspond to the density in the Acreage. The proposed distribution of land uses and large open space buffers would not establish merely an adequate transition. They would provide substantial protection to adjacent neighborhoods. A person at the periphery of the Property would likely see only open space, parks, and low-density residential uses. The distribution of land uses and natural buffers in the Proposed Amendments provide more protection for external land uses than the 2008 Amendments. The more persuasive evidence presented indicates that Petitioners and other persons living near the Property would be beneficiaries of the Proposed Amendments because they could use and be served by the office, commercial, government, and recreational uses that will be available nearby. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments are compatible with adjacent land uses. Internal Consistency The Comp Plan’s Introduction and Administration Element and FLUE contain statements of intent. They are not objectives or policies. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with some of the statements. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with the Introduction and Administration Element statements discouraging growth to the west where services are not adequate, do not provide for orderly growth or the provision of facilities and services to maintain the existing quality of life in an economical manner, and do not recognize countywide growth management strategies or maintain the diversity of lifestyles. Findings that refute this contention have been made above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with several general statements in FLUE Sections I A, I B, and I C. regarding respect for the character of the area, protection of quality of life and integrity of neighborhoods, prevention of “piecemeal” development, and efficient provision of public services. Findings that refute this contention have been made above. Petitioners contend FLUE Policy 2.2.5-d allows land uses which are inconsistent with the policies applicable to the Rural Tier in which the Property is located. In the proposed policy, the County exempts the Project from any conflicting Rural Tier policies that would otherwise apply. Under the County’s Managed Growth Tier System, the tiers are the “first level” land use consideration in the FLUE. Therefore, it would have been helpful to amend the Rural Tier section of the FLUE to indicate the exceptions to Rural Tier policies for agricultural enclaves, in general, or for the Property, in particular. Instead, the Proposed Amendments place the new wording about exceptions in the section of the FLUE dealing with agricultural land uses. However, as stated in the Conclusions of Law, where the exception is located in the comprehensive plan is not a consistency issue. The County has shown there are unique considerations involved with the CWC that justify the exceptions. It also demonstrated that the Proposed Amendments would accomplish numerous objectives and policies of the Comp Plan that could not be accomplished without creating exceptions to some Rural Tier policies. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.1-3 because they encourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. That contention has been rejected above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1.1-6 because they do not protect agricultural land and equestrian uses. The evidence shows that agricultural and equestrian uses are enhanced by the Proposed Amendments over the existing provisions of the Comp Plan. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-b, which addresses criteria re- designating a tier. This policy is not applicable because the Proposed Amendments do not re-designate a tier. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-c, which requires the review of the tier system as part of each Evaluation and Appraisal review. Evaluation and Appraisal Reviews are no longer required by state law. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.1-d, which states a tier shall not be re-designated if it would cause urban sprawl. This policy is not applicable because the Proposed Amendments do not re- designate a tier. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-a, which requires the County to protect and maintain the rural residential, equestrian, and agricultural areas within the Rural Tier. The Proposed Amendments and Conceptual Plan increase the level of protection for these uses over what is currently in the Comp Plan. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-d, which generally prohibits subdividing parcels of land within the Rural Tier unless certain conditions are met. The Proposed Amendments do not subdivide any parcels. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-k, which addresses the designation of “sending areas” for Transfer of Development Rights (“TDR”). This policy only applies to parcels with a RR20 future land use designation and there are no such parcels existing or that would be created by the Proposed Amendments. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 1.4-l, which requires the County to provide rural zoning regulations for areas designated Rural Residential. The Property does not have any Rural Residential designations. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.4-b, which provides that the TDR program is the required method for increasing density within the County. The County applies this policy only to density increases in urban areas, because they are the only areas authorized to receive TDRs. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 2.1 and some related policies, which promote balanced growth. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments will further this objective and its policies because they correct the current imbalance of land uses in the CWC and provide for a balanced mix of residential, agricultural, commercial, light industrial, office, recreation, and civic uses. Petitioners presented no evidence to support their claim that Proposed Amendments would exceed the natural or manmade constraints of the area. Petitioners presented no credible evidence that transportation infrastructure and other public services could not be efficiently provided to the Property. The data and analysis and other evidence presented show otherwise. Petitioners contend there is no justification for the increased density and intensity authorized by the Proposed Amendments. There was ample justification presented to show the increases were needed to create a sustainable community where people can live, work, shop, and play. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 2.2 and some related policies, which require development to be consistent with land use designations in the Comp Plan. Petitioners’ evidence failed to show any inconsistencies. The Proposed Amendments are compatible with and benefit adjacent land uses, as found above. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments fail to include “new urbanism” concepts as required by section 163.3164(4) and Policy 2.2.5-i. The evidence presented by Respondents proved otherwise. Petitioners contend the Proposed Amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Objective 3 and some related policies, which address the provision of utilities and other public services. Petitioners presented no credible evidence to support this claim. The data and analysis and other evidence presented show that public services are available or planned and can be efficiently provided to the Property. Petitioners argued the Proposed Amendments were inconsistent with several other FLUE policies generally related to compatibility with adjacent land uses and the provision of public services, all of which Petitioners failed to prove as explained above. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Proposed Amendments would not create internal inconsistency in the Comp Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity issue a final order determining the Proposed Amendments adopted by Palm Beach County Ordinance No. 2014-030 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire 1217 East Coral Parkway, Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (eServed) Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green and Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Tara W. Duhy, Esquire Lewis Longman and Walker, P.A. 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire Palm Beach County Attorney's Office 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Jesse Panuccio, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Katie Zimmer, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
Conclusions On March 10, 2010, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Division of Administrative Hearings entered an Order Closing File in the above captioned case.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL - CALDWELL BUILDING, 107 EAST MADISON STREET, MSC 110, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-4128, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS 2 Final Order No. DEO11-0006 FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Economic Opportunity, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this fopllriay of October 2011. : Miriam Snipes, Agency Clerk DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By U.S. Mail: Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. Max Lohman, Esquire Corbett and White, P.A; 1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207 Lantana, Florida 33462 Brian Joslyn, Esquire Gregory S. Kino, Esquire Boose, Casey, Cikin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O*Connell Northbridge Center, 19th Floor 515 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4626 By Hand Delivery: David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable D. R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Final Order No. DEO11-0006
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.
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.
