The Issue This proceeding concerns Lakepointe project, a development of regional impact (DRI) which was approved, with conditions, by Orange County. The developer contests certain of the conditions imposed by the County in its approvals of the DRI and the related rezoning. More specifically, the Petitioner has alleged that the County acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and contrary to the essential requirements of law by: eliminating free-standing commercial uses from the project and requiring that all commercial activities be internalized within office buildings and included within the office square footage; imposing a 10,000 square feet per acre limitation on all office development and reducing the total square footage from 805,000 to 756,000 square feet; limiting structures to 35 feet in height; requiring that all office buildings within the project be designed with "residential scale and character"; reducing the residential density and limiting the residential development to single family detached units on the north portion of the project in lieu of the multi-family, attached units proposed by Petitioner; and imposing uplands buffer requirements that reduce the amount of acreage available for development. Petitioner seeks to have the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a modified development order eliminating these conditions. Orange County and the City of Maitland contend that the challenged conditions are reasonable, given the facts and circumstances surrounding the project, and that they are consistent with the requirements of law. Certain ancillary issues raised by the parties were eliminated through rulings of the hearing officer during the proceeding. Petitioner sought to present extensive evidence that the process by which the County arrived at its conditions of approval was improper as it relied unduly on the demands of the City of Maitland whose jurisdictional boundaries abut the project. Petitioner claims that the City and County reached an agreement on the project which was illegal as it did not comply with the provisions of section 163.3171, F.S. Although some evidence was permitted, and the issue is addressed in this recommended order, the issue is deemed irrelevant. As more fully explained in the conclusions of law, the de novo nature of this proceeding cures the procedural defects claimed by Petitioner. For a similar reason, the hearing officer denied a joint motion in limine by Orange County and the City of Maitland that would have precluded Petitioner from presenting any evidence related to conditions to which it did not expressly object at the December 14, 1987, public hearing conducted by the County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Battaglia Properties, Ltd. (BPL) is a Florida limited partnership whose mailing address is Post Office Box 770398, Winter Garden, Florida 32787. BPL is owner and developer of the property that is the subject of this proceeding. As such, BPL has standing to initiate this appeal pursuant to section 380.07, F.S. (APS, statement of admitted facts, paragraph 3). Orange County (County) is a charter county and political subdivision of the State of Florida, authorized to issue "development orders", as that term is defined in section 380.031(3), F.S. and section 163.3164(6), F.S. (APS, statement of admitted facts, paragraph 4). The City of Maitland, Florida (City, or Maitland) is a municipal corporation which has properly intervened in this proceeding. (APS, statement of admitted facts, paragraph 5.) The Site and its Environs The property that is the subject of this appeal comprises 120.6 acres located north and south of Maitland Boulevard in unincorporated Orange County. The south portion consists of 33.3 gross acres and the north portion is 87.3 gross acres. The City of Maitland surrounds the property on three sides: east, south and west. An adjacent parcel owned by Petitioner, east of the property, lies within the incorporated city limits of Maitland. Together, the parcels constitute a development of regional impact (DRI) located within more than one local government jurisdiction, referred to as the "Lakepointe Project" or "Lakepointe DRI/PD". This appeal, and thus this order, address only that portion of the project located in unincorporated Orange County. Maitland Boulevard is currently constructed as a four-lane divided, limited access, principal arterial with interchanges at Interstate 4 on the west, and US 17-92 (Maitland Avenue) on the east. The Battaglia family has owned the property for approximately thirty- five years and has used it for citrus groves. At the time that the property was purchased by the Battaglias, the area was largely rural. Maitland Avenue (US 17-92) was a two-lane road, and Maitland Boulevard was a dirt road. I-4, approximately 1/4 mile to the west was constructed in the 1960's. Subdivisions and a school were constructed south of Sandspur Road, the southern boundary of the property, in the 1960's and 1970's. Around that time other residences were constructed north of the lakes on the northern boundary of the property. In the early 1970's, an office building was built to the east of the property, on the southside of Maitland Boulevard; and Lake Faith Villas, a multi-family residential development, was built on the northside of Maitland Boulevard. A large Jewish Community Center was developed across from Lake Faith Villas, on the south of Maitland Boulevard. West of the Battaglia parcel, and north of Maitland Boulevard, the property is vacant and has been the subject of various development proposals. West of the Battaglia property, but south of Maitland Boulevard, is a large church complex, Orangewood Presbyterian. On the westside of I-4, north and south of Maitland Boulevard is a 230 acre office development, Maitland Center, zoned in the 1970's and developed in the 1980's. When Orange County first adopted zoning, in 1957, the Battaglia parcel was zoned R-1AA, allowing single-family detached units, not to exceed 4.4 units per acre (du/acre). When the County adopted its comprehensive plan in 1980, the parcel north of Maitland Boulevard was designated for low-medium density residential use (4.4 to 7.5 du/acre). The south parcel was designated for low density residential use (1.01-4.4 du/acre). These designations are reflected on Orange County's 1986 Future Land Use Policy Guide Map, included in the County's comprehensive plan, the 1986 Growth Management Policy (GMP). The City of Maitland Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) also addresses the property for planning and informational purposes. Figure 7-1 of the Land Use District Map of the 1986 CDP designates the area as an "undeveloped district" (UD), with the north parcel designated UD 2, permitting single family residential, multi-family, and limited non-residential uses. The south parcel is within a UD 1 district, permitting single family residential and related uses. (Joint Exhibit #10, pp 7-26 to 7-30) When the Florida Department of Transportation acquired the right of way for Maitland Boulevard, it acquired all access rights, except at specific limited locations where shared access between adjoining properties is necessary. The right of way includes anticipated expansion of Maitland Boulevard to six lanes. Access points to the north parcel of the Battaglia property are at both ends, east and west. Access to the south parcel is at the west only, with a "stubbed-out" road that dead-ends before reaching Sandspur Road, on the southern boundary of the south parcel. Construction of I-4, Maitland Boulevard, and Maitland Avenue (US 17- 92) has substantially changed the area from its rural character to one of mixed uses. Although the areas north and south of the property are well-established residential neighborhoods with homes selling between $100,000 and $200,000, the corridor along Maitland Boulevard is not residential in character. No single- family residential subdivision has direct access to Maitland Boulevard. The subdivisions south of the property access Sandspur Road; and those to the north, on the north side of Lakes Faith, Hope and Charity, access small neighborhood streets. Other events occurred which directly impacted the Battaglia family's use of its property. During the decade of the 1980's, five major freezes occurred: January 1981, January 1982, December 1983, January 1985, and December 1989. A substantial portion of the grove, particularly on the south parcel, was destroyed or severely damaged. Some of the trees also passed the upper limits of their twelve to thirty year productive life span. The Development Plan In the mid-1980's the owners came to believe that citrus was probably not the best investment they could make on this property any longer, given the grove damage and the development that was occurring in the area. A planning firm was consulted, and a master development plan was created for the property north and south of Maitland Boulevard. [See Appendix B, attached] The mixed use development, called Lakepointe, was divided into six parcels, as follows, with parcels one and two to be developed in the relatively narrow portion south of Maitland Boulevard, and four through six on the deeper and larger northern portion: Parcel Land Use Acreage Units 1 office 28.3 240,000 (gsf) gross square feet 2 multi-family 5.0 50 du (10 du/a) 3 office/ 3.3 35.000 gsf commercial 6.000 gsf 4 commercial 4.0 12,000 gsf 5 office 35.0 530.000 gsf 6 multi-family 12.0 100 du (8.3 du/a) greenbelt 2.8 entrance road 1.1 lakes 29.1 120.6 ac 805.000 gsf office 18,000 gsf commercial 150 du Under the plan, commercial use in parcel 3 was limited to financial institutions, and in parcel 4 was proposed to be a "quality restaurant". (Joint Exhibit #7; Battaglia Exhibit #2 (a), p. 12-2; APS, p. 6.) The narrative description accompanying the master development plan proposed a height limitation of 35 feet for those structures to be located south of Maitland Boulevard and for the structures to be located on parcel 6. A 55- foot height limitation was proposed by Petitioner for the office and commercial structures on parcels 3, 4, and 5, north of Maitland Boulevard. The Petitioner also proposed a 50-foot wide uplands greenbelt buffer, located landward of Lake Hope and its adjoining conservation areas, along the northern boundary of parcel 5, to provide additional open space and buffering for the 55-foot buildings that were proposed (APS, pp. 6-7). The offices to be located on parcel 1 were proposed to be of "residential scale", due to the limited depth of the parcel and to minimize detrimental impacts on nearby residential uses. (Battaglia Exhibit #2 (a) p. 12-6) A 25-foot buffer was proposed around the multi-family residential use proposed for parcel 6. (transcript, pp. 1173-4) Parcel 6, located in the far northwest portion of the property, is also called "Pine Island" for its unique vegetation. Its approximate 12 acres have never been cultivated in groves, but rather have been allowed to flourish in dense pine and oak trees. It protrudes, like the thumb of a mitten, into the area between Lakes Hope and Charity, and is separated from the subdivision to the north by a drainage divide densely vegetated with grasses, reeds and other plants associated with the presence of a high water table. (transcript, p. 1173) Petitioner's plan for parcel 6 considered the unique character of this portion of the property and proposed attached, multi-family units which would allow maximum flexibility in designing roads and parking and in preserving open space. The Application Process Due to the more extensive grove damage on the south property, Petitioner initially elected to proceed with development there first, and to continue cultivating its citrus on the north. Over the objection of the residential neighbors across Sandspur Road, on October 28, 1985, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners approved Battaglia's request to rezone the south parcel from R-1AA to Planned Development (PD) with office buildings and some multi-family units. The office park was permitted access limited to Maitland Boulevard, and the residential parcel was permitted access to Sandspur Road, with no access between the two parcels. The project was called Sandspur Grove PD. The City of Maitland area homeowners challenged the rezoning and prevailed in Circuit Court. However, the rezoning was reinstated when the Circuit Court was reversed on appeal. See Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). In the meantime, the owners determined to pursue the entire development, and in April 1986, filed an application to rezone the north parcel from R-1AA to PD, and an application for Development Approval/Development of Regional Impact (ADA/DRI). On June 11, 1987, Petitioner filed its application to amend the Future Land Use Policy Guide Map contained in Orange County's comprehensive plan to a classification appropriate for the land uses proposed in the Lakepointe DRI/PD, as shown on the Master Development Plan (APS, p. 5). A detailed traffic study in support of the proposed Lakepointe Master Plan was included in the DRI application. Orange County and Maitland reviewed and approved in advance the methodologies and assumptions used in the traffic study. The study included traffic growth applicable to all vacant properties in the traffic impact area, including projected trips from 65,000 square feet of commercial retail. On March 29, 1987, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) issued its final recommendation on the Lakepointe DRI. It recommended approval with conditions, eight of which address traffic, including the recommendation that phase III not proceed until Maitland Boulevard is six-laned, unless monitoring concludes the improvement is not necessary. (Joint Exhibit #8) The ECFRPC also noted in "issues of local concern" that the project is virtually surrounded by the City of Maitland and would have a significant impact on the City and its citizens, and that the project appears to be inconsistent with the Maitland Comprehensive Plan. The ECFRPC recommended that full review of the project be made at a joint public hearing conducted by the City and County. (Joint Exhibit #8, pp. 47-48) The Petitioner did not request such a joint hearing on its application, as provided in Section 380.06, F.S. On April 9, 1987, the Orange County Development Review Committee (DRC) conducted a technical review of the proposed development. Representatives of the Lakepointe project were present and participated. The DRC is comprised of Orange County staff who review a project for compliance with Orange County regulations and make recommendations to the County's Planning and Zoning Commission. On the basis of the staff's technical review, such recommendations will ameliorate the impacts of the proposed development. (APS, p. 8) The approved Minutes of the April 9, 1987, DRC meeting reflect a staff recommendation of approval of the Lakepointe project with the following recommended modifications: Extending the 50-foot wide greenbelt area around the entire northerly perimeter of the PD and ending at the Department of Transportation drainage easement (Parcels 5 and 6). Prohibiting free-standing commercial uses on Parcels 3 and 4, and requiring the commercial uses to be located internally within office buildings. Limiting building height in Parcels 3, 4, and 6 to three stories (forty feet). Limiting building height on Parcel 5 within 100 feet of adjacent property zoned residential to one story and a maximum of 35 feet, while recommending a 4-story, 50-foot maximum height on the balance of Parcel 5. The approved DRC Minutes of April 9, 1987 recommended approval of 805,000 square feet of office uses, plus an additional 18,000 square feet of commercial uses (internalized within offices), and 150 multi-family dwelling units at the densities requested by Battaglia (10 du/a on Parcel 2 and 8.3 du/a on Parcel 6. (APS, pp. 8-9). On August 10, 1987, a joint work session was conducted between the Orange County Board of County Commissioners and the Maitland City Council. Representatives from the Petitioner and other citizens were present, but their participation was limited to occasional unsolicited comments. The purpose of the work session was to consider proposals for a joint agreement that would allow municipal jurisdiction over adjacent unincorporated areas for planning purposes pursuant to section 163.3171, F.S. As reflected in the litigation with regard to the Battaglia property, relations between the local governments were strained. The Lakepointe project was specifically discussed, and the group of council and board members appeared to reach some consensus on certain restrictions on the development: that any development on the property could not exceed 35 feet in height. that the attached multi-family units in parcel 6 be replaced with single family detached units at a density of 7.5 units per acre; and that all residential uses be deleted from the south parcel and replaced with residential scale offices. (Joint Exhibit #17, pp. 17, 23, 27, 28-30, 34-35). Even though votes were taken at the work session, the outcome was not binding on the board. Resolution of the various issues amounted to policy determinations which provide guidance to the staff. Nonetheless, the session concluded with some self-congratulation that the two bodies had been able to sit down amicably and work out tough problems. (Joint Exhibit #17, pp. 62-63). Edward Williams, Orange County's Planning Director and a member of the DRC, sent a memo to the DRC on November 11, 1987 outlining the conditions agreed at the August 10, 1987 work session and stating that certain conditions approved by the DRC should be modified and other conditions added. These included: No free standing commercial and the internal commercial use limited to 18,000 sq. ft. would not exceed 50% of any building. Maximum heights would be 35 feet. The residential uses north of Maitland Boulevard would be single family detached, at 7.5 du/a. Multi-family residential uses south of Maitland Boulevard would be eliminated and redesignated as offices. Building coverage would be no more than 10,000 sq. ft. per acre. The 33.3 acre office tract south of Maitland Boulevard would be limited to 333,000 sq. ft. and the 42.3 acre office tract on the north would be limited to 423,000 square feet. (Battaglia Exhibit #9) The DRC adopted Williams' changes. The Orange County Planning and Zoning Commission (P&ZC), an advisory body to the Board and appointed by the Board, considered the Lakepointe comprehensive plan land use map amendment and the DRI/PD application at two consecutive public hearings on November 19, 1987. The P&ZC accepted the 7.5 du/a single family residence restriction for Parcel 6, but recommended deleting the "detached" requirement, in favor of giving the developer additional flexibility. It also recommended computing the 10,000 square feet per acre office use on a gross basis both on the north and south parcels, rather than on a gross basis on the south and net on the north as the county staff had done. The change in computation resulted in an additional 39,000 square feet for offices on the north parcel when the 2.8 acre green belt and 1.1 acre entrance road are included. Other than these, the conditions urged by Edward Williams from the joint work session were adopted. (Joint Exhibit #18, pp. 106-109; Joint Exhibit #19) The Orange County Board of County Commissioners considered the Lakepointe comprehensive plan amendment, DRI application and PD zoning application at duly noticed and advertised public hearings on December 14, 1987. Representatives of the Petitioner and members of the public were present and participated. (Joint Exhibits #22 and 23; APS, p.4) Accepting the staff recommendations, but deleting the P&ZC recommended changes, the Board adopted an ordinance amending the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the land uses associated with the Lakepointe project. It also approved the project as a DRI, and approved rezoning the north portion of the property from R-1AA to PD. (Joint Exhibits #2, 22 and 23) On February 22, 1988, Orange County issued a Development Order, pursuant to Section 380.06(14), F.S. memorializing the conditions of development approved by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners on December 14, 1987, for the Lakepointe DRI/PD. (Joint Exhibit #3) On June 12, 1989, the City of Maitland issued a Development Order pursuant to Section 380.06(14), F.S. for that portion of the Lakepointe project located entirely within the City of Maitland. This order relates only to the access road at the northeast of the project. (Joint Exhibit #4) The Orange County Board of County Commissioners and the Maitland City Council formally adopted an interlocal agreement at a duly noticed and advertised joint public hearing held on July 10, 1989. (APS, p. 10) The Development Order The Development Order for Lakepointe DRI consists of approximately 16 pages, plus the legal descriptions of the tracts. Although the order references a 120.3 acre project, the parties have stipulated, and the evidence reflects, that the project is 120.6 acres. (APS, p. 5) The preamble to the conditions of approval includes this language, which the County argues controls the ultimate disposition of this appeal: * * * * NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDERED by the County Commission of Orange County, Florida, that, subject to each of the following terms and conditions <<(each of which the County Commission found was necessary for inclusion for the County Commission to approve the Lakepointe DRI/PD project, and none of which could have been omitted or modified if the Developer expected the County Commission to approve the Lakepointe DRI/PD project),>> the Lakepointe Development of Regional Impact is APPROVED pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), and the Land Use Plan for the zoning change on the northern portion of the Property from R-1AA to PD is approved: * * * (Joint Exhibit #3, p.3, emphasis added) * Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. The order adopts the conditions of approval recommended by the ECFRPC, including the conditions regarding traffic impacts and monitoring/modeling. (Joint Exhibit #3, pp. 9-11) The order requires development in accordance with the DRI/ADA, and supplemental information, except as modified by the specific conditions of approval. (Joint Exhibit #3, p. 7) The relevant specific conditions (those contested in this proceeding) provide as follows: * * * II. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, AS ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION (A) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AS AMENDED. * * * * 2. The greenbelt (minimum 50-feet wide) shall be continued around the northerly perimeter of the PD, <<particularly along the northwestern boundary of Parcel 6 extending to Lake Charity and ending at the Department of Transportation ("D.O.T.") drainage right-of-way area.>> The greenbelt shall be located outside of designated conservation areas. A minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided around the balance of the perimeter of the PD (<<i.e.>> southerly perimeter of the PD situated immediately north of Maitland Boulevard). A reduction in the 25-foot buffer along Maitland Boulevard may be considered by Orange County staff at the development plan submittal stage (<<e.g.>>, reduced buffer width with wall screening). Specific landscape material for the entire buffer area shall be provided on the development plan submittal for County approval. 3. <<Free-standing commercial structure(s) shall be prohibited.>> The accessory or support commercial shall be located within the office buildings(s). The commercial uses are intended to serve the employees of the office development. The total professional office square footage shall include the square footage for any commercial uses, and the commercial use shall not exceed 18,000 square feet and no more than fifty percent (50%) for two (2)-story structures. * * * 7. <<Maximum height of the office buildings for the project shall be thirty-five (35) feet. Design of the office buildings shall be of a residential scale and character, and include the appropriate landscaping elements.>> Development within one hundred (100) feet of adjacent property zoned residential shall be limited to one story in height (and [35] feet maximum). * * * 14. Residential construction shall be started prior to completion of twenty-five (25%) of the office space. The residential development shall be completed before fifty percent (50%) of the office completion. These square footages relate to the portion of the PD located north of Maitland Boulevard. <<This residential development shall be low-medium density with a cap of 7.5 single family detached units per acre.>> (Development of the portion of Lakepointe south of Maitland Boulevard is controlled by the Sandspur Office Park PD litigation.) * * * <<Building coverage for office on the northern portion of the Property shall not be more than 10,000 square feet per net acre. The 33.3 acre office tract located south of Maitland Boulevard shall be limited to 275,000 square feet, while the 42.3 acre tract located north of Maitland Boulevard shall be limited to 481,000 square feet, for an aggregate total of 756,000 square feet.>> * * * (Joint Exhibit #3, pp. 3-7, emphasis added.) Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. The Conditions in Controversy Buffering the Northern Perimeter In its application Petitioner proposes a height of 55 feet for office buildings on the north parcel and a 50 foot uplands buffer landward of all conservation areas adjoining the offices on the northern boundary of parcel 5. The DRC reduced the height to 50 feet, for parcel 5, except within 100 feet of property zoned residential. Along the northern perimeter of parcel 6 (the residential use) Petitioner proposed a 25-foot natural buffer. The DRC originally had no problem with the residential density, but recommended extending the 50-foot upland buffer proposed for Parcel 5 around the northern perimeter of parcel 6. Petitioner contends that the 50 foot buffer is unnecessary if the office height and residential density are reduced. Buffers are required on any developer's land. In both Orange County and the City of Maitland, buffers are negotiated in PD's, based on existing factors and circumstances. The lakes along the northern perimeter of the property are between 1,000 to 2,000 feet across and are not effective light or noise buffers. The residential parcel (parcel 6) is separated from the existing subdivision by only a drainage canal and low vegetation. The 50-foot buffer between parcel 6 and Druid Hills (the existing subdivision) is not unusual. Buffer widths in PD's in the county range between 5 and 100 feet. In another case, the County required Buckingham at Lakeville to include a 50-foot wide buffer between residential uses of differing densities. In a case cited by Petitioner, Fairbanks Office Building, on Fairbanks Avenue in unincorporated Orange County, the developer, was required to provide only a 10-foot landscape buffer with a 6-foot wall, separating 46 foot high offices from an existing residential development. The wall, however, and the fact that the office park developer negotiated with the adjacent property owner to provide water and sewer service made that case unique and distinguishable from Lakepointe. (Transcript, p. 1132) No 50-foot buffer is required by the county for the southern boundary of the south parcel as the office uses on that parcel are separated from the single family residences by Sandspur Road and by Petitioner's proposed wall, berming and landscaping. Different requirements for the north and south perimeter are justified and appropriate. Prohibition of Free-Standing Commercial Structures Although there are well-established single family neighborhoods north and south of Maitland Boulevard between I-4 and Maitland Avenue (U.S. 17-92), those neighborhoods are separated from the Maitland Boulevard corridor by the lakes on the north and Sandspur Road on the south. The corridor itself is not residential in character. No single family residential subdivisions directly access Maitland Boulevard. From the beginning of the County's review of the project, however, the free-standing commercial uses proposed by the developer have been eliminated as inconsistent with the character of the portion of Maitland Boulevard east of I-4 and west of Maitland Avenue. The planning and zoning staff have sought to prevent strip commercial development of the type that has proliferated along other principal arterial roads, notably State Road 436, U.S. 17-92 and State Road 434. Free-standing commercial on parcels 3 and 4 would be the only uses of that type in this area of the Maitland Boulevard corridor, setting a precedent for other similar uses on adjacent properties, a trend vigorously opposed by the residential groups and by the City and County officials and their staff. Appropriate locations for free-standing commercial in the vicinity would be at U.S. 17-92, in downtown Maitland or west of I-4 (designated as one of the county's five "activity centers" in the GMP to concentrate high intensity uses and avoid encroachment into residential areas). Relevant policies from Orange County's GMP provide, as follows: COMMERCIAL POLICIES (Policies outlined in Sections 1.0 through 4.0 are applicable to all types of commercial activities within Orange County) GENERAL The County will encourage the concentration of expanded commercial facilities in centers suitably located to provide their market areas with accessibility and to discourage inappropriate roadway strip commercial uses. Uses generally considered as a suitable replacement for strip commercial activities include all types of residential uses, institutional development, or recreation areas and green belts. * * * 11.0 OFFICES AND PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL POLICIES Offices and professional commercial developments are those which provide office space for the furnishing of professional services. Such uses may be located individually or in planned centers, such as office parks. * * * 11.1.3 Office parks should be encouraged to include corollary uses such as office supply stores, banks, restaurants, conference centers and other compatible business and commercial uses. * * * (Joint Exhibit #9, pp VI-21, VI-30) Prohibiting free-standing commercial, but permitting commercial corollary uses as described above, within the office buildings, appropriately effectuates those policies. The County has required other mixed-use PD's besides Lakepointe to incorporate commercial within office buildings. For example, since the early 1960's and '70s, planning studies for the area around the University of Central Florida have discouraged free-standing commercial uses to maintain a campus-like atmosphere and to avoid adverse impacts on the University. Some unspecified commercial use has been permitted in recent years. (Transcript, pp 397-398) Where free-standing commercial developments are permitted in DRI/PDs, the projects are generally much larger than Lakepointe (for example, Southchase with 3,000 acres and Lake Nona with approximately 7,000 acres), or are in an activity center (for example, Maitland Summit). (Transcript, pp. 1188, 1191) In approving or rejecting free-standing commercial uses the County considers each location as it relates to the road network, the relationship to other uses, compatibility with surrounding land uses in the area and the character of the area. (Transcript, p. 398) Maximum Height & "Residential Scale and Character" A 35-foot height limit for office buildings is mandated by the County's "straight" Professional-Office (P-O) zoning district requirement. (Joint Exhibit #11, Article XXXI, Section 6, paragraph 7) A special exception is permitted to increase the height, after consideration of the character of the neighborhood, the effect of the proposed use on the value of surrounding lands, and the area of the site. (Id., Section 5) The project in issue is a Planned Development (PD), however, allowing mixed uses and a greater degree of flexibility than available under straight zoning. The developer is required to submit a plan for approval, which plan identifies, among other details, the proposed building heights. (Joint Exhibit #11, Article XXXIX, Sections 1 and 6) For guidance, the County and developer look to performance standards in the straight zoning, although these are clearly not binding in PD zoning. The Petitioner voluntarily committed to a 35-foot height restriction on the south portion of the property. It also committed to a "residential scale and character" office development on the 28.3 acres that comprise Parcel 1 on the south. As part of the rezoning process the Petitioner showed photographs of residential scale office developments. In making those commitments, Petitioner considered the narrow depth of the south parcel and its proximity to residential uses (across Sandspur Road). It proposed 55-foot heights and a "campus-style" development for the offices on the larger northern parcels, to allow more open space, more landscaping and an opportunity for flexible design. Orange County's codes do not define the term "residential scale and character" and no guidelines or standards have been adopted to apply meaning to the term. Nor does the County have an architectural review board charged with making design decisions on development proposals. It is plain that both parties have some notion of what it means, as both have used the term throughout the plan approval process. For example, Orange County's Planning Director, Edward Williams, when asked by the Board for a definition at its final public hearing, suggested that "residential scale" projects include a roof type and architectural features compatible with what is found in a "typical residential area". Size, for example, a limitation of 5,000 square feet per building, is not necessarily appropriate in all residential scale projects. (Joint Exhibit #22, p. 75) "Residential scale and character" could include one to five very large buildings on the north parcel rather than multiple small buildings as envisioned on the south, according to Mr. Williams. (Transcript, p. 475) As recognized by the Petitioner, "residential scale and character" buildings are appropriate adjacent to existing residential areas. Petitioner also acknowledges that a 35-foot height requirement is appropriate on parcels abutting or close to existing residential areas. Parcel 5, however, is different. Its 35 acres is the largest, and by far, the deepest parcel in the plan. It is buffered from existing residential areas by the greenbelt, by the lakes, and by the proposed residential use on parcel 6, "Pine Island". The height restriction of 35 feet does not make sense in that parcel, and inhibits the creative use of open or green space and landscaping. In his presentation to the local government officials at the August 10, 1987 work session, Mr. Williams articulated County planning policy in the past as trying to "...go up with developments rather than covering the entire site with impervious surfaces. We prefer to have more open space." (Joint exhibit #17, p. 10) Petitioner seeks to target a different market for the offices on the south parcel than for those on Parcel 5 on the north. On the south, there are proposed approximately 18 office buildings averaging 15,000 square feet in size. On the north parcel, the proposal suggests larger buildings, with more open space. If the height is unreasonably limited, the open space is sacrificed. "Residential Scale and Character" is not limited to single-family residential scale, but can also be multifamily. A large building can be made to look residential. Several large office buildings on the north parcel can be designed to have a "campus" feel with a quadrangle or semi-circle configuration. Size alone does not create or negate "residential scale and character". 7.5 Single Family Detached Units Per Acre Petitioner has proposed attached, multi-family units at a density of 8.3 du/acre for the unique, heavily wooded parcel 6. This density is at the lower end of the "medium density" range, "over 7.5 to, and including 14.9 Du/acre" described in the County's GMP. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-8.) The GMP promotes the use of this density to buffer low and low-medium density development from more intensive uses. The plan also encourages medium density residential subdivisions to "provide recreation and open space areas through the clustering of dwelling units". (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-11) The housing element of the GMP states these relevant goals: Socio-Economic Encourage development patterns which do not physically isolate low and moderate income and special needs groups from other sectors of society, especially in low density areas of the County. Recognize the need for and encourage the development of affordable housing for service employees working in Orange County. Examine the feasibility of creating new financial incentives for the development of low cost, affordable housing in Orange County. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. V-3) Petitioner's proposal is consistent with these policies. It seeks to buffer the low-density existing residential areas from the more intensive office uses in Lakepointe. It also seeks to preserve as much of the vegetation as possible, yet derive a benefit from the use of this parcel. It recognizes that residences accessible only through an office park may have a limited market. Its proposal is consistent with the County's goal of providing "affordable housing", and provides a convenient residential choice for persons who may be employed in the office park. The residential neighbors and City of Maitland sought the lower density and detached single family units precisely to avoid lower-income residents and more affordable units. (transcript, pp. 955, 958-59, 1003-04, 1046-47) In order to justify its accommodation of the interests of the local citizens, the County argues that a residential project, perhaps a condominium, could be designed with detached units, clustered together, or with zero lot lines. Visually, there is little difference between the attached units proposed by Petitioner and the County's suggestions for creative design. The latter suggestions do not satisfy the neighbors' desire to have units which are similar to their own, but they impose an unreasonable restriction on the Petitioner's flexibility. The Petitioner's proposal is consistent with Lake Faith Villas, an attached multifamily residential project to the immediate east of Petitioner's property on Maitland Boulevard, within the City of Maitland. Lake Faith Villas has a density of 10 du/acre. Office use limited to 10,000 square feet per acre Although the County's PD regulations do not specifically establish a 10,000 square foot per acre limit for offices, they allow the County to set reasonable, maximum amounts for different projects. The 10,000 square foot per acre limitation was derived from what Edward Williams claims is an average figure for professional office parcels in the county, and is more than the density sought and obtained by Petitioner for the south parcel when Sandspur Grove PD was approved. Other evidence suggests that the average square foot density for PO developments and PD developments in Orange County is closer to 12,000 (Transcript, p. 681-682), but the restriction is not so far off as to be patently unreasonable, considering Petitioner's plans for "residential scale and character" and "campus-style" projects. Computation of the total square feet for office uses was derived on a gross acreage basis on the south and a net basis on the north, ostensibly because the County was unable to ascertain from the development plan how much of the greenbelt and road should be allocated to parcel 6. (Transcript, pp. 436- 438) It is possible to compute gross acreage on the north property, using the parcels identified on Petitioner's master development plan (Joint Exhibit #7) [Appendix B] provided that the acreage allocated to parcel 6 is limited to twelve acres. It is obvious that this is what the developer intended when it derived 100 dwelling units at 8.3 du/acre, and 12 acres. (8.3 x 12 = 99.6) It is thus possible to be consistent and compute the office density allowance for both the north and south property at a gross density, just as the P&ZC did at its November 19, 1987, meeting. This results in a total of 795,000 square feet of offices, not 756,000, as reflected in the development order. As the Petitioner has agreed to limit the south property to 275,000 square feet, this leaves a total of 520,000 square feet for the north property. The County concedes that paragraph 19 of the Development Order, limiting building coverage for offices to 10,000 square feet per acre, does not preclude larger than 10,000 square foot buildings. (Proposed Finding of Fact, paragraph 115) That requirement should be amended in the interest of clarity, so long as the totals permitted for the north and south parcels are included in the order. This sentence, as it now reads, makes the condition internally inconsistent, as the second sentence permits 481,000 square feet on the 42.3 acre tract located north of Maitland Boulevard, more than 10,000 square feet per acre. (See Finding #41, paragraph 19, p. 21, of this recommended order) The Balancing Act: Weighing the Policies The process of review and approval of the Lakepointe project was one of compromise and accommodation. The Board and its staff considered comments from the applicant, the applicant's consultants, the City, the Regional Planning Council, homeowner's groups from both the County and City, and the City of Altamonte Springs. The County did not have a joint agreement with the City of Maitland, and its agreements with regard to conditions for the project were informal and non- binding. Nonetheless, the County considered the level of participation a necessary and appropriate exercise of intergovernmental coordination, as indeed it was. The applicant also exhibited willingness to accede to compromises throughout the process but never abandoned its original plan as it relates to the issues raised in this proceeding. It steadfastly defended the uses and densities it proposed, and in the end, agreed only to the deletion of multifamily units on the south parcel and transfer of that acreage to office use. This was a small DRI project, but a significant one to the owners and to the neighbors. It lacks the vast array of issues usually present in DRI's. There is little or no environmental impact and any traffic issues were resolved substantially though the ECFRPC review, even as to the proposed free-standing commercial uses and the densities originally proposed by the applicant. The single overriding issue here is land use. According to Planning Director, Edward Williams, the Orange County GMP includes some 900 separate policies to guide its decisions. These sometimes divergent policies must be balanced and weighed. (Transcript, p. 382) In this regard, the ultimate decision by the County was skewed. Some of the conditions it imposed, in the legitimate interest of preserving the character of surrounding neighborhoods, unduly ignored other equally valid policy considerations. The Developmental Framework Section of the County's Growth Management Plan lists this as its first goal: 1. To promote the orderly economic development of Orange County. Orderly economic development may be defined as maximizing the use of public dollar investments in facilities and services, such as water and wastewater systems, roads, schools, transit, law enforcement, fire protection, and parks. * * * (Joint Exhibit #9, p. II-13) As noted by James A. Sellen, one of Petitioner's two expert witnesses on the topics of comprehensive planning and zoning, the development proposed is appropriate because of the substantial public investment in the controlled access road and over-sized water and sewer infrastructure. Maintenance of land use as low density single family is contrary to that investment. (Transcript, p. 233-34) Commercial Policy 1.0.11 of the Future Land Use Element provides, in pertinent part: 1.0.11 The future conversion of existing residential land uses to non-residential may be permitted under the following conditions: When the general land use character of an area has undergone significant change and will lend itself to more intensive uses; Adequate access to major streets and highways network is provided, whenever possible common access drive shall be used; The carrying capacity on the abutting road segment exceeds 8,000 average daily trips (ADT); The proposed site for conversion has close proximity to a street intersection; All other applicable policies detailed for commercial or office land use in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Policy are met; and, When sufficient area is available to accommodate the conversion, together with the needed improvements including parking, stormwater retention and vehicular turnaround movements. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-22) The changes in the area along Maitland Boulevard support the change in land use from the currently designated 4.4 residential du/acre to the mixed use proposed by Petitioner. The Future Land Use Element's Commercial Policy 11.0, provides: OFFICES AND PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL POLICIES Offices and professional commercial developments are those which provide office space for the furnishing of professional services. Such uses may be located individually or in planned centers, such as office parks. Location and Compatibility Large office uses should generally locate adjacent to arterial thoroughfares that connect to an interstate or expressway in order to lend accessibility to a wider market area. Smaller office uses should generally utilize principal or minor arterials for site access and location. Office parks should be encouraged to include corollary uses such as office supply stores, banks, restaurants, conference centers and other compatible business and commercial uses. Office uses are compatible with adjacent community and regional commercial shopping areas and may provide a buffer between these shopping areas and nearby residential areas. Professional service office parks should locate on major collectors and minor arterials. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-30) As cited in Orange County Ordinance No. 88-3, amending the Future Land Use Map relating to the Lakepointe DRI, the proposed new uses are consistent with these policies of the Growth Management Plan. (Joint Exhibit #2) Concern for the existing residential uses is supported by the following residential policies within the Future Land Use Element: LOCATION AND COMPATIBILITY General Residential areas shall be buffered from major transportation arteries, and from commercial and industrial land uses which are not compatible with residential development. New commercial development will be discouraged where there would be a detrimental impact on existing residential properties due to excessive noise, pollution, traffic congestion, unsafe highway conditions or where an unacceptable physical intrusion into residential neighborhoods would be created. * * * 3.1.3 Land development controls should ensure that future development which may allow a greater intensity of use is compatible with existing development. (Joint Exhibit #9, p. VI-9) In summary, the project, as proposed by Petitioner is substantially consistent with the County's Growth Management Plan, but requires some of the modifications imposed by the County as conditions of approval. Those modifications include the deletion of free-standing commercial uses; the enhanced buffer zone along the north parcels; reduction in height of all but the offices to be located on the large parcel 5, north of Maitland Boulevard; and offices that are designed "residential in scale and character". Other conditions imposed by the County, but contested by Petitioner, i.e., restrictions on the residential development on Pine Island and the height limitations for offices on Parcel 5, violate significant policies cited above without reasonably advancing the goal of protecting the existing character of the surrounding neighborhoods, and should be deleted. The computation of office use density should be amended to provide for gross densities for the entire property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered, granting Petitioner's appeal, in part, by amending the Development Order for Lakepointe DRI, as follows: [Deleted text of the order is struck through, and new language is underlined.] * * * * 7. The proposed development of the Lakepointe DRI/PD consists of the following: Total Acreage: Approximately [[120.3]] <<120.6>> Acres * * * 12. This Development Order also constitutes the development order approving the use of the Property pursuant to the Land Use Plan for PD for [[Low Medium]] <<Medium>> Density Residential, and Office/Commercial, as more particularly detailed in paragraph 7 of Part I of this Development Order. * * * II. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, AS ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION [WITH MODIFICATIONS BY THE FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION.] (A) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AS AMENDED. [Bracketed portion denotes new language, as the original is underlined.] 1. Development shall conform to each of the Orange County Commission conditions of approval, and to the Land Use Plan dated "Received April 3, 1986, Public Works and Development." Development based upon this approval shall comply with all other applicable federal, state, and county laws, ordinances and regulations which are incorporated herein by reference, except to the extent they are expressly waived or modified by these conditions or by formal action of Orange County. 7. <<Except for office buildings in Parcel 6>>, maximum height of the office buildings for the project shall be thirty-five (35) feet. Design of the office buildings shall be of a residential scale and character, and include the appropriate landscaping elements. <<Maximum height of the office buildings in Parcel 5 shall be fifty (50) feet, and their design shall be residential in character.>> Development within one hundred (100) feet of adjacent property zoned residential shall be limited to one story in height (and [35] feet maximum). * * * 14. Residential construction shall be started prior to completion of twenty-five (25%) of the office space. The residential development shall be completed before fifty percent (50%) of the office completion. These square footages relate to the portion of the PD located north of Maitland Boulevard. This residential development shall be [[low medium]] <<Medium>> density with a cap of [[7.5 single family detached]] <<8.3>> units per acre. [[(Development of the portion of Lakepointe south of Maitland Boulevard is controlled by the Sandspur Office Park PD litigation.)]] * * * 19. Building coverage for office[s] [[on the northern portion of the Property]] shall not be more than 10,000 square feet per [[net]] <<gross>> acre. The 33.3 acre office tract located south of Maitland Boulevard shall be limited to 275,000 square feet, while the [[42.3 acre]] tract located north of Maitland Boulevard shall be limited to [[481,000]] <<520,000>> square feet, for an aggregate total of [[756,000]] <<795,000>> square feet. Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. Ordinance No. 88-3, amending the Future Land Use Policy Guide Map related to the Lakepoint DRI, should be amended to reflect the above. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 4. and 3. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 7 and 11. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 14, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. and 17. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, as to "best use", except in a very general sense; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 23. and 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 26. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 27. and 32. Adopted in paragraph 30. 33. and 34. Adopted in summary in paragraph 33. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and unsupported by competent credible evidence (as to how limited access points would prevent strip commercial development. Such development could be supported by internal service roads.) - 45. Rejected as unnecessary. Traffic was not the reason the commercial use was deleted. 46. - 49. Adopted in summary in paragraph 65. 50. and 51. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 54. Adopted by implication in paragraph 57. Rejected as unnecessary and contrary to the weight of evidence, which evidence was that "residential in scale and character" does not preclude large buildings. and 57. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, which established that "campus style" office buildings are not inconsistent with "residential scale and character". Adopted in paragraph 53. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 44. and 63. Adopted in paragraph 57. Adopted in paragraph 60. Adopted in paragraph 42. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 62. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. and 70. Adopted in paragraph 61. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to the appropriateness of the 25-foot buffer). Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent and Intervenor's Proposed Findings 1. and 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 6. - 10. Adopted in paragraph 4. 11. and 12. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 7. and 17. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 7. - 21. Adopted in summary in paragraph 11. 22. - 29. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. - 32. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. and 35. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 54. Rejected as unnecessary. 39. Adopted in paragraph 54. 40. - 43. Rejected as unnecessary. 44. Adopted in paragraph 14. 45. Rejected as unnecessary. 46. and 47. Adopted in paragraph 15. 48. Adopted in paragraph 23. 49. Adopted in paragraph 24. 50. and 51. Adopted in paragraph 25. 52. and 53. Adopted in paragraph 26. 54. Rejected as unnecessary. 55. Adopted in paragraph 27. 56. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 29. - 60. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 30. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. - 68. Adopted in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. - 72. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. 73. and 74. Adopted in paragraph 32, in part, otherwise rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. 75. and 76. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 37. Adopted in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 24. - 83. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraph 43. Adopted in paragraph 43. Adopted in paragraph 44. Adopted in paragraph 45. and 89. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in substance in paragraph 47. - 94. Rejected as unnecessary substance or immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 47. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 48. Adopted in paragraph 51. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 47. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraph 52. Adopted in paragraph 53. - 106. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 41. Rejected as contrary to the evidence (as to the similarly situated nature of the 2 parcels). Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 54. Adopted in paragraph 53. Adopted in substance in paragraph 54. Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 59. 115. Adopted in paragraph 67. 116. - 122. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. 123. Adopted in paragraph 41. 124. Rejected as unnecessary. 125. Adopted in paragraph 65. 126. - 128. Rejected as unnecessary. 129. and 130. Adopted in paragraph 66. 131. Adopted in paragraph 41. 132. Adopted in paragraph 16. 133. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to being a "reasonable transition"). 134. and 135. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 63. and 138. Adopted in substance in paragraph 61. The higher density will even better promote the affordable and housing policy. 139. Rejected as immaterial. 140. Adopted in paragraph 68. 141. - 150. Rejected as immaterial or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Miranda F. Fitzgerald, Esquire Karen M. Chastain, Esquire Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A. 2 South Orange Avenue Post Office Box 633 Orlando, FL 32802 Herbert A. Langston, Jr., Esquire 111 South Maitland Avenue Suite 200 Maitland, FL 32751 Joel Prinsell, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Orange County Legal Department Post Office Box 1393 Orlando, FL 32802-1392 Douglas M. Cook, Director Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Planning & Budgeting Exec. Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
The Issue The issues to be considered here concern whether Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3, adopted by Ocala on June 23, 1992, by Ordinance No. 2254 is "in compliance" with requirements of law as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. In particular the determination on compliance is limited to an analysis of Paddock Park's stated reasons for finding the plan amendment "not in compliance." In summary those allegations are as follows: The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment is inconsistent with provisions of Section 163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-5.006, Florida Administrative Code, for the reasons specified in Sections I.A.1.(a)(b) and (d) of the DCA's May 1, 1992 objections, recommendations and comments (ORC). The FLUM amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 163.3177(6)(b), Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-5.007, Florida Administrative Code for the reasons speci- fied in Section I.A.2.(a) of the ORC, and by reason of an erroneous assumption that 80 percent of the traffic generated on the 39.44 acre parcel which is at issue would impact State Road 200 rather than S.W. 42nd Street, resulting in a material miscalcula- tion of the impact on the latter roadway by the proposed reclassification contem- plated by the FLUM amendment. The FLUM amendment is inconsistent with both Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer sub- elements and is inconsistent with the provi- sions of the Capital Improvement Element of the Ocala Comprehensive Plan, in that the reclassification results in estimates of potable water and sanitary sewer usage in excess of that contemplated by Ocala's Water and Waste-water Master Plan for which no provision is made in the Capital Improvement Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The FLUM amendment is inconsistent with Objectives 1 and 2 and Policy 3.3 of the Inter-governmental Coordination Element of the Ocala Comprehensive Plan in that the FLUM amendment was made without notification or opportunity for input from Marion County as it influences the impact of the land use reclassification on the level of service on S.W. 42nd Street, a roadway alleged to be under the jurisdiction of Marion County or upon the land use classifications of property lying immediately east and west of the 39.44 acre parcel at issue and the entire area lying south of S.W. 42nd Street, which latter parcel lies within the jurisdiction of Marion County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Paddock Park is a Florida corporation. It has its principal place of business in Ocala, Florida. It is the developer of Paddock Park, a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Part of the DRI lies immediately north and east of the parcel of land which is the subject of the dispute. Paddock Park by submitting oral and written comments during the review and adoption proceedings associated with the subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment established itself as an affected person. DCA is the state land planning agency which has the responsibility for reviewing comprehensive plans and amendments to those plans in accordance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ocala is a local government in Florida. It is required to adopt a comprehensive plan consistent with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the State and Regional Plans. Any amendments, such as the present amendment at issue, must also comply with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the State and Local Plans. Ocala is located in the south central part of Marion County, Florida. It is the largest urban area in the county. It is comprised of approximately 18,820 acres of land area. In 1990 Ocala had an estimated population of 45,130 with a projected increase of population to 73,309 persons by the year 2015. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Description, Preparation, Adoption and Review Ocala submitted its Comprehensive Plan to DCA on October 30, 1991. On December 14, 1991, DCA published a notice determining that the plan was "in compliance" with legal requirements. On January 24, 1992, Ocala submitted proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-1 to DCA for ORC review. The overall purpose of that amendment was to incorporate annexed property into Ocala's existing plan. One of those parcels is the subject of this dispute. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-1 included six FLUM changes. Each of those changes was addressed by separate ordinance. The FLUM change which is specifically at issue in this case was described as Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3. It is a parcel of approximately 59 acres in size. Within that parcel Ocala has classified 20.15 acres for retail services land use and 39.44 acres for professional services land use. The overall 59 acre parcel described in the proposal is located 200 feet south of State Road 200. That roadway is a principal arterial roadway. The 59 acre parcel extends southward to S.W. 42nd Street. The latter roadway is a collector roadway which is maintained and operated by Marion County in the immediate vicinity of this parcel. The collector roadway terminates at I-75, an interstate highway to the west and first intersects S.W. 27 Avenue a roadway within the Ocala corporate limits to the east. The ownership of the 59 acres is held by different property owners. The southern most parcel, "Tri-Star Parcel", is the 39.44 acres bordered by S.W. 42nd Street. At all relevant times that parcel has been undeveloped. The northernmost parcel, "Pearson Parcel", is 20.15 acres in size and it is partially developed with a now defunct mobile home park in the northern reaches of that property. The overall 59 acres is surrounded by other parcels within Ocala, excepting parcels basically to the south which are within unincorporated Marion County. Surrounding properties to the north of the 59 acres are designated for retail services that include a real estate office, a gas station and a bank. To the west, property is designated for retail services and includes the Hilton Hotel complex. To the east parcels are designated for professional services as well as retail services, to include a regional shopping mall, offices and a multi-family residential development of approximately 400 units. The Paddock Park property described before is located in this area and offers professional services land use. Preliminary to the submission of proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3, the Ocala Planning Department had considered the designation of land uses for the 20.15 acres and 39.44 acres. The Ocala Planning and Zoning Commission as the local planning agency reviewed the proposed land use designation by the Ocala Planning Department. The land planning agency then made a recommendation to the Ocala City Council, the governing body, concerning the appropriate land use for the two parcels. The Ocala City Council made its initial determination on the designation of the 39.44 acre parcel at a transmittal hearing held on January 4, 1992. It was at that juncture that the designation of the 39.44 acres as professional services was initially addressed by the Ocala City Council. Ocala then submitted the proposed amendment for DCA review and comment. On May 1, 1992, DCA responded to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3, together with the other proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments under consideration by issuing an ORC report. On June 18, 1992, the Ocala City Council held a workshop to consider the ORC report directed to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Ocala also filed a written response to the ORC report. On June 23, 1992, the Ocala City Council held a public hearing to consider adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 together with other council business. Paddock Park was represented at that hearing by an attorney, counsel in the present action. At the public hearing counsel made known Paddock Park's opposition to designating the 39.44 acres, "Tri-Star Parcel", as professional services land use. In particular counsel questioned the assumption that 80 percent of the traffic generated by activities on the 39.44 acres would be routed to State Road 200, in that there was no existing access to State Road 200 from that parcel. Instead counsel stated his belief, in behalf of his client, that the access from the 39.44 acres parcel would be to S.W. 42nd Street. Counsel made mention that S.W. 42nd Street had a capacity as a collector roadway of about 12,500 trips for level of service "E". Counsel stated that he anticipated this parcel would generate 10,267 trips leaving only approximately 1,900 trips available on S.W. 42nd Street for any development which Paddock Park wished to undertake and for the development of Red Oak Farms and Ocala Stud Farm properties which lie to the south of S.W. 42nd Street. Counsel mentioned that the property south of S.W. 42nd Street carried a low density residential designation. Mention was made by counsel that a large amount of professional services land use contemplated for development of the 39.44 acres would effectively destroy Paddock Park's ability to develop by overloading S.W. 42nd Street. Counsel for Paddock Park requested the Ocala City Council to leave the land use designation for the 39.44 acres as agricultural or change it to some form of low density residential as opposed to professional services land use. Other discussions were held between counsel and the Ocala City Council concerning the implications of designating the 39.44 acres as professional services land use. A motion was made at the June 23, 1992 meeting to adopt City of Ocala Ordinance No. 2254 which dealt with the subject of the 20.15 acres and 39.44 acres which had been described in proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3. That motion gained a second. A vote on the motion was delayed while further discussion was made concerning the 39.44 acres. In this interval an attempt was made by one councilman to amend the motion to adopt by changing the 39.44 acres from professional services to medium density residential. That attempt at amendment died for lack of a second. The Ocala City Council then voted to adopt City of Ocala Ordinance No. 2254. This constituted the adoption of amendments to the Ocala Comprehensive Plan which was received on August 7, 1992, reviewed by DCA and found to be "in compliance" by notice given by DCA on September 18, 1992. Included within that series of amendments was adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 dealing with the 39.44 acre parcel as professional services land use. In addition to the oral remarks by counsel made during the June 23, 1992 public hearing concerning adoption of the subject amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, counsel filed written objections on that same date. As basis for those objections counsel incorporated some objections to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 as stated in the ORC report, specifically the objection that Ocala had failed to demonstrate the need for an additional 40 acres of professional land services use to accommodate the projected population. Other reasons for objecting set forth in the correspondence included objection based upon the belief that a medium density residential designation of Paddock Park property to the east and low density residential use assigned by Marion County to the south were inconsistent with professional services designation of the 39.44 acres. Written comment was also made concerning the expected overtaxing of S.W. 42nd Street. Other than the data and analysis in support of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3, the ORC report which addressed the data and analysis contemplated by the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 and the oral and written remarks by counsel for Paddock Park, the Ocala City Council had no other basis for understanding the possible impacts of the traffic generated by activities on the 39.44 acres under professional services land use classification as they would pertain to S.W. 42nd Street and other roadways that would be impacted by that development. The change contemplated by the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 and the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment related to those parcels was from a current zoning of B-2 (community business) related to the 20.15 acres to retail services and from A-1 (agricultural) for the 39.44 acres to professional services. The adopted Ocala Comprehensive Plan Amendment 92-3 changed the data and analysis from what was submitted with the proposed plan amendment concerning the anticipated impacts on roadways brought about by designating the 39.44 acre parcel as professional services land use. As stated, those differences were not known to the Ocala City Council when it adopted the subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment on June 23, 1992. Nonetheless, the data had been available prior to the June 23, 1992 adoption hearing or available sufficiently contemporaneous to that date to be proper data for determining the land use classification impacts on affected roadways. The data was professionally obtained and analyzed as submitted to DCA with the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3. Similar explanations pertain to the demands on potable water and sanitary sewer services for the parcels described in Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3. The procedures used by Ocala and the DCA in addressing the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 on the subject of impacts to roadways and potable water and sanitary sewer services were not irregular when considering the underlying data and analysis that was prepared by Ocala, submitted to the DCA and approved by the DCA in finding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 "in compliance". When DCA received the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 it disseminated that information to Marion County to include the associated data and analysis accompanying that proposal. Marion County did not respond to the opportunity to comment on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 for the benefit of DCA in preparing the ORC report and in keeping with Marion County's statutory duty to consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 in the context of the relationship and affect of that amendment on any Marion County comprehensive plan element. Marion County did not communicate the results of any review conducted concerning compatibility of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 with Marion County Comprehensive Plan Elements. No specific information concerning Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 in its proposed form or in its adopted form was provided from Ocala to Marion County. Nor was any other contact made by Ocala with Marion County concerning Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3. The record does not reflect any attempt being made to discourage Marion County from offering comments concerning Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3. At the time that the Ocala City Council considered the plan amendment adoption on June 23, 1992, to designate the 39.44 acres as medium density residential would have promoted an over-allocation of that land use classification by 70 percent, whereas in classifying the property as professional services Ocala increased the percentage of professional services land use allocation from 93 percent to slightly in excess of 100 percent within the Ocala corporate limits. These facts together with the compatibility between a professional services land use designation and the uses for nearby parcels roughly north, east and west of the subject property supports classifying the 39.44 acres as professional services land use. In addition to the concern for proper allocation of land uses, Ocala recognized that the professional services land use classification would allow citizens other than those who resided in Ocala to be served. Notwithstanding the nature of some existing low density residential and agricultural land uses in the vicinity of the 39.44 acres designated by the amendment for professional services land use, especially property roughly to the south of that 39.44 acres across S.W. 42nd Street in Marion County, it was not inappropriate to designate the subject 39.44 acres as professional services land use. Paddock Park did not prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the designation of the parcel as professional services land use was a decision not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules. Allegation One The objections offered by DCA to proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 which are described in the first allegation to the petition by Paddock Park states: The above-cited proposed Future Land Use amendments are not based on data and analysis as cited below: Existing land use map depicting the existing generalized land uses of the subject properties, the generalized land uses of land adjacent to the amended boundaries of the City, and the boundaries to the subject pro- perties and their location in relation to the surrounding street and thoroughfare network is not included; The appropriate acreage in the general range of density and intensity of use for the existing land use of the subject pro- perties are not included; * * * (d) An analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, in- cluding the categories of land use and their densities and intensities of use, the esti- mated gross acreage needed by category and a description of the methodology used in order to justify the land uses assigned to the sub- ject properties. The basis on which land uses are assigned to the subject properties is not included in the documentation suppor- ting the amendment. To meet the criticisms offered by DCA in its ORC report, thereby avoiding any violation of Section 163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statutes and Rule 9J- 5.006(1)(2), Florida Administrative Code, DCA made these recommendations: Include an existing land use map depic- ting the existing generalized land uses of the subject properties, the generalized land uses of land adjacent to the amended bound- aries of the City, and the boundaries of the subject properties and their location in relation to the surrounding street or thoroughfare network. Expand the data and analysis supporting the proposed amendments to identify in tab- ular form the approximate acreage and the general range of density and intensity of existing land uses of the subject properties. In addition, the existing land use data tables in the Comprehensive Plan should be updated to reflect these annexed parcels. * * * (d) Include an analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, identifying the categories of land use and their densities and intensities of use, the estimated gross acreage needed by category and the methodology used in order to justify the land uses assigned to the sub- ject properties. The City should also take into consideration any existing over-alloca- tion of land uses. The over-allocation of land for any use should be reasonably related to the projected growth needs and allow for a certain amount of flexibility in the market place. When the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 was submitted to DCA for compliance determination it included maps that depicted the existing land uses of the annexed areas, the existing land uses of parcels adjacent to the annexed areas and identification of surrounding street networks. The maps attached to the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 generally address the requirements of Section 163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statutes and Rule 9J- 5.006(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. This information together with preexisting knowledge by DCA satisfied its concerns in this area of criticism and led to the favorable response to Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3. In addition Ocala, in the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3, provided revised background information which served as data and analysis to support the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3. This information was to the following affect: BACKGROUND: The parcel designated for a Retail Service land use was once developed as a mobile home park. Though not part of the annexation, that parcel includes access to S.R. 200. Other considerations justifying the land use designations include: the lack of environmental constraints - the site is on previously developed land; the compatibility with surrounding properties, contributing to infill development along an established comm- ercial corridor which has been designated in the Comprehensive Plan as an activity center in which development should be promoted; the access to a major arterial roadway with excess capacity able to accommodate the land use; and the availability of adequate water and sewer. The rear parcel is appropriate for develop- ment in a Professional Services land use, which would be compatible with the surround- ing land uses. The amendment adds 20.15 acres to the comm- ercial acreage of the City, changing the over- allocation in the Retail Services sub-cate- gory from 133 percent to 135 percent (See Table 1). Adding additional acreage in the commercial land use category is justified in this instance since retail uses, particu- larly in this area, serve not only the exist- ing and future city residents but also non- incorporated county residents as well as residents of neighboring counties [objection 1.b.] The second parcel adds 39.44 acres to the Professional Services sub-category, changing the percentage from 93 percent to 101.5 percent for this sub-category of comm- ercial land uses (See Table 1). Adding add- itional acreage in the commercial land use category is justified due to the current under-allocation of Professional Services land use acreage, and due to the probability that the proposed that the proposed office uses will serve a larger population than just City residents. [objection 1.b] With the submission of the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 Ocala included Table 1 that identified projected and existing allocations of acreage pertaining to need due to population increases and the anticipated impacts of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on percentages of allocation of land use for the year 2002. Concerning Allegation One, Paddock Park has failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 is not "in compliance" with applicable statutes and rules. Allegation Two In its objections to proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 DCA stated: The traffic circulation analysis for the above-cited proposed Future Land Use Map amendments are incomplete because of the following reasons: The analyses do not address all the road- ways that will be impacted by the development of the subject properties. In most cases, the analyses only address the roadways that provide direct access to these properties. DCA recommended: Revise the traffic circulation analyses from the above-cited FLUM amendments to address the following: All roadways that will be impacted by the development of the subject properties. In the statement concerning the data and analysis associated with the roadways set out in the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 Ocala stated the following: ROADWAYS: Development of The annexed area has an impact on S.R. 200, a 6-lane state roadway classified as a principle arterial, on S.W. 27th Ave., a 4-lane minor arterial, on S.W. 42nd St., a 2-lane roadway classified as a local street. S.R. 200 was operating in 1990 at LOS D with 30,932 trips (using the most recent traffic counts available). Capa- city at adopted LOS D is 46,300 trips. Traffic counts are not available for 42nd St., but the total capacity for local street generally is 12, 100 trips per day. Capacity on S.W. 42nd St. may be less. The affected segment of S.R. 200 is expected to remain at LOS D by 1997, with 35,363 trips (Ocala Comp- rehensive Plan.) Splitting the area with a Retail Services land use in the north part and with a Profe- ssional Services and use replacing the exist- ing A-1 zoned area in the south, the 20.15 acres of commercial land use in the north parcel could generate 239,445 193,979 GLA square footage (based on 31 percent building coverage, the maximum possible due parking requirements) which could generate 12,19710, 693 trips on S.R. 200 (assuming 100 percent use and no passer-by or diverted trips). [Objection 2(b)] Subtracting 30 percent trips for passer by traffic which would be on the road in any case results in a predicted increase of 7,485 trips due to the commercial development and a total of 38,417 trips and LOS D. The addition of 12, 197 trips would not decrease the LOS of S.R. 200 below the adopted LOS of D on the frontage segment, and would not decrease the LOS be- low C on the other impacted segments. South- west 27th Ave. would not change from its existing LOS of A. [Objection 2(b)] In any case, the addition of this many additi- onal trips due to retain development is un- likely due to the large number of existing retail uses on S.R. 200. In other words, it is unlikely that any new retail develop- ment would attract a large number of people who don't currently use the roadway. Impact from development of the 39.44 acre south part in a Professional Services land is difficult to assess, due to a lack of data on mixed use developments (ITE Trip Generation, 5th Edition). Analyzing the 39.44 acre south parcel, and Using the trip estimates for an office park development in the ITE manual and splitting the traffic with 80 percent on S.R. 200 and 20 percent on S.W. 42nd St., an estimated additional 6,024 8,280 trips would result on S.R. 200 at full development. Due to the lack of traffic counts on S.W. 42nd St., the impact on the adopted LOS of E of an additional 6,024 trips is difficult to assess. However, a windshield survey indicates current traffic volumes on S.W. 42nd St. is far less than the 6,086 trips that would be necessary, with the addition of the estimated 6,024 from full development in a Professional Services land use, to degrade the adopted LOS, Adding 7,845 trips from the commercial development results in a possible 16125 added trips on S.R. 200 from full development on the annexed area in this land use, which would result in 47,057 total trips when added to the 1990 traffic count of 30,932 and degrade the aff- ected segment of S.R. 200 below LOS D (Total trips can not fall below 46,300. Trips on 42nd St. would increase by 1,987 total trips. Using the trip estimates for a business park development, rather than for an office park development as above, results in 5,924 trips from the proposed Professional Services land use area. Adding the 4,739 (80 percent of 5,924) trips to the 7,845 Retail Services land use esti- mated trips results in 12,584 estimated add- itional trips on S.R. 200, for a total of 43,516 which would keep the roadway segment at LOS D (46,300 maximum). To summarize, development on either parcel is not expected to degrade the LOS on the affected roadways below adopted levels of service. In any case, the concurrency system would not allow a development to be permitted which causes the roadway to degrade below the adopted LOS standard. Through the data and analysis submitted with the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3, Ocala has spoken to the impacts on collector and arterial roads and sufficiently concluded that the levels of service on those roads will not be lowered by the projected development impacts. Paddock Park's attempt to prove that other roadways such as S.W. 41st Street, S.W. 42nd Avenue, S.W. 33rd Avenue and S.W. 27th Avenue should have been included with the data and analysis and to prove more generally that the traffic impact data and analysis submitted by Ocala was insufficient did not demonstrate to the exclusion of fair debate that the supporting data and analysis submitted with the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 was inadequate. Furthermore, development may not take place that compromises the level of service on roadways because of the protections afforded by the requirement for concurrent facilities to be provided. While Ocala determined that its original assumption concerning the traffic division for 80 percent to State Road 200 and 20 percent to S.W. 42nd Street projection for traffic generation was erroneous, this miscalculation did not preclude Ocala from further analysis concerning the impacts to roadways which has been previously described. Nor was Ocala prohibited from further considering the development pattern within the overall professional services land use classification expected to transpire within the 39.44 acre parcel, in particular as it pertains to automobile traffic generation. Finally, Ocala was entitled to correct any mathematical errors in calculations performed in the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 when submitting the data and analysis concerning impacts to roadways which accompanied the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 sent to DCA for review and compliance determination. As described, the data and analysis performed in submitting the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 need not have been available to the Ocala City Council when it voted to approve to adopt the subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment on June 23, 1992. Given that the opportunity was presented to change the assessment concerning impacts to the roadways from the point in time in which the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 was submitted until the place at which the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 with associated data and analysis was transmitted for review and compliance determination, and upon the basis that the data and analysis performed to support the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 has not been shown to be inadequate when considered to the exclusion of fair debate, Ocala's willingness to correct perceived errors in its assumptions associated with the data and analysis submitted with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 is condoned by this process and acceptable. Allegation Three As with the discussion concerning the roadways, it is the data and analysis performed to support the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 which pertains. It states: POTABLE WATER: The area is served by City water. The area is within 1/4 mile of exist- ing water lines and would have to connect upon development. Development as above could generate 43 gpm (1,055 gallons per acres per day X 17.8 acres) with all non-resi- dential uses and 29.7 gpm with a mix of retail and residential uses of the property. New distribution pipes and treatment facil- ities would not be required. since S.R. 200 is already served by a 16" main and the in- creased water demand represents at most .0619 mgd, or 1.2 percent of the projected avail- able potable water capacity in 1997. [Objec- tion 3] Costs related to development using water plant capacity would be offset by the hook-up fees charges when new developments connect to water and sewer. SANITARY SEWER: The area is served by City sanitary sewer. The area is within 1/8th of a mile of existing service and would have to connect to the City sewer system upon deve- lopment Using the 51.7 percent ratio of water to wastewater flows contained in the Comprehensive Plan, flows of 22.2 gpm nd 15.3 gpm, average flow, and 88.8 gpm and 61.2 gpm peak flow, respectively, could be expected which represent .032 mgd or 1.2 per- cent of the projected available sewer plant capacity in 1997. [Objection 3] Through this data and analysis it has been established that there is adequate sewer and potable water capacity to service the development of the Tri- Star Parcel. Paddock Park has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Elements within the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 are inconsistent with applicable statutes and rules and the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Elements and the Capital Improvement Element to the overall Ocala Comprehensive Plan, the controlling requirements when considering the amendment's acceptability. Allegation Four Within the Ocala Comprehensive Plan within the Inter-governmental Coordination Element, Objective one states: The City of Ocala shall maintain applicable level of service standards with the entity having operational or maintenance responsi- bility for the facility. The review and coordination of level of service standards will begin as of May, 1992, or at the adop- tion of the concerns of City management system, which ever occurs first, and will be a continuing process. Objective Two states: The City of Ocala shall coordinate its Compre- hensive Plan with that of the long-range objectives of Marion County and the Marion County School Board. The coordination mechan- ism between the City and the County shall con- sist of plan amendments and additional plan elements. Policy 3.3 in the Ocala Comprehensive Plan Inter-governmental Coordination Element states: The City of Ocala will continue to provide means of notification, review and input, in writing, regarding proposed development and zoning changes between itself and Marion County. It shall be the responsibility of City officials. In adopting Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 Ocala has not interfered with the applicable levels of service standards pertaining to operational or maintenance responsibility for any facility over which Marion County or the City of Ocala have responsibility. By virtue of the provision of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 to Marion County through DCA, Ocala has met Objective Two and Policy 3.3 to the Inter-governmental Coordination Element within the Ocala Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which finds the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 to be "in compliance" and dismisses the petition by Paddock Park. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6257GM The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Paddock Park's Facts: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 3 in its first two sentences are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentences in that paragraph are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 6 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 10 is contrary to facts found in its suggestion that the decision to classify the parcel in question as professional services was inappropriate or that the data and analysis addressing impacts to roadways made at the time the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 was submitted was inadequate. Otherwise Paragraph 10 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of its suggestion that the adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 failed to adequately address land uses of properties adjacent to the 39.44 acre parcel, to include location of roadways. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the third objective is not relevant to the inquiry in that it was not identified as an allegation in the petition as amended at hearing. Paragraph 14, while no specific attempt was made to coordinate and review the impact of the adopted Comprehen-sive Plan Amendment #92-3 as it impacted levels of service on S.W. 42nd Street and Southwest 27th Avenue through discussions with Marion County, Paddock Park did not show that the activities envisioned by adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment #92-3 would inappropriately influence the operational and maintenance responsibility concerning those facilities. Paragraphs 15 and 16 constitute conclusions of law. Paragraph 17 is contrary to facts found to the extent that it asserts inadequate identification of land uses and roadways in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Ocala's Facts: Paragraphs 1-3 are subordinate to facts found Paragraphs 4-6 constitute legal argument. Paragraphs 7-17 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 18 through 20 constitute legal argument. Paragraph 21 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 22 through 32 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 33 through 37 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 38 through 46 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 47 and 48 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 49 through 54 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 55 through 59 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 60 through 65 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 66 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 67 through 70 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 71 is rejected as contrary. Paragraph 71 is not factually correct. Paragraphs 72-74 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 75 through 77 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 78 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 79 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 80 through 82 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 83 is rejected to the extent that it suggests that it was necessary for Paddock Park to offer remarks about potable water and sanitary sewer at the June 23, 1992 public hearing. Paragraph 84 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 85 through 88 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 89 through 98 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. DCA's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through the first sentence in Paragraph 14 are subordinate to facts found. The second sentence in that paragraph is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The remaining sentences in Paragraph 14 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 15 through 19 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 22 through 24 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 25 through 27 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 28 through 33 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 34 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 35 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 36 and 37 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 38 through 40 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 41 and 42 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 John P. McKeever, Esquire McKeever Pattillo and McKeever Post Office Box 1450 Ocala, Florida 34478 Patrick G. Gilligan, Esquire 7 East Silver Springs Boulevard Concord Square, Suite 405 Ocala, Florida 34474 Ann Melinda Parker, Esquire Bond Arnette and Phelan, P.A. Post Office Box 2405 Ocala, Florida 34478 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 20-05 on February 5, 2020 (the “Plan Amendment”), is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioner is a Delaware limited-liability company authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Petitioner owns and operates the Legacy at Fort Clarke, a 444-unit apartment complex located on Fort Clarke Boulevard, approximately 100 feet from the property that is the subject of the instant plan amendment challenge (the “subject property”). Petitioner, through its representatives, submitted oral and written comments to Alachua County (“the County”) during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendment. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, with the duty to adopt and amend its comprehensive plan in compliance with the Act. See § 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. Intervenor, Fickling, is a Georgia corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Intervenor, NGI, is a Georgia limited-liability company, and is the contract purchaser of the subject property, currently owned by The Gainesville Church, Inc. (“the Church”). James R. Borders is NGI’s president. NGI registered with the Secretary of State to conduct business in Florida on July 22, 2020. NGI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NGI Investments, LLC, a Georgia limited-liability company which has been registered to conduct business in Florida since 2013. On June 6, 2019, NGI Investments, LLC, and Fickling submitted a letter of intent to purchase the subject property from the Church. In the letter, NGI Investments, LLC, is identified alternatively as “Novare Group.” On July 19, 2019, NGI entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the Church to purchase the subject property, which is signed by Mr. Borders, as Manager of NGI. In the agreement, Fickling is identified as an entity authorized to accept notices on NGI’s behalf related to the agreement. Fickling appears to operate as broker/developer of the subject property. Todd Anderson is the senior vice-president of development for Novare Group (“Novare”), a residential multifamily development group founded in 1992. Mr. Anderson testified that NGI Investments and NGI are known in the development industry as Novare. Since 1992, Novare has developed over 50 multifamily projects—16,000 multifamily residential units—primarily in the southeast United States. Novare began partnering with Fickling in 2017 on a joint venture program called “Lullwater.” The joint venture has developed Lullwater at Blair Stone, an apartment complex in Tallahassee, Florida; Lullwater at Big Ridge, an apartment complex in Hixson, Tennessee; and Lullwater at Jennings Mill, an apartment complex in Athens, Georgia. Lullwater is an ongoing joint venture program with two pending development projects in Florida—the subject property and a site under contract in Ft. Myers. NGI/Novare has a verbal general partnership agreement with Fickling, and is not a registered limited partnership. Shortly prior to closing on each property to develop a project in the Lullwater program, NGI/Novare executes a written joint venture agreement with Fickling. Up to that point, the entities share expenses related to pre-development costs, including pursuit of comprehensive plan amendments and rezonings necessary to secure project approval. Losses on any project are also shared equally. As of the date of the final hearing, NGI/Novare and Fickling had expended almost $500,000 in pre-acquisition costs to develop the subject property, including hiring an engineer, Jay Brown, to prepare the Plan Amendment application, and an attorney and experts to represent the Intervenors at the public hearings, as well as in this proceeding. The exact contribution from each of the partners will be “trued up” at a later date. If the instant plan amendment is not approved, the Intervenors stand to lose the investment of approximately $500,000, as well as the time and effort expended on the project thus far, as well as the opportunity costs associated with having devoted time and resources to this project as opposed to others in the Lullwater program. At the local planning agency public hearing on November 20, 2019, Jay Brown made a presentation regarding the Plan Amendment. He stated, “I’m here to represent a joint venture of development group that’s made up of two companies, the Fickling Company and the Novare Group.” When Mr. Brown made his presentation on the underlying rezoning application at the same meeting, he stated that he was “representing the Fickling Company and Novare Group[.]” Again at the December 10, 2019 County Commission public hearing, Mr. Brown indicated he was representing the developers Fickling and Novare. At the February 25, 2020, adoption hearing, Mr. Brown presented on behalf of the developers. Although he did not identify them by name, he referred to the presentation he had made before that same body on December 10, 2019. The Subject Property and Surrounding Uses The subject property is 25.64 undeveloped acres located on Fort Clarke Boulevard in Gainesville, Florida. It is located in the Alachua County Floridan Aquifer High Recharge Area, which, according to the Comprehensive Plan, is an “[a]rea[] where stream-to-sink surface water basins occur and [an] area[] where the Floridan Aquifer is vulnerable or highly vulnerable.” The subject property is located in an area where the aquifer is highly vulnerable. The subject property is designated “institutional” on the County’s Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”). Under the institutional FLUM designation, the subject property could be developed for a public or private educational use, daycare center, nursery school, community service (e.g., fire and emergency services, law enforcement, or health facilities), public utility or other infrastructure, religious facility, or cemetery. The uses surrounding the subject property are a mix of residential and institutional. Immediately to the west and south is the Eagle Point subdivision, with a FLUM designation of low-medium density residential, which allows residential density at up to four dwelling units per acre (“4 du/acre”). The subdivision is built out at 2 du/acre. Two apartment communities are located across Fort Clark Boulevard from the subject property—Legacy at Fort Clarke (owned by Petitioner) and The Paddock Club Gainesville—both of which are designated medium density on the FLUM, allowing residential development at a density of up to 8 du/acre. Institutional uses border the property on the north and immediate east. A County fire station is located north of the subject property, and a senior living facility is located directly across Fort Clarke Boulevard from the subject property in a “corner” adjoining both Legacy at Fort Clarke and Paddock Club apartments. The subject property is located in the Urban Cluster, which is, according to the Comprehensive Plan, “[a]n area designated on the [FLUM] for urban development, which includes residential densities ranging from one unit per acre to 24 units per acre or greater, non-residential development, and is generally served by urban services.” The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation of the subject property from institutional to medium-high density residential, allowing development at up to 14 du/acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates Fort Clarke Boulevard as an “Express Transit Corridor” and a “Rapid Transit Corridor.” All new multifamily development along the corridors must be developed as a Traditional Neighborhood Development (“TND”), a compact, mixed-use development which allows for internal capture of vehicle trips and encourages walking and bicycling as the primary means of mobility. TNDs are required to develop with a village center and gridded street network emanating outward from the village center, and are entitled to a development density bonus. Due to its location along the corridors, and the allowable density bonus, the subject property under the Plan Amendment can be developed at a maximum residential density of 16 du/acre.2 Based on the acreage of the subject property, the Plan Amendment authorizes a maximum of 410 dwelling units. The Comprehensive Plan requires TNDs to include non-residential uses at intensities specified in Future Land Use Element (“FLUE”) Policy 1.6.5.2. Based on the acreage of the subject property, the Plan Amendment authorizes a maximum of 267,500 square feet (“s.f.”) of non- residential uses. 2 Policy 1.6.5.1 provides that a TND contiguous with a Rapid Transit or Express Transit corridor is entitled to an additional 8 du/acre in the village center and an additional 6 du/acre in the transit-supportive area outside the village center. Based on the policy, it appears the Plan Amendment authorizes the subject property to be developed at a density greater than 16 du/acre. However, the parties stipulated that the maximum development density of the subject property is 16 du/acre and that stipulation is accepted by the undersigned. Challenges to the Plan Amendment Petitioner alleges (as stipulated by the parties) that the Plan Amendment: (1) creates internal inconsistencies with the existing Comprehensive Plan, in contravention of section 163.3177(2); (2) is not “based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis,” as required by section 163.3177(1)(f); (3) is not “based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including … the character of undeveloped land,” as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)2., and not based on an “analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site,” as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)8.; and (4) is inconsistent with the RPC Plan, in violation of section 163.3184(1)(b). Petitioners further contend Respondent violated public participation requirements for adoption of the Plan Amendment. The challenges generally raise concerns with the impact of the Plan Amendment on area schools, transportation facilities, the Floridan Aquifer, and compatibility with surrounding uses. School Capacity Issues Petitioner alleges the County failed to properly analyze the impact of the Plan Amendment on the County’s school system, and maintains that the Plan Amendment will “overburden already overcrowded schools that serve neighborhood residents.” Suzanne Wynn, director of community planning for the School Board of Alachua County (“SBAC”), performed a school capacity analysis of the Plan Amendment. Ms. Wynn testified that the purpose of a school capacity analysis is to put the school board on notice of an estimated number of students anticipated to be generated from a plan amendment which increases residential density, so the school board can factor that in for future facility planning. In calculating the student impact of the Plan Amendment, Ms. Wynn made a couple of errors, which are reflected in her initial Report: First, she utilized 256 as the total number of dwelling units authorized by the Plan Amendment, which does not account for the density bonus. Second, she applied a student generation multiplier of .08 students per multifamily unit, rather than the correct multiplier of .09. Prior to the County’s adoption of the Plan Amendment, Ms. Wynn’s analysis was updated with the correct number of dwelling units. Utilizing 410 as the maximum number of dwelling units authorized by the Plan Amendment, Ms. Wynn confirmed that the estimated number of students generated from the Plan Amendment is a total of 57, allocated as follows: 33 elementary, 12 middle, and 12 high. At final hearing, Ms. Wynn presented a corrected Report. Utilizing the correct student generation multiplier, the Plan Amendment is projected to generate a total of 63 students, allocated as follows: 37 elementary, 13 middle, and 13 high. In her initial Report, Ms. Wynn concluded that “[s]tudent generation by the [Plan Amendment] at the elementary, middle, and high school levels can be reasonably accommodated during the five, ten, and twenty-year planning period through planned capacity enhancement and management practices.” Ms. Wynn testified that the updated student generation numbers contained in the corrected Report did not cause her to change her conclusion. The number of students generated by the maximum density allowed under the Plan Amendment can be accommodated during the school board’s applicable planning periods through capacity enhancements and management practices. The SBAC 2019 Annual Report on School Concurrency (“2019 Concurrency Report”) notes that “significant growth [in middle school students] is anticipated in the next five years, followed by slower growth rates during the latter part of the 10-year planning period.” The subject property is located in the Fort Clark School Concurrency Service Area (“SCSA”), in which the middle school is operating above capacity and enrollment “is expected to exceed capacity during the ten-year planning period.” The 2019 Concurrency Report notes that the deficiencies in the Fort Clarke SCSA are addressed in the SBAC 2019-2030 Strategic Plan. In other words, the SBAC has already anticipated increased enrollment at the middle school serving the subject property, and has plans to reduce overcrowding and accommodate new students through its strategic planning process. Petitioner argued that the specific plans to reduce overcrowding and accommodate new growth in the Fort Clark SCSA were not introduced in evidence and Ms. Wynn’s testimony was speculative. However, Petitioner introduced no evidence to refute Ms. Wynn’s testimony and her conclusion that the SBAC can accommodate the new middle school students estimated to be generated by the Plan Amendment. Petitioner next argues that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Public School Facilities Element (“PSFE”) Policy 1.1.3, which governs the geographic basis for school capacity planning, and Policy 1.1.5, which describes the SBAC report to the County. In describing the analysis of Plan Amendments to be performed by the SBAC, Policy 1.1.3 specifically provides, “[f]or purposes of this planning assessment, existing or planned capacity in adjacent SCSAs shall be not be considered.” Petitioner alleges Ms. Wynn relied upon existing or planned capacity outside the Fort Clark SCSA in conducting her analysis, in violation of Policy 1.1.3. It is important to note that Policy 1.1.3 requires the SBAC to assess the Plan Amendment “in terms of its impact (1) on the school system as a whole and (2) on the applicable SCSA(s).” Ms. Wynn’s analysis states, in pertinent part, as follows: The [Plan Amendment] is situated within the Fort Clark [SCSA] … [which] contains one middle school with a capacity of 900 seats. The current enrollment is 1,042 students representing a 116% utilization compared to an adopted LOS standard of 100%. The [Plan Amendment] petition is projected to generate 13 middle school students at buildout. Districtwide middle school capacity is well within the 100% LOS throughout the 10 year planning period. The School District is evaluating options for relieving capacity deficiencies at Fort Clark Middle. Ms. Wynn’s analysis does not ignore the impact of the Plan Amendment on the applicable SCSA. Implicit in Ms. Wynn’s analysis is the conclusion that the Fort Clark SCSA does not have adequate capacity to accommodate the maximum number of students estimated to be generated by the Plan Amendment. Ms. Wynn’s analysis also assesses the impact of the Plan Amendment districtwide, as required by the Policy, concluding that there is adequate capacity within the applicable planning periods. Finally, Petitioner contends that Ms. Wynn’s analysis falls short of the Policy’s direction to “include its recommendations to remedy the capacity deficiency including estimated cost” if the SBAC “determines that capacity is insufficient to support the proposed land use decision.” Ms. Wynn’s report does not conclude that a capacity deficiency exists within the district to accommodate the new middle school students estimated to be generated by the Plan Amendment. If no deficiency is determined, no recommendation to remedy a deficiency is required. While the report indicates a deficiency in the Fort Clark SCSA, there is no requirement that the students be accommodated within that particular SCSA. Perhaps the SBAC plans include changing school zones to accommodate those students at a school other than Fort Clark Middle, where capacity does exist. Perhaps it plans to build a new middle school that will add capacity. Perhaps it plans to add portables at Fort Clark Middle. Whatever the plans are, Ms. Wynn’s conclusion that the projected number of students “can reasonably be accommodated during the five, ten, and twenty year planning period through planned capacity enhancement and management practices” was unrebutted.3 Transportation Issues Petitioner contends that the analysis of the transportation impact from the Plan Amendment is flawed because: (1) it was not based on the maximum buildout allowed by the Plan Amendment; and (2) failed to meet the requirements of Policy 1.1.6.11 of the Transportation Mobility Element (“TME”). Based on the maximum development potential of 410 multifamily dwelling units and 267,500 s.f. of non-residential development, the County determined the Plan Amendment will generate approximately 9,364 new daily vehicular trips to Fort Clark Boulevard. Petitioner asserts that this analysis is erroneous because the methodology employed by the developer allocated the 267,500 s.f. of non- residential development evenly between retail and office. Petitioner asserts that, because the County’s land development code allows the non-residential square footage to be developed at up to 75 percent retail, the project should have been analyzed based on a 75/25 retail-to-office split. Petitioner argues that failure to analyze the traffic generation in that way undercounts the vehicular trips to be generated by the Plan Amendment at its maximum development potential. Petitioner introduced the testimony of John P. Kim, who was accepted as an expert in transportation planning and engineering. Mr. Kim offered no testimony regarding the use of the 75/25 retail-to-office split versus the 3 Petitioner complained that Ms. Wynn’s testimony lacked specificity and found fault with Respondent for not introducing the SBAC Strategic Plan into evidence to support its position that the anticipated students can be accommodated with planned capacity improvements. However, Petitioner, not Respondent, carries the burden of proof in this case to demonstrate that the “planned capacity enhancement and management practices” are insufficient to accommodate those students. 50/50 retail-to-office split for non-residential uses allowed under the Plan Amendment. Petitioner introduced no evidence that the methodology utilizing the 50/50 retail-to-office split was not a professionally-acceptable methodology for calculating trip generation based on the maximum development potential of the subject property under the Plan Amendment. Next, Petitioner argues that the Plan Amendment is not supported by a roadway-capacity analysis for any of the major roadways that will serve the subject property. Petitioner maintains that the applicants for the Plan Amendment were required to submit a study demonstrating that adopted Level of Service (“LOS”) guidelines on those roadways can be achieved given the projected traffic generation from the Plan Amendment. To that end, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with TME Policy 1.1.6.11, which provides as follows: Large scale comprehensive plan amendments to the [FLUE] or Map that result in a greater transportation impact shall require the entity requesting the amendment to demonstrate that the adopted LOS guidelines for the affected Urban Transportation Mobility District are achieved and that additional required infrastructure is fully funded. Applicants may only include projects that are fully funded and scheduled to commence construction within one (1) year of approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Kim, expressed his opinion that the policy requires the applicant to demonstrate that the LOS guidelines can be achieved under the Plan Amendment, and that the additional infrastructure required to achieve the guidelines is “fully funded and scheduled to commence construction within one (1) year of approval of the Plan Amendment.” Mr. Kim prepared an analysis to demonstrate that the Plan Amendment will prevent achievement of the applicable LOS guidelines, as the basis for his opinion that the Plan Amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis, and inconsistent with TME Policy 1.1.6.11. Mr. Kim analyzed the project’s impact on the specific segment of Fort Clark Boulevard immediately adjacent to the subject property, utilizing roadway capacity data from the 2018 Multimodal Level of Service (“MMLOS”) Report published by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Gainesville Urbanized Area. According to the report, that segment of Fort Clark Boulevard has an adopted LOS of “D” and a maximum service volume of 13,985 vehicles per day. The report indicates the particular segment has available capacity for only 1,319 daily vehicles. Mr. Kim concluded that the capacity for 1,319 daily vehicles will easily be exceeded by the 9,364 trips projected to be generated from development allowed under the Plan Amendment. Mr. Kim also looked at the capacity of the two roadways at which Fort Clark Boulevard terminates—Northwest 23rd Avenue to the north, and Newberry Road to the south—and found that they are both operating at above their capacity, according to the report. In Mr. Kim’s opinion, the traffic projected to be generated by development anticipated under the Plan Amendment will further deteriorate the LOS on those roadways. The 2018 MMLOS Report shows the segment of Fort Clark Boulevard and Northwest 23rd Avenue, which were analyzed by Mr. Kim, as located within a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (“TCEA”). The Florida Legislature repealed the statewide requirement for traffic concurrency in 2011. See ch. 2011-139, § 15, Laws of Fla. In 2019, the County rescinded transportation concurrency as a part of its Evaluation and Appraisal of its comprehensive plan. See § 163.3191(1), Fla. Stat. (“At least once every 7 years, each local government shall evaluate its comprehensive plan to determine if plan amendments are necessary to reflect changes in state requirements in this part since the last update of the comprehensive plan[.]”). The County also changed its areawide LOS standards to “guidelines.” These changes are reflected in the County’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, adopted December 13, 2019, and against which this Plan Amendment is compared for internal consistency. Mr. Kim has never conducted transportation analysis in Alachua County prior to the case. Likewise, Mr. Kim has not performed transportation analyses in any local government which has repealed transportation concurrency. Mr. Kim testified that he understood the County’s transportation mobility system utilizes an area-wide capacity analysis, as opposed to individual roadway capacity. Mr. Kim’s analysis was wholly irrelevant to the County’s area-wide capacity analysis. Under the County’s system, the County is divided into three transportation mobility districts: Northwest, Southwest, and East. The Plan Amendment is located in the Northwest District. The County’s expert in land use and transportation, Chris Dawson, is the County’s transportation planning manager. Mr. Dawson analyzed the Plan Amendment for transportation impacts. Mr. Dawson determined that sufficient capacity exists in the Northwest Mobility District for the additional 9,364 new daily trips generated from the Plan Amendment under the maximum development potential. For his analysis, Mr. Dawson utilized the data and analysis compiled for the County’s 2019 Evaluation and Appraisal of the Comprehensive Plan. That data showed a maximum service volume of 408,655 trips in the Northwest District, and an average annual daily trip volume of 265,237. In other words, available capacity exists in the district for an additional 143,418 trips, well below the projected generation of 9,364 trips. Mr. Dawson opined that the Plan Amendment will not prevent the Northwest District LOS guidelines from being achieved. Petitioner criticized Mr. Dawson’s analysis as based on incorrect data because the transportation mobility district level of service analysis contained in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (“EAR”) was based on the County’s 2017 data. Petitioner opined that Mr. Dawson should have updated those trip counts to account for development approved since 2017 in the Northwest District. Ms. Brighton conducted the traffic generation analysis for Intervenors. She testified that, given the available land in the Northwest District, it is unrealistic to assume that the growth in the last three years would have consumed all the roadway capacity in the District. In fact, she testified that, even if the County collected new raw data of actual trips, the capacity may be even higher than it was in 2017, because growth is not realized in every year; some years are even marked by negative growth. Petitioner did not introduce any readily-available data which was more recent than that relied upon in the County’s 2019 EAR update. Petitioner’s overarching concern is that Fort Clark Boulevard is a two- lane road, operating at either near or over capacity, unable to handle the new trips anticipated to be generated by development allowed under the Plan Amendment; that the County has no plans to widen the roadway to improve capacity; and that, even if the County is relying on total capacity in the District, rather than a summation of the capacity of each individual roadway in the District, it failed to update the 2017 data to determine actual capacity at the time the Plan Amendment was adopted. The County’s multi-modal approach to transportation planning anticipates congestion along certain corridors, and encourages compact, higher-density development in the Urban Cluster to support transit use. See TME Policy 1.1.3 (“The intent of the [mobility districts] are … [t]o recognize that certain roadway corridors will be congested and that congestion will be addressed by means other than solely adding capacity for motor vehicles and maintaining roadway level of service on those corridors.”). Congestion would actually serve the County’s goal of increasing demand for transit options and bicycle and pedestrian use in lieu of creating road capacity by traditional means, such as road-widening, adding lanes, and creating or extending turn lanes. See TME Policy 1.1.5 (“Over the time horizon of the Comprehensive Plan, as the densities and intensities within the Urban Cluster necessary to support transit are realized, the County shall transition from providing new capital infrastructure for a multi-modal transportation network to providing frequent transit service along rapid transit corridors.”) In the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Improvements Element (“CIE”), the County has planned two dedicated transit lanes on Fort Clark Boulevard, between Newberry Road and Northwest 23rd Avenue, the segment immediately adjacent to the subject property. This improvement is planned to implement the County’s designation of Fort Clark Boulevard as a rapid transit corridor. Development projects in the Urban Cluster are charged a multi-modal transportation mobility fee (“fee”) in satisfaction of their obligation to mitigate transportation impacts within the applicable district. Intervenors are expected to pay a fee of approximately $1 million to the County in mitigation. Petitioner elicited testimony from the transportation experts that the County is not required to spend the fee on Fort Clark Boulevard. It is true that the County can spend the fee on improvements anywhere within the District; however, given the structure of the Comprehensive Plan, it is most likely the funds will be spent to further planned improvements adopted in the CIE. See TME Policy 1.1.6 (“The Multi-Modal Infrastructure Projects in the [CIE] are identified to meet the adopted level of service guidelines and proactively address projected transportation needs from new development and redevelopment within the Urban Cluster by 2040”). Compatibility Petitioner alleges the maximum density and intensity of development allowed under the Plan Amendment is incompatible with surrounding uses, especially the low-density residential neighborhood to the west and south of the subject property. Petitioner introduced the testimony of Cecelia Ward, who was accepted as an expert in land use and comprehensive planning. Ms. Ward opined that residential density of up to 16 du/acre is incompatible with low- density residential and community institutional land uses in the area. Further, she opined that the scale and intensity of the non-residential uses allowed by the TND were inconsistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan does not define “compatibility.” The Act defines “compatibility” as “a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition.” § 163.3164(9), Fla. Stat. Both the Intervenors’ land use planning expert, David Depew, and the County’s principal planner for development services, Jeffrey Hays, agreed that merely locating high-density residential development adjacent to low- density residential development is an insufficient basis on which to determine an unduly negative influence over time. All five higher-density TNDs in the County are located adjacent to existing lower-density residential development. No evidence was introduced to suggest that the proximity of TNDs to those neighborhoods has destabilized the low-density residential neighborhoods. Moreover, the Comprehensive Plan specifically addresses compatibility between TNDs and single-family developments. FLUE Policy 1.2.1 provides that “appropriately scaled and designed non-residential land uses are compatible with single family or multi-family residential development” in mixed-use TNDs. Despite Ms. Ward’s opinion that the Plan Amendment would allow non-residential development out of scale with surrounding neighborhoods, she admitted that the specific site-design policies for TNDs would apply to the Plan Amendment. Further, the Comprehensive Plan policies governing neighborhood design and site standards will also apply to the development allowed under the Plan Amendment. Those policies provide that “[u]rban development shall incorporate design techniques to promote integration with adjacent neighborhoods.” FLUE Policy 1.4.1.4. Design techniques include “transitional intensity (types of uses), stepped density, buffering, boundaries, landscaping and natural open space.” FLUE Policy 1.4.1.4(a). The Plan provides that “[s]pecial attention shall be provided to the design of development and neighborhood edges, which shall be designed to be integrated into the surrounding community.” FLUE Policy 1.4.1.4(c). Ms. Ward opined that the existing institutional designation provides for greater compatibility between development proposed on the subject property and the adjoining neighborhood. FLUE Policy 5.2.1 lists the threshold criteria which must be met to establish an institutional use. Ms. Ward specifically identified the following two criteria: (1) “Compatibility of the scale and intensity of the use in relationship to surrounding uses, taking into account impacts such as noise, lighting, visual effect, traffic generation, [and] odors”; and (2) “Preservation and strengthening of community and neighborhood character through design.” Ms. Ward expressed the opinion that removing the subject property from the institutional designation removes these protections for the adjacent low-density neighborhood. However, the TND-specific design policies likewise require establishment of compatibility through project design, scaling, and integration with the adjacent neighborhoods. Just because the TND policies do not specifically cite “noise, lighting, [and] visual effect,” does not mean the County will not consider those development aspects in approving the specific site design for the subject property. The nature of institutional uses makes it more likely that off-site impacts will be incompatible with residential, hence the need for enhanced analysis of those specific types of impacts. For example, emergency fire and law enforcement uses are more likely to generate offsite noise impacts than an adjoining residential or mixed use; and public utility uses are more likely to generate offsite lighting impacts, due to security lighting needs. The Plan Amendment does not jeopardize the stability of the adjacent single-family neighborhood by “removing protections” provided under the institutional land use category, as suggested by Ms. Ward. Data on Suitability Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is not supported by relevant data and analysis concerning the suitability of the subject property for the density and intensity of development allowed. County staff performed a suitability analysis related to the Plan Amendment application as part of its review. The suitability analysis included consideration of significant habitat areas, location in flood zones, impact on aquifer recharge, appropriateness for the level of density, and the availability of water and sewer, emergency services, solid waste, and other public utilities to serve the allowable development. At hearing, Petitioner focused on the location of the subject property in the high aquifer recharge area, alleging the County did not analyze data to determine if the TND development was suitable for this site. Mr. Hays testified that the staff review included consideration of the location of the subject property within that sensitive area. Mr. Hays explained that the County has adopted special storm-water treatment criteria for development within the high aquifer recharge area. In formulating her opinion that the site is not suitable for the density and intensity of development allowed under the Plan Amendment, due to its location in the high aquifer recharge area, Ms. Ward did not consider the County’s development regulations for karst-sensitive lands that comprise much of western Alachua County. Further, the impact on the aquifer as a regional resource was evaluated by the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (“RPC”) during its review of the Plan Amendment. The RPC found that “significant adverse impacts [to the Floridan Aquifer] are not anticipated as the County Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies to mitigate impacts to the [aquifer].” Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis regarding the suitability of the subject property for the development allowed thereunder. Consideration of Alternatives Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 7.1.24, which provides, as follows: Prior to amending this Element, every consideration shall first be given to alternatives to detailed map changes. Such alternatives might include clarifying text amendments and additional policy statements. Ultimately, Petitioner’s argument is that the subject property is more appropriate for low-density or medium-density, rather than the medium-high density category applicable under the Plan Amendment. Petitioner sought to prove that the County did not consider a lower-density on the subject property as an alternative. However, the policy requires the County to consider alternatives to detailed map changes; not alternative types of map changes. The alternatives contemplated by the policy are “clarifying text amendments” and “additional policy statements.” Ms. Ward suggested three alternatives that could have, and perhaps should have, been considered by the County: (1) a change to low-density or medium-density category; (2) a text amendment to allow TNDs within institutional parcels along the Fort Clark Boulevard (as an express transit corridor); and (3) additional policy statements that would allow residential use while providing “compatibility provisions” to ensure “protection in terms of compatibility and intensity and density.” Ms. Ward’s first suggestion is a different type of map amendment, which, as addressed above, is not the type of alternative contemplated by the policy. Ms. Ward’s second suggestion is hardly a “clarifying” text amendment. It takes the form of an overlay amendment authorizing a new use (TNDs) on a limited number of properties (institutional) in a specified location (along Fort Clark Boulevard). Further, this suggestion does not address the heart of the issue—what density of residential development would be allowed on the subject property. TNDs only provide for density bonuses; the base density is established by the underlying land use category, which, in this case, is institutional, and which provides for no residential density. Ms. Ward’s third suggestion was not fully fleshed-out at the final hearing. It appears she was suggesting an amendment to allow residential uses in the institutional land use category, which would include specific provisions to protect those residential uses from the inevitable incompatibility with existing institutional uses already developed on those sites. At any rate, the suggestion is again, more than a mere “clarifying text amendment.” Mr. Hays testified that the only alternative text amendment he could envision that would accomplish the applicant’s goal of developing the property for residential, would be an amendment to allow residential development in the institutional category. Mr. Hays testified that such a change would have unintended, and potentially negative, consequences when applied to all the institutionally-designated properties in the County. Moreover, Mr. Hays testified that there is no alternative that he, as a professional planner, would recommend to the Board of County Commissioners. On this issue, Mr. Hays’ testimony is accepted as more persuasive than Ms. Ward’s. Other Alleged Internal Inconsistencies Petitioner alleges that adoption of the Plan Amendment creates internal inconsistencies in the Comprehensive Plan, specifically between the Plan Amendment and the FLUE Goal and Principles, which read as follows: Goal Encourage the Orderly, Harmonious, and Judicious Use of Land, Consistent with the Following Guiding Principles. Principle 1 Promote sustainable land development that provides for a balance of economic opportunity, social equity including environmental justice, and protection of the natural environment. Principle 2 Base new development upon the provision of necessary services and infrastructure, focus on urban development in a clearly defined area and strengthen the separation of rural and urban uses. Principle 3 Recognize residential neighborhoods as a collective asset for all residents of the county. Principle 4 Create and promote cohesive communities that provide for a full-range and mix of land uses. The Goal and Principles at issue are aspirational in that they do not specifically mandate any action that can be objectively or quantitatively measured for consistency. Rather, the Goal and Principles express a community vision. In short, they are not self-enforcing. The policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan establish the means by which the County intends to achieve its Goal, consistent with the Principles established in each element. It is to the policies that one must look to be informed about how the Comprehensive Plan will be applied to a particular property or situation. When determining internal consistency, it is necessary to consider the Comprehensive Plan as a whole and goals must not be taken out of context as Petitioner has done in this case. For example, Petitioner’s expert planner, Ms. Ward, objected to siting the density and intensity represented by the requirement of this Plan Amendment to build out as a TND because it would be in conflict with the FLUE Goal of “orderly and harmonious” development. Ms. Ward confined her analysis to the limited context of the FLUE Goal and Principles and did not consider the implementing FLUE general strategies or policies. Had she examined the policies, the County’s express intent to increase density within the Urban Cluster for myriad reasons would have been evident. Petitioner did not prove that the Plan Amendment renders the Comprehensive Plan internally inconsistent with the cited Goal and Principles. Public Participation Petitioner contends that the County failed to comply with public participation requirements of both the Act and the Comprehensive Plan in adopting the Plan Amendment. FLUE Policy 7.1.25 provides that “[a]ll amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall meet the requirements of Chapter [sic] 163.3181, Florida Statutes for public participation in the comprehensive planning process.” The County requires the applicant for a large-scale plan amendment to hold a noticed neighborhood workshop prior to the public hearings on the plan amendment. Intervenors’ agent conducted the required neighborhood workshop on August 22, 2019, and Petitioner’s representative, Lisa Allgood, attended that workshop. During the County’s review of the Plan Amendment application, Petitioner submitted written comments, through its agent, Steven Tilbrook, to the County through email communications with County staff and commissioners. The County held three separate, properly-noticed, public hearings; one before the local planning agency, and two before the full County Commission. Petitioner participated in all three public hearings through its representative, Mr. Tilbrook. Nevertheless, Petitioner alleges that its rights were violated because the applicant was given more time to make its presentation at the public hearings than Petitioner was to make its comments. It is difficult to determine exactly how much time Petitioner was afforded at the public hearings based on the transcripts. At the local planning agency public hearing, Petitioner’s presentation continued for several pages of transcript, and at one point, the chair extended Petitioner an additional ten minutes. At the first County Commission public hearing, Petitioner was given ten minutes, but gave an uninterrupted presentation of an unknown length, followed by a presentation by Petitioner’s expert transportation planner. Following the presentation, one of the commissioner’s engaged Mr. Tilbrook in a question and answer session. At the second County Commission public hearing, Petitioner’s transportation expert addressed the commissioners, as well as Petitioner’s corporate representative, Ms. Allgood, and attorney, Mr. Tilbrook. Following adoption of the Plan Amendment, Petitioner timely filed a Petition challenging the Plan Amendment, which gave rise to the instant proceeding. Regional Policy Plan Petitioner further alleges that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance because it is inconsistent with the RPC Plan, specifically Goals 5.1 and 2.14. Regional Goal 5.1 states the regional goal to “[m]itigate the impacts of development to the Regional Road Network as well as adverse extrajurisdictional impacts while encouraging development within urban areas.” Goal 5.1 is implemented by Policies 5.1.1 through 5.1.4, which describe how the RPC determines mitigation of local government plan amendment impacts to regional resources. Policy 5.1.1. provides that “within … urban development areas where the local government comprehensive plan includes goals and policies which implement Transportation Planning Best Practices, adverse impact to the Regional Road Network are adequately [mitigated].” In other words, where a plan amendment is located in an urban development area, and the local government comprehensive plan contains transportation planning best practices, the RPC Plan deems the impacts from a local government plan amendment on the regional roadway network “mitigated.” The Plan Amendment is located in the Urban Cluster, an area of the County designated for urban development. Fort Clark Boulevard, also known as State Road 26 (“S.R. 26”), is part of the regional road network. Section 163.3184(3)(b)2. requires the regional planning agency to review a local government plan amendment and comment specifically on “important state resources and facilities that will be adversely impacted by the amendment if adopted.” The RPC reviewed the Plan Amendment and determined that “the County Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element contains policies consistent with Best Transportation Planning Practices contained in the [RPC Plan].” The RPC concluded, consistent with Goal 5.1 and Policy 5.1.1., that adverse transportation impacts of the Plan Amendment to the regional road network “are adequately mitigated.” Nevertheless, Ms. Ward testified that, based on Mr. Kim’s transportation impact analysis, “there was nothing to rely on as transportation best planning practices in the review of this amendment application.” Petitioner introduced no evidence to refute the RPC’s determination that the County’s Comprehensive Plan contains policies “consistent with Best Transportation Planning Practices contained in the [RPC Plan].” Regional Goal 2.14 establishes the RPC’s intent to “[e]nsure future growth and development decisions maintain a balance between sustaining the region’s environment and enhancing the region’s economy and quality of life.” Goal 2.14 is implemented by Policies 2.14.1 and 2.14.2, which establish the desire of the RPC to “[c]reate and sustain vibrant, healthy communities that attract workers, businesses, residents, and visitors to the region”; and “Promote and incentivize local government in the development of vibrant city centers,” respectively. Petitioner presented no evidence that the Plan Amendment would not create a community that would attract workers, businesses, residents, and visitors to the region. Petitioner presented no evidence that the Plan Amendment would not develop as a vibrant city center. Instead, Ms. Ward opined that the Plan Amendment violates the “balance” required by Goal 2.14 because the density and intensity of development on the subject property will negatively affect surrounding communities. This is a restatement of Petitioner’s compatibility argument. Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is incompatible with the adjacent low-density residential development. Petitioner did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the RPC Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 20-05 on February 5, 2020, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 1st day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Joni Armstrong Coffey, Esquire Akerman LLP Suite 1100 98 Southeast 7th Street Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Kristofer David Machado, Esquire Akerman LLP Suite 1100 98 Southeast 7th Street Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Sylvia Torres, Esquire Alachua County 12 Southeast 1st Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 (eServed) Patrice Boyes, Esquire Patrice Boyes, P.A. Suite 1120 5700 Southwest 34th Street Gainesville, Florida 32608 (eServed) Corbin Frederick Hanson, Esquire Alachua County 12 Southeast 1st Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 (eServed) Stephen K. Tilbrook, Esquire Akerman LLP Suite 1600 350 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Wesley J. Hevia, Esquire Akerman LLP Suite 1100 98 Southeast 7th Street Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Bryan West, Esquire Akerman LLP Suite 1100 98 Southeast 7th Steet Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Mark Buckles, Interim General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Dane Eagle, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Miami-Dade County’s (“the County’s”) comprehensive plan amendment, adopted by Ordinance No. 20-47 on May 20, 2020, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184, Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner resides, and owns property, in the County. Petitioner made oral or written comments and objections to the County regarding the Plan Amendment during the time period between the County’s transmittal and adoption of the Plan Amendment. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, with the duty and authority to adopt and amend its Comprehensive Plan. See § 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. Krome is a limited liability company, existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business in the State of Florida. Krome owns the property subject to the Plan Amendment, as well as other property within the area affected by the Plan Amendment, and was the applicant for the Plan Amendment. The Subject Property and Surrounding Uses The Subject Property is 5.97 gross acres (approximately 4.6 net acres) of vacant land located outside of the Urban Development Boundary on the southwest corner of SW 177 Avenue (Krome Avenue) and SW 136 Street. It is the northeast corner of a larger 48.33-acre parcel owned by Krome (the “Parent Tract”). Adjacent to the north of the Parent Tract, across SW 136 Street, is a solar farm operated by Florida Power and Light Company (FPL). To the east, across Krome Avenue, and to the south, including the remaining portion of the Parent Tract, are agricultural lands used for row crops. West and south of the Parent Tract (including the Subject Property), the land is developed predominantly with five-acre rural estates, interspersed with small residential farms and agricultural sites ranging between 10 and 30 acres in size. The Property is located within an approximately 11-mile stretch of Krome Avenue where there are presently no gas service stations. The nearest gas service station to the south of the Property is located approximately three miles away. The nearest gas service station to the north of the Property is located approximately eight miles away. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment changes the Future Land Use (“FLU”) designation of the Subject Property from the “Agricultural” to the “Business and Office” land use category. The Business and Office category allows for development of a wide range of sales and services uses, including retail, wholesale, personal and professional services, call centers, commercial and professional offices, hotels, motels, hospitals, medical buildings, nursing homes, entertainment and cultural facilities, amusements, and commercial recreation establishments. The category also allows light industrial development, telecommunication facilities, and residential uses (stand alone or mixed with commercial, light industrial, office, and hotels). Krome sought the Plan Amendment for the ultimate purpose of operating a gas service station and other food and retail uses compatible with, and supportive of, the surrounding agricultural and residential community. In recognition that the “Business and Office” land use designation permits a wide variety of uses, Krome proffered to restrict the permitted uses on the Property by submitting a Declaration of Restrictions to be recorded as a covenant running with the land. County Consideration of Plan Amendment In October 2019, County planning staff issued its Initial Report and Recommendations, suggesting denial of the proposed Plan Amendment. The County’s Community Councils are tasked with providing recommendations on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The West Kendall Community Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed Plan Amendment on December 16, 2019, at which members of the public commented on the proposal. A representative of Krome made a presentation at the public hearing and submitted presentation exhibits that included: (1) a proposed Declaration of Restrictions; (2) a County memorandum relating to a separate application to allow the establishment of a gas station at SW 177 Avenue and SW 200 Street in Miami-Dade County; (3) a letter from the Dade County Farm Bureau stating that it had no objection to the Application; and (4) a Petition of Support listing 105 members of the community that elected to express support and recommend approval of the proposal. At the conclusion of the December 16, 2019 hearing, the West Kendall Community Council voted to recommend that the proposed Plan Amendment be adopted with acceptance of the proffered Declaration of Restrictions. After previously deferring the matter at a hearing on October 29, 2019, the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners (the “BCC”) voted on December 17, 2019, to adopt the Plan Amendment on first reading. The County’s Planning Advisory Board (“PAB”) serves as the Local Planning Agency to review any matters referred to it by the BCC, pursuant to section 2-108 of the Miami-Dade County Code. On January 8, 2020, the PAB, acting as the Local Planning Agency, conducted a public hearing to address the proposal. Near the conclusion of the hearing, the chairman of the PAB proposed an amendment to the proffered Declaration of Restrictions such that the maximum gross square feet of enclosed, under-roof construction on the Property, excluding fueling islands, would be reduced from 10,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet. Krome’s representative agreed to the proposed amendment. The PAB then voted to recommend that the BCC adopt the Plan Amendment with acceptance of the revised Declaration of Restrictions. After previously deferring second reading of the ordinance on January 23, 2020, the BCC voted nine-to-three to adopt Ordinance No. 20-47 on second reading at a public hearing on May 20, 2020. As part of its adoption of the Plan Amendment, the BCC accepted Krome’s proffered Declaration of Restrictions containing the provisions outlined below. The adopted Declaration of Restrictions states that it is a covenant running with the land for a period of 30 years, and thereafter automatically renews for 10-year periods. The Declaration of Restrictions expressly allows for “[a]ll uses permitted under Article XXXIII, Section 33-279, Uses Permitted, AU, Agricultural District, of the Miami-Dade County Code” along with an “Automobile gas station with mini mart/convenience store” with a maximum of 15 vehicle fueling positions. The Declaration of Restrictions further provides that “[m]echanical repairs, oil or transmission changes, tire repair or installation, maintenance, automobile or truck washing” are prohibited uses, and it limits the maximum gross square feet of enclosed, under-roof construction to 6,000 square feet. Petitioner’s Challenges In the Amended Petition, Petitioner alleges the Plan Amendment is not “in compliance,” specifically contending that it: (1) creates internal inconsistencies with certain existing Comprehensive Plan policies, in contravention of section 163.3177(2); (2) fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)9.; and (3) is not “based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis,” as required by section 163.3177(1)(f). Internal Consistency The Comprehensive Plan gives the County Commission flexibility to appropriately balance the community’s needs with land use, environmental, and other Comprehensive Plan policies. It is inherent in the comprehensive planning process that the Comprehensive Plan contains potentially competing goals, objectives, and policies, and that addressing them entails a balancing act rather than an all-or-nothing choice. The Comprehensive Plan expressly recognizes this balancing act in its Statement of Legislative Intent: The Board recognizes that a particular application may bring into conflict, and necessitate a choice between, different goals, priorities, objectives, and provisions of the CDMP. While it is the intent of the Board that the Land Use Element be afforded a high priority, other elements must be taken into consideration in light of the Board’s responsibility to provide for the multitude of needs of a large heavily populated and diverse community. * * * Recognizing that County Boards and agencies will be required to balance competing policies and objectives of the CDMP, it is the intention of the County Commission that such boards and agencies consider the overall intention of the CDMP as well as portions particularly applicable to a matter under consideration in order to ensure that the CDMP, as applied, will protect the public health, safety and welfare. Accordingly, the Comprehensive Plan must be read as a whole, and a plan amendment should not be measured against only certain policies in isolation. Krome’s expert, Kenneth Metcalf, opined that the Plan Amendment affirmatively furthers several Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies, including Land Use Policies (“LU”) 1G, 1O, and 8E; Conservation Policy (“CON”) 6E; Community Health and Design Policies (“CHMP”) 4A and 4C; Coastal Management Policies (“CM”) 8A and 8F; and Economic Policy (“ECO”) 7A. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with some of those same policies, as well as other policies. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-1G, which states: Business developments shall preferably be placed in clusters or nodes in the vicinity of major roadway intersections, and not in continuous strips or as isolated spots, with the exception of small neighborhood nodes. Business developments shall be designed to relate to adjacent development, and large uses should be planned and designed to serve as an anchor for adjoining smaller businesses or the adjacent business district. Granting of commercial or other non-residential zoning by the County is not necessarily warranted on a given property by virtue of nearby or adjacent roadway construction or expansion, or by its location at the intersection of two roadways. Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was consistent with the allowance in Policy LU-1G for small neighborhood nodes based on its relationship to the adjacent rural residential and agricultural community, especially given the evidence that such adjacent community lacks existing options for gas and convenience goods. He further explained that use of the word “preferably” in Policy LU-1G indicated a preference, not a bright-line rule or requirement, and that the Comprehensive Plan does not contain a definition of “small neighborhood nodes” or any interim step for designating such nodes. Further, the County’s expert, Alex David, opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy LU-1G. He first noted that locating business developments in clusters or nodes is preferable, but not compulsory. In addition, he explained that the policy allows for small neighborhood nodes, and that this Plan Amendment fits the concept of a small neighborhood node in terms of its location, scale, and function: Location: The Plan amendment is limited to a portion of a quadrant of the intersection of two roads adjacent to a rural community, so it will not be linear development along the Krome Avenue corridor; Scale: The Plan amendment is considered “small-scale” under the Florida Statutes because it involves less than 10 acres in land area. In addition, the Declaration of Restrictions accepted by the County Commission restricts the extent of land uses (other than those permitted under the AU Zoning District) to a convenience retail limited to a maximum of 6,000 square feet and a gas station with 15 fueling positions; and Function: Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the County Code define the term “convenience store.” However, many other communities define this use as a small retail establishment intended to serve the daily or frequent needs of the surrounding neighborhood population by offering for sale prepackaged food products, household items, over-the-counter medicine, newspapers and magazines, freshly prepared foods, and even access to an ATM. In rural neighborhoods such as those surrounding the location of the Plan Amendment, a convenience store associated with a gas station is often the only place nearby to buy such items. These stores often also serve as a community gathering spot. Based on these characteristics, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment would create a small neighborhood node with a gas and convenience use for the surrounding rural farm community, similar to the nodes to the south along Krome Avenue that serve the surrounding communities there. Mr. David also contradicted Petitioner’s contention that the Comprehensive Plan contains a process for designating nodes. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-1O, which states: “Miami-Dade County shall seek to prevent discontinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe in the Agriculture Areas outside the Urban Development Boundary, through its Comprehensive Plan amendment process, regulatory and capital improvements programs and intergovernmental coordination activities.” Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with LU-1O because the development contemplated by the Plan Amendment is designed to serve the adjacent existing rural neighborhoods to the southwest that are in need of gas and convenience goods. Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy LU-1O. He explained that this policy aims to ensure that development does not happen in isolation and occurs, instead, where other development already exists. Because the Plan Amendment site is proximate to a contiguous, and nearly continuous grid of, existing development consisting of rural estate residential and small-scale residential farms, the Plan Amendment does not contravene this policy or its purpose. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-1P, which states: While continuing to protect and promote agriculture as a viable economic activity in the County, Miami-Dade County shall explore and may authorize alternative land uses in the South Dade agricultural area which would be compatible with agricultural activities and associated rural residential uses, and which would promote ecotourism and agritourism related to the area's agricultural and natural resource base including Everglades and Biscayne National Parks. Petitioner offered no evidence or expert testimony to support the contention that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-1P. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with Policy LU-1P because that policy allows for alternative land uses that are compatible with agricultural uses, such as Krome’s plans for the store to support local agricultural uses and agri-tourism by selling fresh fruit from local groves and diesel for smaller scale agricultural farmers, as provided in the Declaration of Restrictions. Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with that policy. He explained that the Plan Amendment pertains only to a very small portion (less than six gross acres) of a larger agricultural site, which will continue to be actively used for agriculture, and there is no evidence that the Plan Amendment will impair the viability of the agricultural economy in the County. As Mr. David explained, the County previously determined that the amount of land that is needed to maintain a “viable” agricultural industry is approximately 50,000 acres, and according to the County, the County has about 55,206 acres available. The 5.97 gross acres (approximately 4.6 net acres) of land that the Plan Amendment directly impacts is miniscule in comparison. Mr. David also explained how the uses specified in the Declaration of Restrictions are compatible with agricultural activities and associated rural residential uses, as well as promoting economic development in the County’s agricultural area. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-1S, which states: The Miami-Dade County Strategic Plan shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). The Miami-Dade County Strategic Plan includes Countywide community goals, strategies and key outcomes for Miami-Dade County government. Key outcomes of the Strategic Plan that are relevant to the Land Use element of the CDMP include increased urban infill development and urban center development, protection of viable agriculture and environmentally-sensitive land, reduced flooding, improved infrastructure and redevelopment to attract businesses, availability of high quality green space throughout the County, and development of mixed-use, multi-modal, well designed, and sustainable communities. Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. Petitioner’s reliance on LU-1S is misplaced because that provision requires the Miami-Dade County Strategic Plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, not the other way around. As such, this policy is irrelevant to the Plan Amendment, as both Mr. Metcalf and Mr. David testified. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-2B, which states: Priority in the provision of services and facilities and the allocation of financial resources for services and facilities in Miami-Dade County shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Infill Area and Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas. Second priority shall be given to serve the area between the Urban Infill Area and the Urban Development Boundary. And third priority shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Urban services and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements necessary to protect public health and safety and which service the localized needs of these non- urban areas. Areas designated Environmental Protection shall be particularly avoided. Petitioner offered no evidence or expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with Policy LU-2B because that policy provides a specific exception for improvements that will serve “localized needs of these non- urban areas,” such as the proposed gas station and convenience store. Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy LU-2B because it does not request, require, or necessitate the expansion of the Urban Development Boundary (“UDB”) or the Urban Expansion Area (“UEA”), nor does it involve or propose the extension of urban services or facilities outside the 2020 UDB or into the Agriculture and Open Land areas. Mr. David explained that gas stations and convenience stores are not “services or facilities,” as those terms are used in the Comprehensive Plan, nor would the gas station or convenience store allowed by the Plan Amendment be an “urban” use. Therefore, urban services and facilities that support or encourage urban development in Agriculture or Open Land areas will continue to be avoided. Mr. David further explained, as County planning staff recognized, the Plan Amendment will not impact key infrastructure and Levels of Service (“LOS”) that exist within the UDB (including, but not limited to, water and sewer, transportation, solid waste, etc.). Although County staff found that, under the Plan Amendment, fire and rescue services for the Property would not meet national industry standards, Mr. David refuted that concern, explaining that the Comprehensive Plan does not require compliance with national industry standards for fire and rescue, nor does the Plan Amendment violate a County LOS standard for fire and rescue. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Objective LU-7, which states: Miami-Dade County shall require all new development and redevelopment in existing and planned transit corridors and urban centers to be planned and designed to promote transit-oriented development (TOD), and transit use, which mixes residential, retail, office, open space and public uses in a safe, pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment that promotes mobility for people of all ages and abilities through the use of rapid transit services. The Plan Amendment is not located in an existing or planned transit corridor or urban center. Objective LU-7 is not applicable to the Plan Amendment. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8C, which states: “Through its planning, capital improvements, cooperative extension, economic development, regulatory and intergovernmental coordination activities, Miami-Dade County shall continue to protect and promote agriculture as a viable economic use of land in Miami- Dade County.” Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with Policy LU-8C. He explained that the policy contained a general directive for the County to promote and protect agriculture, but did not prohibit small scale plan amendments that respond to the existing needs of the surrounding agricultural and rural communities, such as the Plan Amendment. Further, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy LU-8C. Again, he explained that the Plan Amendment pertains only to a small portion of the Parent Tract, which will continue to be actively used for agriculture; that the uses specified in the Declaration of Restrictions are compatible with agricultural activities and associated rural residential uses; and that those uses will promote economic development in the County’s agricultural area. He also explained that removing the Property from agricultural production would not reduce the number of acres in agricultural production below the threshold needed to sustain agriculture as a viable economic activity in Miami-Dade County. Mr. David further explained that there is no provision in the Comprehensive Plan categorically prohibiting the removal of agricultural land from agricultural production. Petitioner argued that the Plan Amendment would further degrade existing agricultural uses in the area because it could tempt ATV riders to trespass and ride their ATVs over nearby agricultural lands. Mr. David found that speculative concern immaterial to the analysis required by the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8E, which states: Applications requesting amendments to the CDMP Land Use Plan map shall be evaluated for consistency with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of all Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; Enhance or impede provision of services at or above adopted LOS Standards; Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods; Enhance or degrade environmental or historical resources, features or systems of County significance; and If located in a planned Urban Center, or within 1/4 mile of an existing or planned transit station, exclusive busway stop, transit center, or standard or express bus stop served by peak period headways of 20 or fewer minutes, would be a use that promotes transit ridership and pedestrianism as indicated in the policies under Objective LU- 7, herein. Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with Policy LU-8E. As an initial matter, Mr. Metcalf explained that this Policy only requires an evaluation of “the extent to which” the subparts are satisfied, and does not set a threshold or a specific methodology. Regarding subpart (i), Mr. Metcalf explained the Plan Amendment addressed an existing and future need for a gas station, convenience retail products, fresh food, and supporting products for the agricultural industry within the general area, which currently lacks these offerings. In addition, he opined that the gas station would respond to a critical need to reduce fuel shortages during hurricane evacuations. As to subparts (ii-iv), Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment would not impede provision of services at LOS standards; would enhance hurricane evacuations; would be compatible with nearby uses because the Parent Tract would continue to be used for agriculture, which would serve as a buffer between the Subject Property and adjacent uses; and that the Subject Property does not contain any environmental or historical resources, features, or systems of County significance. Further, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy LU-8E. He explained, first, that Krome submitted with its application a Comprehensive Plan Consistency Evaluation study prepared by Mr. Metcalf, establishing that the Plan Amendment will help satisfy an existing deficiency in the Plan map by facilitating a convenience retail opportunity to serve the needs of the local population, who currently must drive on Krome Avenue at least three miles one way south of this location to SW 184th Street, or more than eight miles north, and then east on Kendall Drive (SW 88th Street), to reach the nearest equivalent services. In addition, there was significant support for the application by area residents, as evidenced by the petition submitted by Krome and the public testimony in favor of the Plan Amendment. Second, he explained that the Plan Amendment will not impede the provision of services at or above adopted LOS standards, as County staff noted in its report. On the contrary, with regards to traffic, the Plan Amendment may facilitate a reduction in trip generation and vehicle-miles traveled (“VMT”) on Krome Avenue from the existing residential community to the west and south, by providing a nearby convenience that may be reached without driving several miles north or south on Krome Avenue. Third, he opined that the Plan Amendment is compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and would protect the character of established neighborhoods—the large-scale solar power facility to the north, and the remainder of the 50-acre parcel that will remain in agricultural use to the west and south—will provide an appropriate buffer for the surrounding rural estate residential uses. Krome Avenue at this location is a 4-lane divided arterial with a 40-foot median, which also provides a significant buffer between the Plan Amendment site and the uses across Krome Avenue. In its evaluation, County staff recognizes that the “Business and Office” land use designation and the proposed development could be “generally compatible” with the existing agricultural uses and FPL’s Solar Energy Center. Mr. David opined that the assertion that the land use re-designation “would set a precedent for the conversion of additional agricultural land to commercial uses” is speculative and not only unproven, but refuted by the existing commercial development along the Krome Avenue corridor. The existing isolated uses along Krome Avenue, some of which are the same or similar uses that would be allowed by the Plan Amendment, are long-standing and have not led to urban development or infill in the area. Mr. David also testified that there are “very stringent policies” that restrict further development from occurring along Krome Avenue in this area, including Policies LU-3N and LU-3O. Fourth, Mr. David explained that the Plan Amendment will not degrade historical or archaeological resources, features, or systems of County significance, which is further confirmed by County staff’s own analysis. Regarding impacts to environmental resources, before any development proceeds on the Subject Property, the applicant must apply to all relevant state, regional, and local agencies for the applicable and necessary permits and variances, and if the applicant is unable to obtain such approvals due to environmental concerns, the project will not be permitted to proceed. In other words, while there is no evidence of adverse environmental impacts at the plan amendment stage, the applicant will have to satisfy all environmental requirements in subsequent stages of the development process to proceed with the project. Lastly, Mr. David explained that the Plan Amendment site is not located in an Urban Center or within 1/4 mile of an existing or planned transit station, exclusive busway stop, transit center, or standard or express bus stop served by peak period headways of 20 or fewer minutes; thus, the fifth and final consideration of Policy LU-8E is inapplicable to the Plan Amendment. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8G, which provides criteria for plan amendments that add land to the UDB. Because the Plan Amendment does not add land to the UDB, Policy LU-8G is irrelevant to the Plan Amendment. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy CHD-4A, which states: “Promote increased production and expand the availability of agricultural goods and other food products produced in Miami- Dade County.” Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was not inconsistent with Policy CHD-4A because the proposed store would support the local sale and consumption of goods from the community. Similarly, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy CHD-4A. He explained that there is no metric associated with this aspirational policy, and noted that the approval of the Plan Amendment pertains only to a small portion of a larger agricultural site, the balance of which will continue to be protected and promoted for agricultural use. Moreover, he explained that the uses allowed by the Plan Amendment through the Declaration of Restrictions are limited to those permitted in the AU Zoning District, plus a fueling and convenience retail service use, which could support the sale and consumption of local agricultural goods. Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy CON-6D, which states: “Areas in Miami-Dade County having soils with good potential for agricultural use without additional drainage of wetlands shall be protected from premature urban encroachment.” Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the policy because it affects only a five-acre tract, and because the Plan Amendment was justified by the existing demand. Further, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy CON-6D. He noted, first, that according to the County, the Plan Amendment site does not contain jurisdictional wetlands. Second, he explained the Plan Amendment will not result in premature urban encroachment–i.e., a poorly planned expansion of low-density development spread out over large amounts of land, putting long distances between homes, stores, and work, and requiring an inefficient extension of urban infrastructure and services. According to Mr. David, the adopted Plan Amendment is the opposite of these characteristics because: a) it pertains to a very small site, with a range of permitted uses that is specifically limited by the accepted Declaration of Restrictions; b) it will reduce the distance between residents’ homes and local-serving convenience services; and c) it does not involve the extension of urban infrastructure and services. In addition, Mr. David opined that the term “premature” does not apply to the Plan Amendment, as evidenced by the public support of area residents for the gas and convenience uses and the applicant’s expert analysis of area need. Furthermore, Mr. David established that a gas station with a convenience store is not an “urban” use, and, therefore, the Plan Amendment does not allow “urban encroachment.” Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy CON-6E, which states: “Miami-Dade County shall continue to pursue programs and mechanisms to support the local agriculture industry, and the preservation of land suitable for agriculture.” Petitioner offered no expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment was consistent with Policy CON-6E because it affected less than five net acres, only 10 percent of the Parent Tract, and would provide convenience goods for the community and local farmworkers. He further explained, again, that the policy does not prohibit small-scale plan amendments that respond to a local need. Further, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy CON-6E. He explained that the Plan Amendment does not prevent Miami-Dade County from continuing to pursue programs and mechanisms to support the local agriculture industry and the preservation of land suitable for agriculture. Moreover, the addition of the permitted uses on a small portion of an otherwise agricultural site, which will continue to be used for agricultural production, is not inconsistent with this policy. Urban Sprawl Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, contrary to section 163.3177(6)(a)9, Florida Statutes. Petitioner offered no evidence or expert testimony to support this contention. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment would not constitute scattered or discontinuous development because, inter alia, it would introduce uses designed to serve the existing nearby community. Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment would allow for non-vehicular trips due to the proximity of the rural neighborhoods and would internalize vehicular trips without requiring access to Krome Avenue, consistent with strategies to discourage urban sprawl. Finally, Mr. Metcalf opined that at least six of the eight criteria provided in section 163.3177(6)(a)9.B. were satisfied by the Plan Amendment. Specifically, he opined that: The Plan Amendment will not have an adverse impact on natural resources or ecosystems; The Plan Amendment promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services because the subject property will not be served by public infrastructure and is already served by emergency services, and because it will reduce demand on roads from nearby neighborhoods, thereby reducing operational and maintenance costs; The Plan Amendment promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities by providing convenience goods and services within walking or biking distance to nearby residential neighborhoods and local farm workers; The Plan Amendment promotes the conservation of water and energy by reducing water demands as compared to the former use of the Property, and by reducing existing trip lengths otherwise required to access goods and services; The Plan Amendment indirectly supports the preservation of agricultural areas and activities by providing diesel fuel, selling locally grown produce and other agriculturally supportive products, and by maintaining the agricultural use on the remainder of the Parent Tract; The Plan Amendment creates an improved balance of land uses by providing convenience goods and gasoline/diesel fuel in response to the demands of the neighborhood residents and local farm workers; The Plan Amendment remediates the existing, single use, urban sprawl development pattern by providing a commercial use in a compact urban form at an intensity to allow residents and local farm workers to obtain goods, gasoline, and diesel fuel without leaving the neighborhood; and The Plan Amendment does not impact the criterion for open space, natural lands and public open space. Similarly, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment would not result in the proliferation of urban sprawl; he analyzed each of the statutory indicators of urban sprawl in section 163.3177(6)(a)9.A. and found that none are present, meaning that the Plan Amendment does not fail to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. In addition, he found that four of the statutory indicators of the Plan Amendment that would discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, are present. He found that the remainder were not applicable. Specifically, Mr. David opined that the Plan Amendment would meet the following four indicators: Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems. As Mr. David explained, agriculture is a human development activity. Therefore, the Parent Tract is not in a natural state, nor does it contain natural resources and ecosystems. According to County staff’s own report, the Subject Property does not feature native wetland communities, specimen trees, endangered species, or natural forest communities. There are no jurisdictional wetlands, no water courses, and no federally designated critical habitat on the Subject Property or adjacent properties. The Subject Property is not in a wellfield. Other environmental considerations, including water and stormwater management, and flood protection, are directed through the pertinent permitting agencies at the appropriate time to ensure that any future development minimizes adverse impacts on the general environment. Promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. As Mr. David opined, the Plan Amendment does not involve or require the provision or extension of County-owned public infrastructure and services. This, therefore, meets the definition of the terms “efficient” and “cost- effective,” since the County will not have to invest time or funding in the extension of such infrastructure and services. The County staff’s own report finds, as a fact, that the amendment would not negatively impact existing infrastructure and service within the UDB. Moreover, the contention that fire and rescue services would not meet national industry standards is irrelevant because: (1) the Comprehensive Plan does not adopt the national industry standard as the LOS; and (2) the Plan Amendment would not negatively impact current estimated travel times for fire and rescue services. Further, as Mr. David testified with respect to the first set of urban sprawl indicators, the Plan Amendment would not disproportionately impact fire and rescue services. V. Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils. As Mr. David explained, the Plan Amendment preserves agricultural areas and activities because the balance of the Parent Tract will continue to be preserved as crop land, and because the uses allowed in the proffered Declaration of Restrictions include agricultural uses and a fueling station that could include the sale of diesel, which is in demand for agricultural uses. VII. Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area. As Mr. David opined, today the area does not have a balance of land uses, as it is entirely dominated by rural estate residential and agricultural uses. By introducing a gas and convenience use supportive of agriculture, the Plan Amendment will create a better balance of land uses in the area. Today, the local population does not have access to any type of convenience shopping in the vicinity of this location, because it is situated along an 11-mile gap between such uses on Krome Avenue. Contrary to the contention that the applicant failed to demonstrate the use is needed or required by residents, the applicant provided written evidence of support from over 100 neighbors about the need for the proposed nonresidential use and its benefit to their quality of life. Moreover, according to the public hearing record, many residents also attended the public hearings to express their support for the Plan Amendment. Further supporting the finding of need, the corporate representative of Krome testified in detail about the neighborhood’s need for a gas station and convenience store. Data and Analysis Finally, Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment “is not based upon the relevant and appropriate data and analysis provided by the County planning staff at the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, as required by section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes.” Petitioner also alleges that the Plan Amendment is based on “the convenience of access to fuel for private property owners in the area and not on relevant data and analysis.” Petitioner’s allegations, both in the Amended Petition and the Joint Pre- Hearing Stipulation, are conclusory and do not supply any discernible rationale for why she contends the Plan Amendment is not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Petitioner offered no evidence or expert testimony to support these contentions. By contrast, Mr. Metcalf opined that the Plan Amendment is based on “relevant and appropriate data and analysis” supporting the Plan Amendment contained in the record. Namely, the following sources constitute such “relevant and appropriate data and analysis”: Mr. Metcalf’s Comprehensive Plan Consistency Evaluation, which contains 78 pages of comprehensive data and analysis supportive of his consistency findings; a petition of support for the Plan Amendment signed by over 100 members of the surrounding community; testimony from community members at various public hearings indicating a need for the Plan Amendment; and a letter from the Dade County Farm Bureau stating that the organization had no objection to the Plan Amendment Further, Mr. David also opined that the Plan Amendment is based on, and supported by, appropriate data and analysis. He explained that the video recordings and the legislative history of the adoption hearings related to the disposition of the Plan Amendment application clearly show that the County Commission duly considered the analysis provided by County staff before making a decision. Commissioners asked staff members thoughtful questions and discussed various findings of the staff report throughout the public hearings. Mr. David explained that County staff’s input is not the only criterion upon which elected officials may rely. Indeed, relevant data and analysis were also submitted by the applicant as part of the Plan Amendment application, including the Comprehensive Plan Consistency Evaluation study prepared by Mr. Metcalf. The Consistency Evaluation study relies on professionally accepted data sources and Mr. Metcalf’s extensive expertise to provide a sound rationale for the requested Plan Amendment. The County Commission considered, and reacted in an appropriate way to, such relevant and appropriate data. The County Commission received and considered community input in the form of public testimony, much of which was in support of the Plan Amendment, as well as the applicant’s petition of support from members of the surrounding community expressing need for local gas and convenience uses. Finally, Mr. David’s expert report itself supplies further data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendment. Other Allegations Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment “depletes the Urban Development Boundary and Urban Expansion Areas.” The Comprehensive Plan includes the UDB to distinguish the area where urban development may occur from areas where it should not occur. The Comprehensive Plan defines the UEA as “the area where current projections indicate that further urban development beyond the 2020 UDB is likely to be warranted sometime between the year 2020 and 2030.” Petitioner fails to identify any inconsistency between the Plan Amendment and any UDB or UEA policies based on her assertion that depletion will occur. Moreover, there are no goals, objectives, or policies in the Comprehensive Plan that address the concept of “depleting” the UDB or UEAs. Petitioner also alleges that the County adopted the Plan Amendment “to benefit[] other private property owners and special interests.” Petitioner introduced no evidence to support this allegation, and the allegation is also irrelevant to whether the Plan Amendment is “in compliance.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendment adopted by Miami-Dade County Ordinance No. 20-47, on May 20, 2020, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary K. Waters Post Office Box 700045 Miami, Florida 33170 Christopher J. Wahl, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office Suite 2810 111 Northwest 1st Street Miami, Florida 33128 Alannah Shubrick, Esquire Shubin & Bass, P.A. Third Floor 46 Southwest 1st Street Miami, Florida 33130 Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2021. James Edwin Kirtley, Assistant County Attorney Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office Stephen P. Clark Center, Suite 2810 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 Mark E. Grafton, Esquire Shubin & Bass Third Floor 46 SW 1st Street Miami, Florida 33133 David Winker, Esquire David J. Winker, P.A. 2222 Southwest 17th Street Miami, Florida 33145 Dane Eagle, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
Findings Of Fact Background The Parties Respondent, City of Hialeah (City), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive plans and amendments thereto. Petitioners, Edmond J. Gong and Dana L. Clay (petitioners), reside in Coconut Grove, Florida and own at least two parcels of property within the City. The parties have stipulated that petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to challenge the remedial amendment in issue here. The Nature of the Dispute In 1991 and 1992, the City adopted three sets of land use amendments to its comprehensive plan known as amendments 91-1, 91-2 and 92-1. Each set of amendments generated objections by the DCA, and the matters were later sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings and were assigned Case Nos. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM and 92-7517GM, respectively. Petitioners did not participate in any of these proceedings. To resolve the objections raised by the DCA, the City and DCA negotiated a stipulated settlement agreement in December 1993, which was executed by the City on January 28, 1994. Pursuant to that agreement, on April 21, 1994, the City adopted a remedial amendment (Ordinance 94-27) known as amendment 94R-1. After reviewing the amendment, on June 2, 1994, the DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent to find such amendment in compliance. On June 7, 1994, the South Florida Regional Planning Council also found the amendment to be in compliance. Finally, on July 11, 1994, the DCA's motion to dismiss Case Nos. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM and 92-7517GM was granted. Petitioners, who participated in the local hearings concerning the adoption of amendment 94R-1, timely filed their petition for administrative hearing on June 23, 1994, challenging the propriety of that amendment for various reasons. The petition was assigned Case No. 94-3506GM. Although petitioners failed to plead any procedural issues in the initial petition, respondents have agreed that petitioners may raise certain procedural objections regarding amendment 94R-1 since the procedural issues were raised in their objections and comments filed with the City during the adoption process of the amendment. Procedurally, petitioners argue that the local government did not comply with all statutory requirements in noticing its proposed approval of the settlement stipulation and its later intent to adopt an ordinance. As to the DCA, petitioners argue that the state agency did not comply with the law in publishing its cumulative notice of intent on June 2, 1994, and that the notice contained erroneous rule citations and lacked a geographical map. Substantively, petitioners complain that before final approval of amendment 94R- 1 was given, the local government and DCA did not consider the enactment of Chapter 94-338, Laws of Florida, which created a multijurisdictional tourism, sports and entertainment special district known as the Blockbuster Park Special District, and they did not consider the traffic impacts of a recently opened connector to Interstate 75 and an interchange within the City that connects traffic from the connector to the Florida Turnpike. Finally, they contend that the amendment improperly redesignated more than ten acres of land from residential to commercial land use. Amendments 91-1, 91-2 and 92-1 involve ten amendments to the plan, all originally found not to be in compliance by the DCA. To cure three of those deficiencies, the City rescinded three ordinances leaving seven plan amendments to be remediated. Petitioners challenge the validity of these seven amendments but none change the use on their property. In reality, though, petitioners rely principally on their procedural objections in seeking to have a determination made that the amendment is not in compliance. Were the Notice Requirements Met? After the DCA and City reached an agreement in principle to resolve the DCA's objections to the plan amendments, a settlement agreement was prepared for execution by the City's mayor and DCA Secretary. Before the mayor could sign the agreement, however, the City Council's approval and authorization were required. Such approval and authorization to sign the agreement came in the form of a resolution adopted at a public hearing held on January 25, 1994. The agreement was later signed by the mayor and DCA Secretary on January 28 and March 3, 1994, respectively. The City had originally intended to consider the item at its January 11, 1994 meeting. Timely publication of notice was given for that meeting on December 27, 1993, in the regular edition of The Miami Herald, a newspaper of general paid circulation published daily in Dade County. At the January 11 meeting, however, the City discussed the matter but then deferred final action on the item until its next meeting on January 25, 1994. Accordingly, it republished a notice of its January 25 meeting in the Zone 4 Northwest Neighbors section of the Herald. The Zone 4 Northwest Neighbors section is an insert in the Herald each Thursday and Sunday and contains news pertaining to the northwest portion of Dade County, including the City. Because all copies of the Herald delivered and sold in northwest Dade County contain this particular Neighbors insert, the City complied with the requirement that the advertisement be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation within the jurisdiction of the City. Since petitioners reside and work outside of northwest Dade County, they say they did not receive the Neighbors insert in their paper and thus they were not aware of the January 25 hearing. There is no requirement, however, that the advertisement be published in other parts of Dade County. It is noted that even though they should have received notice of the January 11 hearing through the advertisement published in the regular edition of the Herald on December 27, 1993, they did not attend the hearing. The four-inch notice published on page 15 of the January 16, 1994 edition of the Neighbors section reads as follows: At its regular meeting of January 25, 1994, the Hialeah City Council will consider the following Resolution in addition to other business. Members of the public are invited to attend; the meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. at Hialeah City Hall, 501 Palm Avenue, Hialeah, Florida. RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIALEAH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER A STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CASE NOS. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM AND 92-7517GM, ENTITLED "DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS VS. CITY OF HIALEAH" NOW CONSOLIDATED BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPART- MENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. Applicable state law (s. 163.3184(16), F.S.) called for the notice to be published at least ten days prior to the hearing. In addition, general provision 3 of the settlement agreement provided in part as follows: This agreement has been approved by the governing body at a public hearing advertised in an adver- tisement published at least 10 but not more than 15 days prior to the hearing in the format prescribed for advertisements in Section 163.3184(15)(c) and Section 163.3187. Assuming the day of the hearing is not counted in computing the ten days, the City would have had to publish the notice by Saturday, January 15, 1994, in order to meet the ten-day requirement. Because the Neighbors section was not published on Saturdays, but rather only on Thursdays and Sundays, the City opted to publish the notice on Sunday, January 16, 1994, or just nine days before the hearing. This was necessary since the item was deferred at the January 11 hearing, and the City presumably was unable to meet the deadline for having an ad published only two days later in the Thursday, January 13, 1994 edition of Neighbors. Even so, petitioners were unable to show any prejudice by virtue of the City failing to meet the ten-day notice requirement. The settlement agreement called for the City to adopt certain remedial amendments by ordinance. These amendments are contained in Ordinance No. 94-27. Although state law (s. 163.3184(16)(d), F. S.) requires that the City hold only one advertised public hearing on a compliance amendment at the adoption stage, in accordance with the City Charter, two hearings were scheduled for that purpose on March 22 and April 12, 1994. A single one-quarter page advertisement in the regular edition of the Herald was published on March 17, 1994, or five days before the first hearing. The law (s. 163.3184(15)(b)2., F. S.) also requires that the hearing be "approximately 5 days after the day that the second (i. e., adoption stage) advertisement is published." The advertisement referred to both hearing dates and noted that their purpose was "to receive comments from interested parties on the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the City of Hialeah and the Florida Department of Community Affairs related to the 1990 and 1991 Cycles I and II plan amendments to Hialeah's Comprehensive Plan." The advertisement also contained a list of the ten plan amendments and a map showing the portion of the City affected by each of those amendments. Although petitioners contended that the map was illegible in some respects, they nonetheless read the notice in the newspaper and attended both hearings to voice their objections to the ordinance. Notwithstanding petitioners' objections, on April 12, 1994, the City adopted the ordinance. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the City complied with the notice requirements for both hearings. Assuming arguendo that the statutory notice requirements were not strictly met, petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were prejudiced by such an error. After reviewing the ordinance, on June 2, 1994, the DCA published in the Neighbors section of the Herald a cumulative notice of intent to find the plan amendments and remedial plan amendment in compliance. The advertisement was one-quarter page in size, identified the plan amendments in issue, advised readers that the amendments were in compliance, gave a location where such amendments and comments could be reviewed, and offered a point of entry to affected persons. Therefore, its content was sufficient to inform the public of the action being taken. The DCA concedes that in the notice, however, it cited rule 9J-11.012(8) as the provision dealing with the contents of a petition to challenge the amendments found to be in compliance when in fact the correct citation should have been rule 9J-11.012(7). There is no section (8) in the rule. The notice also cited former rule 22I-6.010 as the rule dealing with intervention when in fact that rule has been renumbered as rule 60Q-2.010. Even so, petitioners were unable to show how they were prejudiced by these minor errors, especially since they knew the nature of the action being proposed by the DCA, and they timely filed their petition for hearing to challenge the amendment. The DCA policy is to publish its notice of intent to find an amendment in compliance in the same local newspaper as the local government uses for its publication. The DCA also pointed out that by advertising in the Neighbors section as opposed to the regular edition of the Herald, it saved several thousand dollars. Therefore, the DCA used the Neighbors section of the Herald. At the same time, the DCA has never included in its advertisement a map showing the location of the land use changes being proposed. This is because the local government advertisements have already included a map, and the DCA notice is simply for the purpose of advising the public which ordinances are in or out of compliance. In the absence of any showing of prejudice, and in view of petitioners' failure to demonstrate to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment as a whole is incompatible with, does not further or take action in the direction of realizing, the goals of the law, the cited procedural errors are insufficient to support a finding that amendment 94R-1 is not in compliance. The plan amendment Since 1986, petitioners have owned two parcels of undeveloped property in the southern one-half and northwestern one-quarter of Tract 24 of Section 28, which is located in the western part of the City. The property consists of approximately six acres located at the northeastern intersection of West 76th Street and the Hialeah-Hialeah Gardens Boulevard. The property has been designated on the future land use map as low density (single-family) residential, which allows up to twelve units per acre. Petitioners have not specifically pled or shown how amendment 94R-1 adversely affects their property. Instead, they simply argue that the plan amendment is not in compliance because the City did not consider the impacts of "drastically changed circumstances" before adopting the remedial ordinance, and the City improperly reclassified a small tract of land. These claims will be considered below. Effective June 3, 1994, Chapter 94-338, Laws of Florida, became law. That law created a multijurisdictional tourism, sports and entertainment special district more commonly known as Blockbuster Park. That legislation, however, is not relevant to this proceeding for several reasons. First, there is no mechanism to consider multijurisdictional impacts in the local planning process. Second, the special act did not become law until after the amendment process here had been completed. Since the City was only required to consider the best available data present at the time the amendment was being reviewed and adopted, consideration of the special law was neither necessary or appropriate. Third, the act itself does not authorize a development. If and when a development order is approved, the City can update its plan to take into account any impacts from the project. As to the contention that the City and DCA failed to take into account the six-lane connector road completed on December 31, 1993, or two years after the plan amendments were adopted, the impact of the connector road is identified and discussed on pages 21 and 23C of the future land use element contained in the remedial amendments. At hearing, it was further explained that the connector road is a limited access regional road under the control of Dade County, and not the City. This means that there is no access to the connector from properties which front on the road, and local access will be limited to three major road intersections. No land use changes along the road have been proposed, and the City has adequately addressed the circulation map requirements in the plan and how the internal circulation routes would be compatible with the major connectors. This being so, it is found that the City and DCA gave adequate planning consideration to the connector. Finally, petitioners contended that certain land was improperly redesignated from single-family residential to multi-family and commercial use. They complain that this is inappropriate since the land is close to a school and does not lie near a major intersection. The evidence shows, however, that such redesignation was appropriate since the land is located at an intersection and lies just across the street from an existing five-acre commercial tract. Moreover, the multi-family part of the tract will serve as a buffer between the commercial use at the intersection and the existing single-family use to the south. Then, too, the proximity of a nearby school to the west will serve to reduce trip time for persons shopping in the area while dropping off or picking up children from the school. Finally, some types of commercial use in residential neighborhoods can serve valid planning purposes, and the City has already established a pattern of having some schools located near commercially designated property. The redesignation is found to be reasonable and based on appropriate planning considerations. Although no proof was submitted by petitioners regarding any other parts of the plan amendment, respondents demonstrated that all remaining parts are supported by adequate data and analysis and are in compliance. Accordingly, petitioners have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that remedial amendment 94R-1 is not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining the City of Hialeah comprehensive plan amendment to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3506GM Petitioners: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4-20. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5-8. 21-24. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 27-29. Covered in preliminary statement. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. 32-35. Rejected as irrelevant. 36-38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 39-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 42. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent DCA: 1-12. Covered in preliminary statement. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 13. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 16-19. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6-8. 20-22. Partially accepted in finding of 9. 23-25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 29-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 31-55. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-17. Respondent City: Because the City's proposed recommended order was not timely filed, the undersigned has considered the contents of the proposed order but has not made specific rulings on each proposed finding of fact. See Sunrise Community, Inc. v. DHRS, 14 F.A.L.R. 5162 (DHRS, 1992), affirmed 619 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edmond J. Gong Ms. Dana L. Clay 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 370 Miami, FL 33126 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 William M. Grodnick, Esquire 501 Palm Avenue, 4th Floor Hialeah, FL 33010 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
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.
The Issue The issue is whether the small scale development amendment adopted by Respondent, Santa Rosa County (County), by Ordinance No. 2005-R-70 on February 23, 2006, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The record in this case is extremely brief, thus accounting for the brevity of this Recommended Order. Petitioners, Larry Seal and Michelle Seal, reside at 7564 East Bay Boulevard, Navarre, Florida, an unincorporated community within the County. Although Boardwalk did not present any evidence at the hearing, for background purposes only, the parties' pleadings show that Boardwalk is a limited liability corporation which owns a 1.15-acre parcel in Navarre, Florida, and is seeking to have the land use designation on that property changed from Single-Family Residential to Commercial. The pleadings also show that the amendment was adopted by the County on February 23, 2006. Mr. Seal resides within the County. Also, he attended the County meeting on February 23, 2006, and offered comments in opposition to the amendment. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. Mrs. Seal did not attend the final hearing. However, Mrs. Seal's interests are represented by her husband. See Petitioners' Exhibit 1. Whether she owns property adjacent to Intervenor's parcel, as alleged in the Petition, and whether Mr. Seal made comments on her behalf at the County meeting, was not established through Mr. Seal's testimony. Without citing specific portions of the Plan, in their Petition, Petitioners alleged only that the small scale development amendment adopted by the County is internally inconsistent with the Plan.2 Despite this lack of specificity, no discovery was taken by the parties prior to the hearing. At the hearing, Mr. Seal, who is a lay person, asserted that the amendment was inconsistent with Housing Element Policies 51B4 and 51B5 and with undisclosed portions of the Future Land Use Element. (Copies of the Plan itself were not introduced into evidence.) However, it became evident that the two cited policies in the Housing Element relate to land development regulations and are therefore irrelevant.3 See, e.g., Brevard County v. Dept. of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case Nos. 00- 1956GM and 02-0391GM (DOAH Dec. 16, 2002; DCA Feb. 25, 2003) 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 20 at *7 (consistency with land development regulations is not a compliance criterion); Robbins et al. v. Dept. of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 97-0754GM (DOAH Oct. 30, 1997; DCA Dec. 9, 1997) 1997 Fla. ENV LEXIS 231 at *18 (land development regulations are not relevant to a plan or plan amendment compliance determination). Mr. Seal also asserted that the amendment contravened a resource extraction policy in the Conservation Element but later withdrew that assertion. That policy also appears to have no application to the map amendment. After the County's objection to testimony regarding land development regulations was sustained, Mr. Seal indicated that he did not intend to present any other evidence since the remainder of his prepared testimony related to that subject. Although he was given an opportunity to present further relevant evidence, he rested his case. The County and Boardwalk elected not to offer any evidence in response to Mr. Seal's testimony. Except for a Special Power of Attorney executed by Mr. Seal's wife, no documentary evidence, such as copies of relevant portions of the Plan, the existing and proposed FLUM, drawings or aerial photographs of the property and adjacent area, the application, or the Ordinance which adopted the amendment, was offered into evidence by any party.4 Because Boardwalk did not present any evidence, there is no basis upon which to determine whether it presented written or oral comments, recommendations, or objections to the County during the adoption of the amendment. (In its Motion to Intervene, Boardwalk did allege that such comments were made.) Therefore, there is no evidence to establish that Intervenor is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the small scale plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-R-070 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Jacksonville's small scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2003-1070-E on October 27, 2003, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Bartram is a limited liability corporation which owns an 8.5-acre tract of land at 5720 Atlantic Boulevard between Bartram Road and St. Paul Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida, or less than a mile east of the Hart Bridge (which crosses into downtown Jacksonville) and around one-quarter mile south of the Arlington River.4 The property is now vacant; from 1939 until 1990, however, a three-story, 125,000 square-foot hospital (with three separate "out buildings") for children operated on the site. The unused buildings remained on the site until they were demolished in 1998. On October 27, 2003, the City approved an application filed by Wal-Mart's counsel (originally on behalf of the property's former owner, the Christopher Forrest Skinner Trust, and then the new owner, Bartram) for a small scale plan amendment. This was formalized through the adoption of Ordinance No. 2003-1070-E, which changed the property's land use designation on the FLUM, a component of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in the Plan, from RPI to NC. Both land use categories are commercial classifications. If the amendment is found to be in compliance, Wal-Mart intends to construct a 40,000 square-foot free-standing grocery store with a 7,500 square-foot outparcel for other retail stores. The grocery store will be operated 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Wal-Mart has also agreed to file a second land use application to change approximately 3.0 acres of the site to Conservation (CSV), which means that portion of the property cannot be developed in the future. Ordinance No. 94-1011-568, enacted in 1994, requires that small scale plan amendments be reviewed with a companion rezoning application. This is to ensure that when examining an application for a small-scale amendment, the City’s determination of "in compliance" is predicated on both the Plan and its Land Development Regulations. Pursuant to that requirement, the City also approved a change in the zoning on the property from Commercial, Residential, Office (CRO) to Planned Unit Development (PUD). Under the PUD, the City has limited development of the site to a 40,000 square-foot grocery store and a 7,500 square-foot outparcel for limited retail uses; imposed a limitation on curb cuts; provided for setback restrictions, building orientation, and design standards; and preserved over 70 trees on the property as well as green space. These limitations and restrictions are more stringent than those set forth in the NC category. The City's rezoning decision (Ordinance No. 2003-1071-E) has been challenged in Circuit Court by one of Petitioners. (While the new zoning and site plan appear to be solidified, the City concedes that it has the authority at a later date to approve modifications to the site plan, or even change the zoning on the property to another category that is allowed under NC.) On November 18, 2003, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the plan amendment. In their unilateral Prehearing Stipulation,5 Petitioners contend that the amendment is not supported by adequate or professionally acceptable data and analysis, and it is inconsistent with the standards governing "the location and extent of commercial uses," "the current designation of Bartram Road as a local road," and "the protection of established residential neighborhoods." At hearing, counsel for Petitioners further stipulated that the allegations of internal inconsistencies regarding urban sprawl and roadway/traffic capacity (contained in the Petition) were being withdrawn. A request to add affordable housing as an issue was denied as being untimely. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners and Intervenors reside, own property, or own or operate a business within the City and offered comments, recommendations, or objections to the City prior to the adoption of the amendment. Accordingly, these stipulated facts establish that Petitioners and Intervenors are affected persons and have standing to participate in this action. Because the City's action involves a small scale (as opposed to a large scale) development plan amendment, the Department of Community Affairs did not formally review the plan amendment for compliance. See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. The Existing and Proposed Land Use on the Site The City's Plan, which was adopted in 1990, includes five types of commercially denominated land use categories, two of which are RPI and NC. The RPI category (in which category the Bartram property has been assigned since 1990) is a mixed- use category "primarily intended to accommodate office, limited commercial retail and service establishments, institutional and medium density residential uses." Among others, this category also authorizes large institutional uses, office-professional uses, veterinarians, filling stations, off street parking, nursing homes, residential treatment facilities, day care centers, and other institutional uses "when sited in compliance with [the FLUE] and other elements of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan." According to the Plan Category Description in the FLUE (pages 50-51, Respondent's Exhibit 13), "RPI developments are frequently appropriate transitional uses between residential and non-residential areas." While the existing RPI designation on the property allows Commercial Neighborhood zoning, which may include a grocery store like Wal-Mart proposes, because of some uncertainty over this, and its desire to have a PUD on the property, the City has required that Bartram seek a land use change to NC with PUD zoning, which serves to limit the range of allowable uses and imposes other development restrictions. The Plan Category Description in the FLUE (pages 51- 52, Respondent's Exhibit 13) provides that NC designated lands "serve the needs of contiguous neighborhoods"; they "will generally be located within a ten minute drive time of the service population"; they allow uses which "serve the daily needs of contiguous neighborhoods"; and they must not "penetrate into residential neighborhoods." They may include "convenience goods, personal services, veterinarians, filling stations and other low intensity retail and office-professional commercial uses developed in freestanding or shopping center configurations," and "[n]ormally, such centers will be anchored by a food or drug store and will contain four to ten other supporting retail and office uses." Finally, NC sites "should abut a roadway classified as a collector or higher facility on the [City's] adopted functional classification system map." The Property and Surrounding Area As noted above, the property has been vacant since 1990, when an existing hospital was closed; demolition of the buildings was completed some eight years later. On its northern boundary (which measures approximately 400 feet), the property abuts Atlantic Boulevard, an extremely busy, six-lane roadway classified on the City’s Highway Functional Classification Map (Map) as a principal arterial road. The eastern boundary of the property (which runs around 480 feet deep) abuts Bartram Road, a two-laned paved road with an 80-foot right-of way which runs south from Atlantic Boulevard for around one-half mile and then curves east where it meets University Boulevard (a north-south arterial road) a few hundred feet away. When the hearing was conducted in January 2004, or after the amendment was adopted, Bartram Road was still classified as a local road on the City's Map. Whether it is still classified as a local road at this time is not of record.6 On its western side, the property abuts St. Paul Avenue, a local road which dead ends just south of Bartram's property on Heston Road (another local road), while nine single-family lots are located adjacent to the southern boundary of the property (and on the northern side of Heston Road). The property is around one-quarter mile west of a highly developed major intersection at Atlantic and University Boulevards. The property (on both sides of the roadway) lying between the eastern side of Bartram's property and the major intersection is currently classified as Community/General Commercial (CGC), which authorizes a wide range of slightly more intense commercial uses than are authorized in NC. That land use category is "generally developed in nodal patterns and [is intended to] serve large areas of the City." Directly across Bartram Road to the east (and in the southeastern quadrant of Bartram Road and Atlantic Boulevard) is an older shopping center anchored by a 50,000 square-foot Publix grocery store. The shopping center also has a sandwich shop, florist, pizza parlor, and beauty salon, and sits on a tract of land approximately the same size as Bartram's property. That parcel has approximately the same depth as the Bartram property (480 feet), and the rear of the stores come as close as 35 feet to the single-family homes which lie directly behind the shopping center. Since 1887, the St. Paul Episcopal Church has occupied the 5-acre tract of property directly across St. Paul Avenue to the west. Besides the church itself, a library, office building, educational wing, parish fellowship hall, and a small house (all owned by the church) sit on the property. From the church property to the Little Pottsburg Creek, or around a quarter of a mile to the west, a large, single parcel of land fronts on the southern side of Atlantic Boulevard and is classified as RPI. While aerial photographs appear to show that the property west of the church is either undeveloped or largely undeveloped, under its present RPI classification it may be used for commercial, institutional, or medium density residential purposes at some time in the future. The distance from the intersection of Atlantic and University Boulevards to the Little Pottsburg Creek appears to be six-tenths of a mile or so. An apartment complex (the Villa Apartments) sits on the northeastern quadrant of Bartram Road and Atlantic Boulevard on a fairly narrow sliver of land classified as Medium Density which extends north-northwest some 1,200 feet or so to the Arlington River, a tributary of the St. Johns River. Immediately west of the apartment complex along the northern side of Atlantic Boulevard (and across the street beginning at the eastern part of Bartram's property and extending west) the land uses along the roadway include a relatively small CGC parcel containing a dry cleaning establishment and an upholstery shop; an approximate 350 to 400- foot strip of Low Density Residential (LDR) property (which faces more than half of the Bartram site) with two single-family homes located directly on Atlantic Boulevard, as well as two grandfathered non-conforming uses (a plumbing establishment and a coin shop); then an RPI parcel (which faces the western edge of Bartram's property and extends perhaps 150 feet along the road) with a small office development consisting of 8-10 offices; and finally more LDR parcels until the road crosses the Little Pottsburg Creek. Two local roads which dead end on Atlantic Boulevard and provide access into the residential areas north of Atlantic Boulevard are Oak Haven Street, which terminates directly across the street from the Bartram property, and Campbell Street, which terminates in front of the St. Paul Episcopal Church. Except for the limited commercial uses which front on the northern side of Atlantic Boulevard, and the apartment complex which lies in the northeastern quadrant of Atlantic Boulevard and Bartram Road, virtually all of the property directly across the street to the north and west of Bartram's property running 1,200-1,500 feet or so to the Arlington River is made up of an old, established residential neighborhood (known by some as the Oak Haven neighborhood) consisting of single-family homes, some of which (closest to the Arlington River) are on larger multi-acre tracts and have historical significance. Indeed, the oldest home in the City of Jacksonville, built around 1848, is located in this area. The area directly south of the property and to the west of Bartram Road is classified as Low Density Residential and contains single-family homes for perhaps one-half mile or so. As noted above, some of these homes back up to the rear of the Bartram property. The Amendment and Review by Staff Under the process for reviewing small scale amendments, the application is first reviewed by the City's Planning and Development Department for completeness and accuracy. After the staff reviews the data and performs an analysis of the data, the application is assigned an ordinance number. A staff report is then prepared, and the application is set for hearing before the City's Planning Commission (Commission), an advisory board which makes a recommendation on the application. The Commission's decision (which in this case was a recommendation to deny both applications) is then reviewed by the Land Use and Zoning Committee of the City Council, which consists of 7 members (and voted 5-1 in this case to approve the applications), and the matter is finally considered by the full 19-member City Council (which in this case approved the applications by a 13-2 vote, with 4 members abstaining or absent). After the application was filed, among other things, the City staff reviewed various maps, the FLUM, a zoning atlas, other relevant portions of the Plan, and data provided by other governmental agencies. It also made an inspection of the site and other potentially affected properties in the neighborhood. In preparing its report, the staff analyzed the roadway system, the neighborhood character, the site characteristics, the commercial node, compatibility with the Plan and existing uses, and compatibility with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan and State Comprehensive Plan. A more detailed account of the data relied upon by the staff and its analysis of that data is found in Respondent's Exhibit 19. Besides the staff report, there are underlying work papers (not attached to the report) used by the staff to support its findings (Respondent's Exhibit 33). As a part of its review and analyses, the City considered and applied the locational criteria found in the Operative Provisions of the FLUE, which describe the factors to be used in determining appropriate locations for primary use plan categories (such as NC) in plan amendment requests. Those factors include street classification, public facilities and services, land use compatibility, development and redevelopment potential, structural orientation and other site design factors, ownership patterns, and environmental impacts. The analysis included an evaluation by staff of the impact of development based upon the most intensive uses permitted on NC property. Besides the locational criteria, the FLUE contains a number of policies directed at combating the expansion of strip commercial uses that have historically developed along the City's arterial and collector roadways, including Atlantic Boulevard. These are found in FLUE Policies 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.2.7, 3.2.8, and 3.2.16. In reviewing the application, the staff considered these policies and concluded that the amendment would be consistent with those provisions. Objections by Petitioners As noted earlier, Petitioners generally contend that the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analyses. They further contend that the amendment is inconsistent with standards governing the location and extent of commercial uses, the current designation of Bartram Road as a local road, and the protection of established residential neighborhoods. While the various papers filed by Petitioners did not identify the specific provisions of the Plan allegedly being violated, they were disclosed through their expert at the final hearing. Petitioners first contend that the City's data and analyses were predicated on the uses and restrictions contained in the PUD rezoning proposal, and not on alternative development scenarios that are possible under the NC land use designation. They also contend that the City failed to develop data and analyses regarding the impact on FLUE Objective 3.1 or FLUE Policies 1.1.19 and 3.1.7. The latter FLUE policy and the cited objective pertain to affordable housing, an issue not timely raised by Petitioners, while the remaining policy requires that FLUM amendments be based on the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area. The evidence shows that, prior to the adoption of the amendment, the City reviewed appropriate data from a number of different sources, and it evaluated the plan amendment based upon the most intensive uses that could be permitted under the NC land use designation. In every instance where Petitioners' expert testified that there was insufficient data and analyses, the testimony and exhibits credibly countered that testimony. Therefore, it is found that the plan amendment is supported by adequate and acceptable data, and that the data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner. Petitioners' main contention regarding consistency is that the amendment conflicts with FLUE Policies 1.1.8, 3.2.1, and 3.2.5 in several respects. The first policy requires in relevant part: that all new non-residential projects [including commercial projects on NC lands] be developed in either nodal areas, in appropriate commercial infill areas, or as part of mixed or multi-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), . . . Policy 3.2.1 requires that the City promote, through the use of development incentives and other regulatory measures, development of commercial and light/service industrial uses in the form of nodes, centers or parks, while discouraging strip commercial development patterns, in order to limit the number of curb cuts and reduce conflicts in land uses, particularly along collectors and arterials. Finally, Policy 3.2.5 provides that the City shall require neighborhood commercial uses to be located in nodes at the intersections of collector and arterial roads. Prohibit the location of neighborhood commercial uses interior to residential neighborhoods in a manner that will encourage the use of local streets for non-residential traffic. Petitioners first contend that Bartram's property does not lie within a "node," as that term is defined in the Definitions portion of the FLUE, and that by siting the NC land outside of a nodal area, the amendment is encouraging strip development in contravention of all three policies. They also contend that the amendment conflicts with Policy 3.2.5 because the Bartram property is not located at the corner of an arterial or collector road. Finally, they assert that the amendment is at odds with Policy 1.1.8 because the Bartram parcel is not an "appropriate commercial infill location." In resolving these contentions, it is first necessary to determine whether Bartram Road is a collector or a local street. By virtue of its high traffic volume (an Average Daily Traffic count of more than 1,600), the road actually functions as a collector road, that is, it collects traffic from the local roadway network in the neighborhood, two elementary schools, and a church campus (all south of Atlantic Boulevard) and distributes that traffic to both Atlantic and University Boulevards on each end, both of which intersections are signalized. Indeed, one of Petitioners' witnesses described Bartram Road as a heavily-used, cut-through street for persons traveling between Atlantic and University Boulevards. When the amendment was adopted, however, and even as late as the final hearing in January 2004, the road was still classified on the City's Map as a local road. For purposes of making a land use change, the actual classification on the City's Map should be used, rather than basing the decision on a future change on the Map that may or may not occur. Therefore, the property does not lie at the intersection of a collector or arterial roadway. A "node" is defined in the Definitions portion of the FLUE (page 74, Respondent's Exhibit 13) as follows: A focal point within the context of a larger, contiguous area surrounding it. It is an area of concentrated activity that attracts people from outside its boundaries for purposes of interaction within that area. The developed or developable land areas at the confluence of collector or higher classified roadways, which are suitable for medium to high densities and intensities of use for either single, multiple or mixed use developments. Petitioners contend that a fair reading of the definition is that a node (or focal point of concentrated activity) exists only at the intersection of University and Atlantic Boulevards, and does not extend outward to include the vacant Bartram site. In other words, Petitioners contend that the node is limited to the individual parcels at the intersection itself. On the other hand, the City and Intervenors take the position that a commercial node extends from its center (the intersection) outward in a lineal direction along a roadway until it ends at a natural physical boundary; if no physical boundary exists, then the node extends only to the end of the existing development along the roadway. Using this rule of thumb, they argue that the node begins at the intersection of Atlantic and University Boulevards and extends westward, presumably on both sides of the road,7 in a lineal direction along Atlantic Boulevard until it ends at a natural physical boundary, the Little Pottsburg Creek, approximately six-tenths of a mile away. The purpose of a node is, of course, to concentrate commercial uses near an intersection and reduce the potential for strip development along arterial roads, such as Atlantic Boulevard (which now has strip development extending eastward from the intersection for more than a mile to the Regency Square Shopping Mall). All parties agree that the existing development along Atlantic Boulevard west of the intersection up to the Bartram site is strip or ribbon development, as defined in the Plan, that is, development which "is generally characterized by one or two story commercial/office uses that are located immediately adjacent to one another, or in close proximity, extending out in a development pattern, typically along arterial roadways and usually each individual structure has one or more driveway accesses to an arterial." (Respondent's Exhibit 13, page 76.) The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the node, that is, the area of concentrated commercial activity or the developed or developable lands at the confluence of University and Atlantic Boulevards, logically extends from the intersection westward in a lineal fashion along the southern side of Atlantic Boulevard until the end of the existing development, that is, the Publix shopping center, where virtually all commercial uses on both sides of the roadway end. (On the northern side of the road, the node would terminate just east of the Villa Apartments, where the CGC uses end). This collection of parcels (up to the eastern side of the Bartram site) includes all of the "developed or developable land areas at the confluence of collector or higher classified roadways, which are suitable for medium to high densities and intensities of use for either single, multiple, or mixed use developments." (If the contrary evidence was accepted, that is, the node extends to the Little Pottsburg Creek, the City could arguably change the land use on the property west of the church to a more intensive commercial use, and in doing so encourage more strip development.) Therefore, the Bartram property is not located within a nodal area and is not a developable land area suitable for "medium to high densities and intensities" of use. By changing its classification to NC and encouraging further strip development beyond the node, the amendment conflicts with Policies 1.1.8, 3.2.1, and 3.2.5. "Commercial infill" is defined in the FLUE as "[c]ommercial development of the same type and scale as adjacent commercial uses that is sited between those uses in existing strip commercial areas." (Respondent's Exhibit 13, page 68.) To qualify as commercial infill under this definition, the adjacent commercial uses must be "of the same type and scale" as those being sited on the vacant property. In the staff report, the City describes the property as "a true infill site," since the land on both sides of the parcel is developed, and the Bartram property is now vacant. However, while the Bartram property has a similar type and scale of development on its eastern side (an older Publix grocery store with 4 connected small retail shops), the property on its western side is a church campus and therefore a completely dissimilar use. (In addition, the property on its southern side is single-family residential). Because the surrounding uses are not of the same type and scale as the proposed infill, the change in land use is not an appropriate commercial infill area. Therefore, the amendment conflicts with Policy 1.1.8, which requires that "all non-residential projects be developed in either nodal areas, [or] in appropriate commercial infill areas." In their Amended Proposed Recommended Order, the City and Intervenors contend that the development nonetheless qualifies as "urban infill," which is defined in part at pages 77-78 of the FLUE as "[t]he development of vacant parcels in otherwise built-up areas where public facilities . . . are already in place." While this catch-all definition would appear to authorize the type of infill being proposed by Bartram (as well as virtually any other type of infill since the Bartram site is a vacant parcel in an otherwise built-up area), other FLUE provisions refer to commercial infill and nodal areas as the primary considerations for siting NC property. Finally, the City and Intervenors suggest that the plan amendment provides an appropriate transition from the busy intersection uses to residential neighborhoods, that is, from intense commercial uses to the east and residential uses to the south and west. The change, if approved, will result in two fairly large grocery stores, one in a shopping center configuration, and both with attendant retail stores, sitting side by side, with a church campus immediately to the west, existing residential uses to the south, and primarily residential uses directly to the north. This pattern of development is at odds with Policy 1.1.7, which requires a "[g]radual transition of densities and intensities between land uses in conformance with the [FLUE]." The other contentions of Petitioners have been considered and found to be unpersuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the small scale development amendment adopted by the City of Jacksonville in Ordinance No. 2003-1070-E is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2004.
The Issue Whether the Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment No. 04-2 (Plan Amendment) to the City of Cocoa's (City) Comprehensive Plan (Plan), adopted by Ordinance No. 39- 2004, is "in compliance" as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing The Hunters own and reside on property located on Friday Road in the unincorporated area of the County. Their property abuts on two sides of the northeastern portion of the subject property. FSNE 47 at "H." The Kellgrens own and reside on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Friday and James Road in the unincorporated area of the County, abutting the southeast corner of the south Plan Amendment parcel. FSNE 47 at "KR." The Kellgrens also own and operate two businesses on Cox Road located on property they own which is located within the boundaries of the City. FSNE 47 at "KB." The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City is a municipality located within the County. The DCA is the state land planning agency charged with responsibility for reviewing comprehensive plans and plan amendments under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. FSN and Hagen-Nicholson are Florida limited liability companies and are the owners of the subject property voluntarily annexed by the City pursuant to Ordinance No. 31-2004 and is subject to the Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 39-2004. All Petitioners submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections to the City during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendment on August 24, 2004, and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendment on December 14, 2004. At the final hearing, the parties stipulated that the Petitioners are "affected persons" within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, with standing to participate as parties in this administrative proceeding.3 See Endnote 17. The Challenges Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is not "in compliance" on several grounds: lack of need, urban sprawl, inadequate data and analysis relative to traffic and land use need, violation of the intergovernmental coordination element of the City's Plan, incompatibility, internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with the Regional and State Plans, and failure to provide for adequate public participation during the transmittal hearing. The Plan Amendment Ordinance No. 39-2004 makes two changes to the Plan. First, the text of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Plan was amended to establish a new future land use category called "very low density residential areas." 4 Second, the FLUM was amended to change the designated future land use from "Residential 1 and Neighborhood Commercial (County)" to "Very- Low Density Residential (City)." FSNE 52 at Section 5. The Plan Amendment covers approximately 605.16 acres, although the City annexed approximately 766.27 acres, which included "both real property and rights-of-way." Id. at page 1 of 4; PE 8.f. at page 3 of 18. See also DCAE 2. The Subject Property The subject property consists of a rectangular parcel adjacent to and north of State Road (SR) 528, bounded by Interstate 95 (I-95) on the west; a triangular parcel adjacent to and southeast of the north rectangular parcel and similarly bounded on the south by SR 528; and a second rectangular parcel, due south of the north parcel and adjacent to and south of SR 528 and bounded by I-95 on the west and James Road on the south and a portion of Friday Road on the east. PE 17. There is no direct access from the subject property to I-95 and SR 528. The future land uses north of the subject property include Residential 1:2.5 (County); Residential 1 (County) to the south; Residential 1:2.5 (County) to the east of the north parcel; Residential 1 (County) to the east of south parcel; and Planned Industrial Park (County) and Industrial (City) further to the east; and Residential 1:2.5 (County) to the west of I-95. PE 80. The existing land uses to the north and south are single-family residential and vacant land; to the east, vacant land, heavy and light industrial uses; and to the west, I-95, single-family residential, and vacant land. Prior to being annexed by the City in August 2004, the subject property was located in the unincorporated portion of the County. The two rectangular portions (approximately 560.95 acres) were designated as "Residential 1" on the County FLUM, allowing one unit per acre. The approximate eastern half of the triangular portion (44.21 of acres) was designated as "Neighborhood Commercial." PE 80. There is an existing borrow pit (approximately 19-20 acres) located on the eastern one-third of the triangular portion. PE 17. Approximately 145.35 acres of wetlands, now designated Conservation, permeate the subject property. PE 8.F., page 4 of 18 and Exhibits 3 and 4; FSNE 52. There are approximately 459.81 acres (605.16 total acres - 145.35 acres of wetlands) of developable upland on the subject property. See DCAE 2. The Plan Amendment proposes a maximum development potential of approximately 1,839 dwelling units (459.81 acres X 4 dwelling units).5 There is a conflict in the evidence regarding the potential maximum development of the subject property under the County Plan. The City suggested approximately 2,358 dwelling units. See PE 8.f. at pages 4-6 of 18. The City's analysis yielded a maximum of 701 dwelling units for the portion of the subject property designated as Residential 1 and 1,657 dwelling units (including application of the density bonus) for that portion of the subject property designated "Neighborhood Commercial." The City assumed there could be 37.5 units per acre (which included a density bonus) developed on the 44.21 acre tract designated "Neighborhood Commercial." Id. Petitioners suggested a maximum of approximately 817 dwelling units could have been built on the subject property if the subject property were developed with the "density bonus" under the County's Plan. See Petitioners' Joint Proposed Recommended Order at 21, paragraph 25 and n.5. There is also a conflict in the evidence regarding the potential development of commercial uses (under the County's Plan) on the portion of the triangular parcel designated as "Neighborhood Commercial." Id. Based upon conflicting evidence, it is resolved that the maximum potential number of dwelling units which could have been developed on the subject property under the County's Plan is overstated. However, this finding does not alter the ultimate findings made herein regarding whether the Plan Amendment is "in compliance." Need The "need" question is founded in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires that "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth [and] the projected population of the area . . ." This requirement is repeated in the statute's implementing rule which provides that "[t]he comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(2)(e). Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c) requires "[a]n analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, including: [t]he categories of land use and their densities or intensities of use; [t]he estimated gross acreage needed by category; and [a] description of the methodology used." Also, "need" is one of the factors to be considered in any urban sprawl analysis. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. On December 14, 2004, the City adopted the Plan Amendment and responded to the objections raised in the DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report.6 During the plan amendment review process, the proposed residential land use density for the subject property was reduced from up to seven dwelling units per acre as originally proposed to "four units per acre with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) bonus of up to five units per acre," and, ultimately as adopted by the City Council, to "[a] maximum density of 4 units per acre." FSNE 52, Exhibit A; T II 631-632. The City has two needs -- a need for vacant developable land, and a need for middle-income housing. The City differs from many other municipalities in the County because the City's population declined almost 7.4 percent from the period of 1990 to 2000.7 Every city in the County, with the exception of the City of Cocoa and one other city, has experienced population growth. The City's Director of Community Development testified that the City had become hyper-inelastic -- it had stopped growing, and started shrinking. In response to this problem, the City adopted goals in 2002 which included annexation, housing, and residential development. Because of the goals that had been adopted and implemented, from 2002 to the time of the administrative hearing, the City's population rose approximately 7.25 percent. With the Plan Amendment, the City could capture increasing populations in the surrounding areas. In the summer of 2003, the City held a housing task force with private developers. The private developers explained that they were not developing in the City because even though there was vacant land, there were environmental constraints on the land. The vacant land consisted of large amounts of wetlands, with some of the wetlands located in flood plains. In the comprehensive plan adoption package sent to the DCA, the City included a map indicating the vacant land and a map indicating the extensive wetlands located on the vacant land. (The vacant land analysis identified the amount of land potentially available for development, without stating the specific number of available acres. Based upon the testimony at final hearing, excluding the subject property, there are approximately 223-230 acres of developable land within the City limits.) Furthermore, the City provided the DCA with population figures based on BEBR. Rule 9J-5 does not provide a specific requirement as to how a local government must demonstrate how much vacant land is located within its boundaries. Rather, Rule 9J-5 permits a local government to demonstrate how much vacant land is located within it boundaries in several ways, i.e., textually, raw data, or graphically. The DCA used the maps submitted by the City as well as the information submitted that the City's population was declining to make a determination that the City had demonstrated a need for the property. A needs analysis typically consists of an examination of the projected population over the planning time period, the land uses that exist within the local government, the amounts of the land uses, and then a determination of whether the local government has enough land to meet the projected population. However, a quantitative analysis is not the only way to perform a needs analysis. A city's plan for its future and the way it wants to grow is also considered. The City's use of population figures based on BEBR estimates and a map which demonstrated the vacant land was professionally acceptable. In other words, by using BEBR estimates and a map, the City did not use a "methodology" without approval by the DCA. If a plan amendment area had been surrounded by vacant land, then the issue of need is more prevalent. Hagen-Nicholson's planning expert performed a needs analysis. The calculation of the need is done with supply and demand. Supply is land, and demand is population growth. At the time the City began the plan amendment process, the City had approximately 223-230 acres of low-density residential land available. For demand, he determined that over the past three years, there were 113 building permits issued for new homes. The mathematical computation provides for the vacant land to be fully utilized within 5.9 years at an allocation of 1:1. Using the 1:1 ratio is not necessarily a practical ratio because there may be property that is not on the market for sale. When applying a vacant-land multiplier that is used in Orange County -- 2.4, the City would only have a three-year supply of vacant land. When dealing with a comprehensive plan, there should be a 10- to 20-year supply of land. The City's housing element provides that the City is required to provide housing for all current residents as well as anticipated future residents. As of 2002, 94 percent of its housing stock was valued at $100,000 or less, and 47 percent was valued at $50,000 or less. Accordingly, the City does not have adequate available middle-income housing and the Plan Amendment may meet this need. Urban Sprawl The Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment constitutes urban sprawl. This contention is primarily based upon the assertion that the Plan Amendment is located in a rural area, and the assertion that the Plan Amendment triggers several of the 13 indicators of urban sprawl in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(111) defines "rural areas" as "low density areas characterized by social, economic and institutional activities which may be largely based on agricultural uses or the extraction of natural resources in unprocessed form, or areas containing large proportions of undeveloped, unimproved, or low density property." As noted herein, the subject property is vacant and, prior to the adoption of the Plan Amendment, was designated as "Residential 1" (and a portion as "Neighborhood Commercial") under the County's Plan. It is surrounded by developed residential lands and infrastructure such as water, sewer, and roads. The surrounding areas are not undeveloped or unimproved. The area is a low density, but it is an urban low density, not a rural low density. FSN's expert planner, Gerald Langston, performed a study of the surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the Plan Amendment site (study area), including the unincorporated area of the County. Although the lands immediately to the north and south of the parcels are designated one unit per 2.5 acres and one unit per one acre, respectively, under the County's Plan, approximately 49 percent of the parcels in the study area are between one and 1.25 acres in size and approximately 30 percent are a little less than an acre. Three percent are over five acres. In other words, approximately 80 percent of the parcels are less than 1.25 acres in size. T III 819-820. Mr. Langston also studied census data and determined that the demographics of the area are not rural. It is a very rapidly growing area, with an urban development pattern that is basically built-out. (Within the study area, after deducting the 605 acres of the subject property, approximately 21 percent of the acreage is vacant or undeveloped. Stated otherwise, approximately 80 percent is developed. T III 827.) One of the County's experts, Edward Williams, did a general analysis of the lot sizes in the area. He testified that the area is rural with lot sizes of one unit per 2.5 acres. He reviewed photographs of the area and pointed out the lack of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and lack of quarter-acre lots. However, he did not obtain any census data specific to the Plan Amendment property or to the surrounding area, and could not describe the percent distribution of lot sizes in the surrounding area. He believed that the area is agricultural and rural, but did not analyze the social and economic characteristics of the area surrounding the subject property.8 According to the County's Plan, the subject property is located in an area where the County is planning to provide future water and sewer. Additionally, a map in the County's Plan suggests that the area is actually not suitable for well and septic tanks. The subject property is within the City's water and sewer area and the City has adequate water and sewer capacity to service the subject property. The area surrounding the subject property is not rural under Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(111), but rather consists of urban low-density residential development. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. Indicator 1 is not implicated. The subject property is surrounded by developed residential land and is not a substantial area of the City. The subject property will have a single use, but the introduction of another land use or mixed- use development would be incompatible with the surrounding area and not appropriate. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. Indicator 2 is not implicated, as the area is urban, and the Plan Amendment is not leaping over undeveloped lands. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)3. Indicator 3 is not present. The subject property is an area of vacant land surrounded by developed lands. The subject property is infill development. The Plan Amendment does not promote, allow or designate urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns emanating from existing urban developments. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)4. Indicator 4 is not present. The subject property is not a rural area with agricultural uses, and the wetlands on site are designated as Conservation and thus are protected. The Plan Amendment is not premature or poorly planned, as the surrounding area is already developed and the property is infill. The subject property is surrounded by infrastructure including water and sewer, and roads. The City has the capacity to provide water and sewer to the site. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)6. Indicator 6 is not present, as water, sanitary sewer, and reclaimed water lines have already been extended to the area. The Plan Amendment will add customers to facilities that have the capacity to handle them. By increasing the number of users in the system, the operational efficiency is increased. Therefore, the Plan Amendment maximizes the use of existing public facilities and services. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)7. The Plan Amendment does not fail to maximize the use of future public facilities and services. The facilities that exist in the area were built for future growth, and not connecting to them would be a failure to maximize the public investment that has already been made. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)8. Extending existing facilities and services to the property covered by the Plan Amendment will increase costs, but not disproportionately so. Water and sewer are close to the subject area, and the roads have capacity. Extending water and sewer at one unit per acre would be more costly and less efficient than for four units per acre. With respect to law enforcement, fire and emergency response services, this indicator is present to some extent. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)9. Indicator 9 does not apply, as there are no rural or agricultural uses in the area. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)10. The City has adopted a community redevelopment plan in the downtown neighborhood. The City can promote middle income housing with the Plan Amendment while at the same time pursue redevelopment in the downtown area. The two are not mutually exclusive. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)11. The Plan Amendment provides for a single residential use and does not encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. However, putting commercial or industrial uses on the subject property does not make good planning sense as the area is not appropriate for a mix of uses. In summary, the Plan Amendment does not meet the definition of "urban sprawl." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.003(134). The Plan Amendment is not in a rural area; it is surrounded by residential development. Public facilities are very close, and the Plan Amendment is within the City's service area. The Plan Amendment does not "leapfrog" since there are no large tracts of undeveloped land between the City and the Plan Amendment property. It is not scattered development; it is infill. While it is true that it is a low density use and a single use, the area is not appropriate for mixed-use, retail, commercial or an extremely high residential density. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5 requires a consideration of the context in which the plan amendment is being proposed. Land use types within the jurisdiction and in proximate areas outside the jurisdiction will be evaluated. Local conditions, including the existing pattern of development and extra-jurisdictional and regional growth characteristics, should be considered as well. The consideration of the parcels surrounding the Plan Amendment was important. The City considered the fact that other cities and the County as a whole are experiencing population growth. In considering how the City has grown in the past and its development pattern, how the area around the City has grown and its development pattern and population projections, the Plan Amendment is not urban sprawl. Transportation Facilities The City submitted data and analysis relative to traffic impacts in a study prepared by Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. (TPD). PE 83. The TPD traffic study was accomplished in accordance with the County's concurrency management procedures and based on adopted Levels of Service (LOS). After the City's re-submittal to the DCA, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) had no comments or concerns about transportation impacts. DCAE 2, FDOT analysis. Although the Plan Amendment would allow for more traffic to be generated, increased traffic does not necessarily render a plan amendment not in compliance. A broad brush approach is taken at the comprehensive planning stage. A compliance determination does not consider details such as the design of the roads, or whether roads have guardrails. The issue is whether there is enough capacity to maintain the adopted LOS. Adequate Capacity There is adequate capacity on the surrounding roads to accommodate the trips generated by the Plan Amendment. The TPD traffic study forecasted traffic demands and the impact on available capacity along roadways affected by the subject property and concluded that "all road segments will operate within their adopted LOS with excess traffic capacity available for future development" and "there will be adequate capacity to accommodate the trip generation" contemplated by the Plan Amendment. PE 83. The projected traffic generated by the subject property between now and the year 2010 will not cause any of the roadways to exceed capacity. Based on the TPD traffic study, the County agreed that the anticipated trips generated would not exceed the adopted LOS and that there is available capacity on the road segments affected by the project. Although Petitioners raised multiple traffic issues in their respective amended petitions, Petitioners mainly presented testimony that anticipated development of the subject property will cause increased traffic on County roads which will lead to increased safety concerns. Safety Concerns on James Road The County presented evidence regarding existing and potential safety concerns on several road segments including James Road, which may result from anticipated development of the subject property. The County's main safety concern (with development of the south parcel) is the segment of James Road between Friday Road and Cox Road because of a steep canal that runs along mainly the north side of James Road for approximately one mile. The County's safety concerns relating to James Road only apply to the southern property; thus any increase in traffic on the northern property, including the triangular portion, does not impact safety on James Road. The safety problems relating to James Road exist currently and existed in 2004. Mr. Denninghoff testified that the anticipated increased traffic as a result of the Plan Amendment will expose additional traffic to the existing hazardous conditions on James Road beyond what was planned. The safety concerns with James Road could be resolved by installation of a guardrail, improved and additional street lights, and rumble strips on the road before the stop signs. The County has not added guardrails to James Road. These safety improvements are needed now. Maintenance Costs for County Roads Besides safety, another issue raised by the County during the hearing regarding transportation issues was the anticipated increase in wear and tear on the County roads resulting in increased costs to the County. Residents of the subject property will pay impact fees, which may be utilized for improvements to capacity, operational improvements at intersections, including the safety improvements mentioned above, for new facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, but not maintenance. The impact fee is paid directly to the County. By ordinance, the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners approves the expenditures of the impact fees collected. The County will receive approximately $2.6 million in impact fees from the development of the subject property. The impact fees collected by the County could be utilized to fund safety measures because they are related to capacity improvements. No development was approved by the Plan Amendment. Pursuant to the City's Code and Plan, traffic impacts of a development are reviewed in more detail after the plan amendment process, specifically, during the development process. Petitioners' concerns are premature. Development orders are the result of the subdivision and site plan approval process. Prior to the approval of the final PUD, or the issuance of building permits, the City will examine whether the necessary public facilities are operating within the adopted levels of service. When the developer applies for permits to develop the subject property, the City will review issues concerning traffic. The developer will submit an updated traffic study, which will be reviewed by the City and the County. The County is responsible for issuing driveway permits. Transportation Element Objective 2.3 of the City's Plan provides that "[d]evelopment shall bear the full burden of the cost of roadway improvements necessitated by impacts to the roadway network caused by traffic generated by said development through the adopted site approval process." The City's Plan also provides that new development will not be permitted unless mitigative measures are undertaken to address level of service impacts caused by development. Intergovernmental Coordination The City's Plan contains an Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE). The Plan Amendment does not make any changes to that element. Petitioners presented documentary evidence through Mr. Williams' report alleging that the City violated the ICE in its Plan. However, the evidence shows that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with any intergovernmental coordination requirements in the City's Plan. Intergovernmental coordination does not mean that one local government must acquiesce to a request from an adjacent local government. Intergovernmental coordination requires information sharing, and there are numerous objectives and policies in the City's Plan addressing the City's responsibility to coordinate with the County regarding development impacts at the appropriate time. Most of the policies and requirements for intergovernmental coordination in the City's Plan are driven by the subdivision site plan approval process. The City coordinated with the County, as the City provided a copy of its annexation report to the County in July of 2004. The City manager invited the County manager to discuss the report with City staff, but the County did not respond. The City also used the County's concurrency management procedures in analyzing traffic, and reduced the density from seven to four units per acre based in part upon the County's comments during the review process. Compatibility With Surrounding Areas Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(23) provides: "[c]ompatibility means a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." The residential development contemplated by the Plan Amendment is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The subject property is surrounded by urban residential development and existing public infrastructure. The City studied the area surrounding the Plan Amendment, and determined that it was developed in an urban and suburban manner. To be compatible with the surrounding areas, the City developed the VLDR category allowing four units to the acre on the subject property. The County's future land use for the property to the north of the Plan Amendment is designated residential to be developed at one dwelling per 2.5 acres. However, Hagen- Nicholson's expert testified that it has been developed more intensely, with some lots developed at less than an acre. The County's future land use to the south of the Plan Amendment is one unit an acre. The area to the south, however, is less intensely developed -- it is developed at 1.5 units to the acre. The County allowed areas of three units to the acre and five units to the acre to be developed in the middle of the area to the south of the Plan Amendment. Hagen-Nicholson's planning expert testified that the County's planning of the area to the south of the Plan Amendment is the cause of urban sprawl. The Plan Amendment allows a hole in the donut to be filled in so that in the future, there is not pressure to develop homes in a leapfrog fashion two to three miles away. In this case, residential next to residential is compatible. The Plan Amendment is compatible with adjacent development. Internal Consistency Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is not internally consistent with several provisions of the adopted City Plan. Specifically, the report of Petitioners' planning expert alleges that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with the City's Policies and/or Objectives 1.1.1.2, 1.1.1.8, 1.1.2.3, 1.1.2.5, 1.1.3, 2.1.1, 2.3, 2.3.1.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.5, 2.6.2, 2.6.4, 4.2.4.4, 4.2.5.2, 4.2.6.3, 4.3.4.1, 9.4.4, 9.8, 9.8.1, and 9.8.2. The City's Director of Community Development testified that the Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the City's Plan and that Petitioners' expert was applying the site plan approval process to the Plan Amendment. The majority of the policies or objectives cited in the report of Petitioners' expert pertain to later stages of the development process, not the plan amendment process. For instance, Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with Policy 4.2.6.3 because there is no mention in the development agreement concerning who is responsible for the costs of providing the extension of lines, alteration of lift station and the cost of plant capacity for providing wastewater service. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 4.2.6.3 because the developer's agreement for the subject property provides that the developer is required to comply with all city, local, county, state, and federal requirements. Additionally, allegations concerning Policies 1.1.2.5, 1.1.2.6, 2.4.1, and 2.4.5 are premature because they pertain to setback requirements and issues which pertain to later stages of the development process. Policies 4.2.4.4 and 4.2.5.2 pertain to septic tanks and locating waste water package plants. These Policies do not pertain to the Plan Amendment. FSN's planning expert testified that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the City's Plan and that the Plan Amendment will benefit the City as a whole. The DCA's senior planner also testified that several of the Policies which Petitioners alleged that were inconsistent with the Plan Amendment were premature because they pertain to the development stage, not to the plan amendment stage. The Plan Amendment is consistent with Policies and Objectives 1.1.1.2, 2.1.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.4, 2.9.1, 2.9.3, 4.1, 4.1.1.5, 4.1.3.1, 4.1.5, 9.4.4, 8.1.2, 8.2.1, 9.8.1, 9.8.2, and 9.8. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the provisions they cited. Regional and State Plans Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: for the purpose of determining whether local comprehensive plans are consistent with the state comprehensive plan and the appropriate regional policy plan, a local plan shall be consistent with such plans if the local plan is "compatible with" and "furthers" such plans. The term "compatible with" means that the local plan is not in conflict with the state comprehensive plan or appropriate regional policy plan. The term "furthers" means to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state or regional plan. For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with the state comprehensive plan or the appropriate regional policy plan, the state or regional plan shall be construed as a whole and no specific goal and policy shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans. Strategic Regional Policy Plan A determination of whether the Plan Amendment is consistent with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) is based on an assessment of the SRPP as a whole. § 163.3177(10)(a), Fla. Stat. Petitioners did not present evidence that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the SRPP as a whole. Petitioners' expert opined that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with certain provisions of the SRPP. The report only discussed several policies in an isolated fashion and did not consider the SRPP as a whole. Nevertheless, the Plan Amendment is consistent with the SRPP as a whole, and is consistent with the specific provisions with which Petitioners' report alleged inconsistencies. Specifically, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the SRPP Policy 6.1 because the area is already urban. Additionally, the Plan Amendment is in an area that has existing commercial uses nearby. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policies 6.4 and 6.5 because both of these policies pertain to rural areas. The subject property and the surrounding areas are not rural. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 6.16 because it is based upon area-wide projections and forecasts. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 6.17 because it does not adopt a policy providing that there shall be no informal mediation processes, or that informal mediation shall not be used. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 6.19 regarding the encouragement of public participation. Overall, the City encouraged public participation. The City has the capacity and ability to develop its downtown area and to promote infill at the same time. Accordingly, the Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 6.21. The Plan Amendment concerns the issue of deciding a future land use. SRPP Policy 5.17 1.a., which pertains to addressing transportation impacts of a development project in one jurisdiction on an adjacent jurisdiction, will be addressed at the appropriate stage of the development process. SRPP Policy 5.23 pertains to equitable cost participation guiding development approval decisions. It does not pertain to the Plan Amendment because there is no transportation capacity improvements required by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment is consistent with SRPP Policy 7.3 because the area encompassing the Plan Amendment is already included in the City's approved future service area. Petitioners' report set forth an allegation that SRPP Policies 7.5, 7.9., 7.10, and 7.19 "would all be in conflict with the city of Cocoa proposed amendment." The Plan Amendment is consistent with these SRPP Policies. FSN's planning expert testified that the SRPP uses directive verbs that are intended to be suggestions and recommendations to a local government, not requirements. He provided testimony that since the subject area is urban, and not rural, the SRPP does not impact this Plan Amendment because it provides for protection of regional natural resources, and promotes intergovernmental coordination. Hagen Nicholson's expert also testified that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the SRPP. The East Central Florida Regional Planning Council did not raise any concerns to the Plan Amendment violating the SRPP. Finally, the Plan Amendment actually furthers SRPP Policies 4.23, 4.2.4, 6.1.4, 7.1, 7.4, and 7.5. State Comprehensive Plan A determination of whether the Plan Amendment is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan (State Plan) is based on an assessment of the State Plan as a whole. Petitioners alleged in paragraphs 39, 46, 59, and 65 of the Amended Petition that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 187.201(18)(b) and 187.201(21) of the State Plan. However, they did not present persuasive evidence that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the State Plan as a whole. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the State Plan as a whole, and, in particular, Sections 187.201(18)(b) and 187.201(21), Florida Statutes. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment furthers the State Plan goal to "increase the affordability and availability of housing for low-income and moderate-income persons. . . ." See § 187.201(4), Fla. Stat. It furthers the State Plan goal set forth in Section 187.201(9), Florida Statutes, because the Plan Amendment protects the wetlands by designating them as Conservation areas. Finally, it furthers the State Plan goal set forth in Section 187.201(15), Florida Statutes, because the Plan Amendment preserves environmentally sensitive areas. Public Participation9 Petitioners alleged that public participation was not provided with respect to the August 24, 2004, transmittal hearing, primarily because the City allegedly refused to allow citizens access to the hearing and the opportunity to speak during the hearing. At the administrative hearing in this matter, following denial of the DCA's motion in limine, the issue was narrowed to the question of whether the August 24, 2004, hearing was the type contemplated by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, with the ultimate issue being whether or not that will impact whether the Plan Amendment is "in compliance." The issues identified in footnote 1 of Petitioners' Hunters and Kellgrens' Amended Petition are not at issue. Council meetings have an order of discussion. During "delegations," only City residents, employees, and water customers may speak. The City Council is authorized to set aside up to 30 minutes of each regular Council meeting limited to hearing from only residents and taxpayers of the City. After the delegations portion, the consent agenda is considered, and then the public hearings portion follows. Under the public hearings portion, any person may speak. Speaker cards are filled out, passed on to the Mayor, and the Mayor calls the names from the cards. On August 17, 2004, the City published a Notice of Future Land Use and Zoning Change in the Florida Today Newspaper. The notice stated that a public hearing would be held by the City Council in their chambers at 7:00 p.m. on August 24, 2004, on subjects including the proposed plan amendment and re-zoning of the subject property. The notice also stated that the hearing was a public hearing, that all interested persons may attend and that members of the public are encouraged to comment on the proposed ordinance at the meeting. The parties stipulated that the August 24, 2004, hearing was properly advertised and noticed.10 According to the transcript of the City Council meeting on August 24, 2004, the meeting, including the transmittal hearing portion, began at 7:15 p.m. Several hundred people showed up and were outside of the building at 6:00 p.m. The City's planner testified that he did not have any expectation that there would be that many people there. The turn-out was so large that not everyone could fit in the Council chambers. The capacity of the room is either 91 or 93 based upon fire department regulations. The first issues discussed related to the annexation of the property subject to the proposed plan amendment. There was also discussion regarding the re-zoning and the proposed plan amendment. PE 14 at 3-48. Thereafter, Mayor Parrish stated that "it would be appropriate to have a public hearing regarding these three ordinances." Id. at 48. The Mayor asked everyone to fill out speaker cards.11 The City Attorney stated that there were speaker cards about three to four inches thick; "about two hundred plus cards of people who want to speak." Id. at 49, 51. Mayor Parrish stated: I know. There is no way we can hear them in one night. Also, we have to go by the concerns and the citizens that we hear and I doubt there are this many ideas that is going to be expressed tonight. If we don't duplicate something that we have already heard, we might be able to bring them down a little bit. If we can elect representative to speak on behalf of other names that can be given possibly as a way to cut down on that. We also have heard from planning and zoning and have spoken with the members of planning and zoning. We have minutes from the meetings. We have copies of presentation that were given at that meeting and letters and phone calls and e-mails, and so, we have got a good sense of the concerns that were expressed that night and since that night. We do want to hear from everyone we possibly can. The criteria for a public hearing are basically three minutes for a speaker and representatives of recognized groups shall be limited to ten minutes. So if you have somebody that can speak on behalf of a group of people they can have ten minutes and possibly get everything expressed that maybe a larger group would take longer than the ten minutes. A total debate on a single issue is limited to 30 minutes. Since we have three issues -- Id. at 49-51. See also PE 14 at 53-54. The public hearing portion of the transmittal hearing did not get underway until approximately 8:30 p.m. Id. at 51. The City Council typically allows 30 minutes for the public hearings portion, but decided to extend the time to 90 minutes, id. at 53, and later went beyond that limit to accommodate more speakers.12 After several persons began expressing their opposition to the items, including the proposed plan amendment, id. at 58-82, the Mayor stated that the comments were "starting to get a little bit repetitive" on several issues and requested the attendees to try "to narrow it down to some other issues that maybe haven't been brought up so far." Id. at 82. Other speakers followed, id. at 82-128, when the Mayor stated that they were "going to run over with just the cards" that she had and inquired whether they wanted to extend the time. It was decided to "hear the three or ten depending upon how long." Id. at 129. Again, others spoke when a police officer said "[w]e have a few more[,] [a]re you done?" The Mayor responded: "We are past time. I'm trying to finish the ones that I have up here that are saying that they are in line." Id. at 140. Councilman Anderson wished to cut off public comment and Councilwoman Collins provided a second "because of how late it is -- 11 o'clock Mayor." Id. at 141. Without ruling on the request, Stacy Ranger, a representative of the County, spoke and focused on the annexation issue, including neighborhood compatibility. Id. at 141-146. Thereafter, Mr. Titkanich was granted permission to respond to comments. Id. at 147-157. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Id. at 158. After some discussion, a motion to extend the meeting not more than one hour was approved. This motion was made sometime after Councilwoman Collins announced how late it was - 11 p.m. Id. at 176-177.13 Ultimately, the Council voted four to one in favor of Ordinance No. 39-2004. Id. at 181-182. Mr. Kellgren testified that he arrived at the hearing location around 6:00 p.m. There was a large crowd of several hundred people outside. He filled out a speaker's card, but could not get into the building. He waited outside and tried to observe what was going on. He left the hearing around 9:30 p.m. because he did not see the point in staying any longer; he could not get in and could not hear anything. His speaker's card was not marked "NR" or "No Response." PE 36. Although Mr. Kellgren was not able to get into the building to speak, he had retained lawyer Kimberly Rezanka to represent him and his wife at the August 24, 2004, hearing. During the hearing, Ms. Rezanka spoke to the City Council on behalf of the Kellgrens and several other individuals.14 (Mr. Kellgren attended the P&ZB hearing and opposed the proposed plan amendment and rezoning.) After the transmittal hearing, Mr. Kellgren sent two letters to the DCA's Plan Review Administrator expressing concerns regarding the proposed plan amendment. One letter was signed by Mr. Kellgren and others. No complaint was made regarding the conduct of the transmittal hearing. PE 81-82; T II 358. Ms. Hunter arrived at the City Council's August 24, 2004, meeting around 5:30 p.m. (She attended the P&ZB hearing and spoke.) She testified that she was not allowed to go inside the building because she was not a City resident. She wrote comments opposing the proposed plan amendment on her speaker's card -- "7 houses per acre would be ridiculous Against [two underscored lines] rezoning of property at Friday [&] James in Cocoa - 1 house per acre only!!". She wrote this information on the card so her intentions would be known. The upper-right hand corner of her card is marked "NR," although she did not write these letters on the card. She left the public hearing around 9:30 p.m., because she had to work the next day and take care of her children. She knew that the hearing was still going on and acknowledged that her name could have been called after she left. She did not go to the December 14, 2004, adoption hearing. Brian Seaman lives in Canaveral Groves, which is in the unincorporated area of the County and east of the north parcel. FSNE at "BS." He arrived at 6:00 p.m. He testified that he was not allowed in because he was not a City resident. He filled out a speaker's card, but believes that his name was not called. His card was not marked "No Response" or "NR." He testified he remained at the public hearing until approximately 11:45 p.m., when he was told of the Council's vote. See Endnote (He attended the P&ZB hearing and later attended the December adoption hearing held at the Civic Center. He did not speak at those hearings because the issues that were of concern to him had already been raised by others.) The public hearing portion of the transmittal hearing lasted over three hours. There is evidence that names on the speaker cards (CE 10), such as Mr. Seaman, were not called. There is also evidence that there was no response for many of the names as reflected on the cards.15 Nevertheless, citizens spoke during the public hearing portion of the transmittal hearing. Notwithstanding the large turn out, the Mayor and Council took measures to accommodate the larger-than-expected crowd and public comment was received. The City Council learned from the experience and conducted the adoption hearing at the Civic Center. No issues are raised regarding the adequacy of the adoption hearing. There is no persuasive evidence that any person was deprived of the opportunity to submit written objections, comments, or recommendations to the Council prior to, during, or after the Council's consideration of the proposed plan amendment (during the transmittal hearing). The DCA's expert planner, Erin Dorn, testified that Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.004 requires local governments to adopt procedures for public participation. Once the DCA receives an amendment package from a local government, it goes to the plan processing team (PPT). The PPT checks the package for "completeness" to make sure that it includes all information required by law. The PPT does not review the plan amendment. Once the package is complete, it is sent to the planning review team for a substantive review. Review of a plan amendment includes public facilities, natural resources, and transportation. Review of a plan amendment does not include a review of whether every person who wanted to attend the hearing was permitted to do so, or a review of the number of people who attended. Such aspects of public participation are not considered by the PPT, and necessarily the DCA when reviewing a plan amendment for a compliance determination. The DCA received letters from citizens, voicing concerns regarding the Plan Amendment.16
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendment adopted by the City through Ordinance No. 39-2004 is "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 2006.
