2007-2008 GMP Cycle Transmittal
c
c
TRANSMITTAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1/19/10 FOR 2007-2008 GMP AMENDMENT
COMBINED CYCLES
c
o
o
o
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public Hearing for the 2007-2008 Combined Cycles of Growth Management Plan
Amendments, including one 2009 Cycle Petition. (Transmittal Hearing)
OBJECTIVE:
For the Board of County Commissioners to review the 2007-2008 combined cycles of amendments
to the Collier County Growth Management Plan and consider approving said amendments for
transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
CONSIDERATIONS:
· Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted
Growth Management Plan.
o At time of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) hearings, the 2007-2008
combined cycle of GMP amendments consisted of nine private sector petitions and one
County-initiated petition, including one 2009 cycle petition per prior Board direction. However,
of the private sector petitions, only six now remain in this cycle as two petitions were
withdrawn subsequent to the CCPC hearing and one petition was continued indefinitely by the
CCPC at petitioner's request (then added to the amendment cycle with petition CP-2008-5,
Immokalee Area Master Plan). The four petitions for sites east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951)
within Golden Gate Estates are depicted on the attached location map.
· The (CCPC), sitting as the "local planning agency" under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their
Transmittal hearing for these petitions on October 19, 20 and 29, 2009, and November 19,
2009.
· This Transmittal hearing for the 2007-2008 combined cycle considers amendments to the
following Elements of the Plan:
o Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; and,
o Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series.
Note: Because this hearing is for the sole purpose of considering GMP amendment petitions, the
number of petitions is large (7 total) and the support materials so voluminous, and some exhibits
are oversized, the Novus system is not used. The entire Executive Summary package, including
all support materials, is included in the binders provided to the BCC and is available for review in
the Comprehensive Planning Section office, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples.
Needs Analvsis
Attached to this Executive Summary is The Florida Senate Interim Report 2010-107, October
2009 titled "Population Need as a Criterion for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use
Map." Also attached is a summary of that Report prepared by Comprehensive Planning staff
(Staff Summary of the Florida Senate Interim Report 2010-107, October 2009). The Report
identifies the necessity of preparing a needs analysis for any GMP amendment proposing to
increase density or use intensity; indicates that such an analysis must be based upon the
supply/demand ratio for the proposed use category (residential, commercial or industrial) _ a
numerical analysis; and, notes that even if the numerical analysis fails to demonstrate need, other
factors may be considered.
1
FISCAL IMP ACT:
o
There are no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of these amendments since final action is
not being taken at this time (these amendments are not being considered for adoption at this
hearing). If approved for transmittal, these amendments will subsequently be considered for
adoption at hearings to be held later in 2010. The cost to process, review and advertise the private
sector petitions is borne by the petitioner via the application fee.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This Executive Summary has been reviewed by the County Attorney's office.
These proposed Growth Management Plan amendments are authorized for consideration by local
government, and subject to the procedures established, in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes,
The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and by
local Resolution #97-431, as amended.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT:
Approval of these proposed amendments by the Board of County Commissioners for Transmittal to
the Florida Department of Community Affairs will commence the Department's sixty-day (60)
review process and ultimately return these amendments to the Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners for final Adoption hearings to be held later in 2010.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
All six private sector amendments to the Growth Management Plan would increase allowable .
development intensity. For four of those six petitions, no listed plant and/or animal species have
been observed or are known to be on the sites, and those sites do not contain jurisdictional
wetlands. The other two private sector amendments do contain listed plant and/or animal species
and contain jurisdictional wetlands (petitions CP-2008-4 and CP-2009-1). As part of the process of
obtaining subsequent development orders (e.g. rezone and/or conditional use, site development
plan). the sites will be subject to all applicable local, state and federal environmental protection
regulations, including applicable portions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of
the GMP, and the Land Development Code.
HISTORICAU ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMP ACT:
None of the six proposed private sector amendments to the GMP contain lands identified on the
County's Historical/Archeological Probability Maps as being in areas of historical or archaeological
probability. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders, the sites will again
be subject to review for historical/archeological probability.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
Most Growth Management Plan amendments are not reviewed by the EAC. However, the EAC did
review two petitions on September 2, 2009. Petition CP-2008-4 (located in the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District Sending Lands designation) was forwarded with a recommendation to transmit to DCA
(vote: 5/0), and petition CP-2009-1 (located in the Conservation designation and within the Big
Cypress Area of Critical Sate Concern) was forwarded with a recommendation to transmit to DCA
subject to staff's text revisions (vote: 3/2).
o
2
o
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff's recommendation follows each individual petition listed below. Note: For most petitions,
regardless of staff recommendation, staff prepared text revisions to the petitioner's proposed text
so as to provide clarity, proper format, correct grammar, etc., as noted in the CCPC Staff Reports.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The CCPC's recommendation follows each individual petition listed below and is contained in the
attached document titled "CCPC Transmittal Recommendations for 2007-2008 Combined Cycles
Growth Management Plan Amendments." Note: Where the CCPC forwarded a recommendation of
approval, the text in the Resolution Exhibit A reflects the CCPC recommendation. Where the
CCPC forwarded a recommendation of denial, and where a recommendation for approval failed by
virtue of a tie vote, the text in the Resolution Exhibit A reflects the petitioner's proposed text _
including revisions submitted subsequent to the CCPC hearing.
o
1. PETITION CP-2007-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and MaD Series, to create the
Wilson Boulevard Conditional Uses Subdistrict, to allow a maximum of 40,000 square feet of
permitted and conditional uses of the Estates zoning district, for property located on the
southeast corner of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Wilson Boulevard, in Section 27, Township
48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :f:5.17 acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP,
Principal Planner]
Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP-2007-1 to the BCC with a
recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
CCPC Recommendation: At the CCPC hearing, the petition agent verbally proposed one change
to the amendment: if the CCPC would not support the commercial petition, then requested they
approve the site to be eligible to apply for conditional uses, i.e. be an exception to the locational
criteria for conditional uses. The CCPC recommended the BCC not approve the revised petition
CP-2007 -1 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 8/0). .
Speakers: None.
Post-CCPC Action: As submitted to the CCPC, this petition was a request for 40,000 s.f. of
commercial uses allowed in the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts. Subsequent to the CCPC
hearing, the petitioner submitted new subdistrict text to replace the original text to instead request
a maximum of 40,000 square feet of permitted and conditional uses of the E-Estates zoning district;
this new subdistrict text is located behind the tab labeled "Post-CCpe Submittal CP-2007-1" in the
binder containing the original petition as provided to the CCPC and is reflected in the Resolution
Exhibit A for this petition. The petitioner submitted no needs analysis or other data and analysis to
support this modified petition. The staff recommendation not to approve this petition for
Transmittal stands.
o
2. PETITION CP-2007-3, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan
and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the
Mission Subdistrict to allow church and related uses, including schools, adult care and child
care, and community outreach, with a maximum of 90,000 square feet of total development, for
property located on the south side of Oil Well Road (CR 858), 1/4 mile west of Everglades
Boulevard, in Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, consisting of :t21.72 acres.
[Coordinator: Beth Yang, AICP, Principal Planner]
3
Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP-2007-3 to the BCC with a .
recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
CCPC Recommendation: At the CCPC hearing, the petitioner proposed changes to the
amendment to remove reference to commercial uses. After discussion regarding what the term
"church-related uses" could encompass, the CCPC recommended the BCC approve the revised
petition CP-2007-3 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 8/0),
subject to staff determination of the appropriate text - as a proposed new Subdistrict OR as a new
exception to be listed under the existing Conditional Uses Subdistrict in the GGAMP (for
conditional uses (CU) allowed in the E, Estates zoning district). Based upon discussion with
Zoning & Land Development Review staff, it could not be clearly determined that the range of
proposed uses would fall under the "church" use; therefore, one option would be for the petitioner
to submit a Request for Official Interpretation (01). If the 01 process (staff determination or appeal
to BOZA) were to yield an affirmative determination, then the CU exception text would be
appropriate. However, unless and until that occurs, Comprehensive Planning Department staff
believes it best to establish a new Subdistrict to reflect the CCPC recommendation, as set forth in
the attached document titled "CCPC Transmittal Recommendations for 2007-2008 Combined
Cycles Growth Management Plan Amendments."
Speakers: There was one speaker; the speaker was in favor of this petition.
Post-CCPC Action: Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner submitted a revised cover
letter dated December 1, 2009 that includes revised subdistrict text - which is the same as that
recommended by the CCPC (materials are located behind the tab labeled "Post-CCPC Submittal
CP-2007-3" in the binder containing the original petition as provided to the CCPC). The staff
recommendation not to approve this petition for Transmittal stands. .
3. PETITION CP-2008-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the
Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 210,000 square feet of commercial
uses of the C-4 zoning district, with exceptions, and some uses of the C-5 zoning district, with
requirement to construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate
Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3'd Street Northwest, in Section 4, Township 49
South, Range 27 East, consisting of :1:40.62 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP,
Principal Planner]
Staff Recommendation: That the cepc forward petition CP-2008-1 to the BCC with a
recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
CCPC Recommendation: At the CCPC hearing, the petitioner verbally proposed two changes to
the amendment: 1) reduce building height from two stories to one story; and, 2) reduce the
proposed building area from 225,000 square feet to 210,000 square feet. There was no CCPC
recommendation on revised petition CP-2008-1 by virtue of a tie vote (4/4). The failed motion to
approve was subject to staff alternative text in the Staff Report, but revised to: 1) keep the list of
allowable uses #1-27 as proposed by petitioner, but delete #28 [this requires a re-Iettering of
paragraphs]; 2) revise paragraph "a.12" to reflect the correct SIC Code term; 3) revise paragraph
"a." to add a "catchall" prohibited use #14; 4) revise paragraph "b." to reduce the total allowable
building area from 225,000 s.f. to 210,000 s.f., as proposed by the petitioner at the hearing, and to
modify the building floor area term; 5) revise paragraph "c." to recognize the potential for more than
one grocery use; 6) revise paragraph "e.1." pertaining to the timing of right-of-way donation; and, 6)
o
4
o
delete paragraph "n." pertaining to common architectural theme. The text that reflects the CCPC's
unsuccessful motion is contained in the attached document titled "CCPC Transmittal
Recommendations for 2007-2008 Combined Cycles Growth Management Plan Amendments."
Speakers: There were nine speakers. Two speakers were in favor of the petition, noting there is a
need and desire for more commercial and that the petitioner has worked to resolve neighborhood
concerns. One of those two speakers represented the Rrst and Third Group, a group of neighbors
near the subject site (1 st and 3rd Streets NW); he presented a specific list of permitted and
prohibited uses, with SIC Codes, the Group endorsed. Seven speakers were opposed to the
petition, citing these concerns: project will increase traffic; there are adequate shopping
opportunities in or near Golden Gate Estates (GGE); negative impacts during project construction;
commercial should not be located in the interior of GGE; project will attract undesirable animals
(rats, then snakes that eat rats); not consistent with GGAMP allowance for commercial and
maintenance of rural character; questions whether there's enough population in GGE to support
this amount of commercial; will disrupt the tranquility, quiet, nature and [nighttime] darkness the
speakers moved to GGE to enjoy.
Post-CCPC Action: SUbsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner submitted revised proposed
subdistrict text and conceptual map to reduce building area from 225,000 s.f. to 210,000 s.f.;
increase landscape buffers; and, increase building setbacks. Also, the petitioner submitted
additional data and analysis. All new/revised materials are located behind the tab labeled "Post-
CCPC Submittal CP-2008-1" in the binder containing the original petition as provided to the CCPC.
Also, this revised subdistrict text and map comprise the Resolution Exhibit A for this petition.
o
In response to The Florida Senate Interim Report 2010-107, dated October 2009 (previously
referenced and attached to this Executive Summary), the applicant submitted data and analysis to
address policy factors to demonstrate the "need" for the proposed Growth Management Plan
amendment; and, submitted additional data and analysis to further address 2008 Legislation, HB
697, which pertains to energy conservation and efficiency.
As to HB 697, based on the applicant's information provided, staff is able to conclude that the
project would likely reduce vehicle trips traveled by providing commercial and employment
opportunities proximate to area residents. Regarding the "needs" analysis, the applicant identified
"other policy factors," such as "job creation," and, provided "community input/surveys" in support of
the proposed development. These additional factors may be considered by the Board of County
Commissioners in assessing the "non-numerical" commercial need for the proposed Growth
Management Plan amendment. Staff is still reviewing and evaluating the "needs" analysis and will
provide additional comments to the Board at the hearing.
The staff recommendation not to approve this petition for Transmittal stands. However, attached
is the staff alternative to the petitioner's text (Staff Alternative Text for Petition CP-2008-1) which
reflects revisions for purpose of proper formatting, clarity, conciseness, use of proper ordinance
language, etc.
o
4. PETITION CP-2008-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan
and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series. to expand and
modify the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict to allow an additional 370,950 square
feet of commercial uses of the C-4 zoning district, with exceptions, for property located on the
south side of Randall Boulevard, extending from 8th Street Northeast west to the canal on the
west side of the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station, in Sections 26 and 27, Township 48 South,
5
Range 27 East, consisting of :i:56.5 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal O.
Planner]
Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP-2008-2 to the BCC with a
recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
CCPC Recommendation: At the CCPC hearing, the petitioner proposed changes to the
amendment to: 1) reduce the proposed total allowable building area from 431,950 square feet to
411,950 square feet; 2) increase the proposed building area on the tract containing the Randall
Boulevard Center PUD frQm 21,000 square feet to 31,000 square feet. The petitioner also
provided some additional data and analysis at the CCPC hearing. The CCPC recommended the
BCC approve revised petition CP-2008-2 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs (vote: 6/2), subject to the staff alternative text in the Staff Report, as revised regarding: 1)
allowable square feet figures; 2) the C-4 zoning district reference; and, 3) discontinuance of the Big
Corkscrew Island Fire Station and Florida Division of Forestry fire tower. The text that reflects the
CCPC's recommendation is contained in the attached document titled "CCPC Transmittal
Recommendations for 2007-2008 Combined Cycles Growth Management Plan Amendments."
Speakers: There were two speakers. One speaker was in favor of the petition. One speaker
expressed concern about the public notice process stating some nearby residents did not receive
notice.
Post-CCPC Action: Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner submitted additional data
and analysis (new materials are located behind the tab labeled "Post-CCPC Submittal CP-2008-2"
in the binder containing the original petition as provided to the CCPC). In response to The Florida
Senate Interim Report 2010-107, dated October 2009 (previously referenced and attached to this
Executive Summary), the applicant submitted data and analysis to address the referenced 1.25 .
commercial market factor and other policy factors to demonstrate the "need" for the proposed
Growth Management Plan amendment; and, submitted additional data and analysis to further
address 2008 Legislation, HB 697, which pertains to energy conservation and efficiency.
As to HB 697, the applicant's analysis and conclusions reached primarily focused on a grocery use
as part of the development proposal. However, it should be noted that the Subdistrict text only
allows for grocery store use - the text does not require development of a grocery store. Based on
the applicant's information provided, staff is able to conclude that the project, with grocery use,
would likely reduce vehicle trips traveled by providing commercial and employment opportunities
proximate to area residents. Regarding the "needs" analysis, the applicant provided an analysis of
the 1.25 commercial market factor. However, the analysis was based on a 25 percent increase in
the Market Area population (primary and secondary areas) rather than a calculation of the supply
to demand ratio, and was out to year 2060 rather than for the 10-year planning horizon adopted
within the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the applicant identified "other policy factors," such as
"job creation," and provided "public benefit commitments" to support the proposed development.
These additional factors may be considered by the Board of County Commissioners in assessing
the "non-numerical" commercial need for the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment if
the market factor is higher than 1.25. Staff is still reviewing and evaluating the "needs" analysis
and will provide additional comments to the Board at the hearing. The staff recommendation not to
approve this petition for Transmittal stands.
5. PETITION NO. CP-200B-4, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future'Land Use Element
and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to re-designate from Rural Fringe Mixed-Use
District (RFMUD) Sending Lands to Neutral Lands property located on the east and south sides
.
6
o
o
o
of Washburn Avenue, east of the Naples landfill, in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27
East, consisting of :t28.76 acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner]
Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP-2008-4 to the BCC with a
recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Rorida Department of Community Affairs, subject
to reservation of 130 feet along the southern boundary of the site for future right-of-way.
CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP-2008-4 for transmittal to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (vote: 8/0), per staff's recommendation, and with requirement
that the petitioner is to submit to staff prior to the BCC Transmittal hearing data and analysis
regarding HB 697 (pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions, lowering vehicle miles traveled, etc.).
Speakers: None.
Post-CCPC Action: Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, and pursuant to their recommendation, the
petitioner submitted new data and analysis to address HB 697 (materials are located behind the
tab labeled "Post-CCPC Submittal CP-2008-4" in the binder containing the original petition as
provided to the CCPC). Staff has reviewed and evaluated the post-CCPC submittal and finds it to
be satisfactory.
6. PETITION NO. CPSP-2008-7, Staff Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use
Element to add a new Policy 4.11 pertaining to aligning planning time frames in the GMP.
[Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager]
Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CPSP-2008-7 to the BCC with a
recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CPSP-2008-7 for transmittal to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 8/0).
Speakers: None.
7. PETITION NO. CP-2009-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element
and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUElFLUM), to create the Dade-Collier Cypress
Recreation Area District within the Conservation Designation, for property located along the
Miami-Dade/Collier County border, in Sections 13, 14, 15 & 16, Township 53 South, Range 34
East, consisting of 1 ,608:t: acres. [Coordinator: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner]
Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP-2009-1 to the BCC with a
recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
CCPC Recommendation: There was no CCPC recommendation on petition CP-2009-1 by virtue
of a tie vote (4/4). The failed motion to approve was subject to staff alternative text in the Staff
Report, as revised in two places regarding lake edge littoral zone requirement. The text that
reflects the CCPC's unsuccessful motion is contained in the attached document titled "CCPC
Transmittal Recommendations for 2007-2008 Combined Cycles Growth Management Plan
Amendments. "
Speakers: None.
7
Post-CCPC Action: Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner submitted additional data .
and analysis (new materials are located behind the tab labeled "Post-CCPC Submittal CP-2009-1" .
in the binder containing the original petition as provided to the CCPC). Staff is still reviewing and
evaluating the post-CCPC submittal.
As a follow-up to CCPC discussion regarding emergency response capability to the site and
impacts upon adopted Level of Service Standards, Comprehensive Planning staff solicited input
from the Bureau of Emergency Services (BES) Director. Attached is a memo dated November 9,
2009 from the BES Director addressing these concerns and offering stipulations for consideration.
Though these stipulations are appropriate to include during subsequent development order
approval, not within the GMP as part of this amendment, they are helpful in alerting the petitioner
to the County's concerns and position.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendations for the 2007-2008 combined cycles of Growth Management Plan
amendments, including one 2009 cycle petition, are as reflected above following each petition.
CCPC RECOMMENDATION:
The Collier County Planning Commission held their required public hearing on October 19, 20 and
29, 2009, and November 19, 2009. The CCPC forwarded the 2007-2008 combined cycles of
Growth Management Plan amendments, including one 2009 cycle petition, to the Board of County
Commissioners with recommendations as reflected above following each petition and as contained
in the attached document titled "CCPC Transmittal Recommendations for 2007-2008 Combined
Cycles Growth Management Plan Amendments." 0
PREPARED BY: J;; ~ LJ,-,,",l
DAVID WEEKS, AICP, GMP MANAGER
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION
DATE:
I - 7 - /D
REVIEWED BY:
.~~~
DATE: 1-,- I v
MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION
REVIEWED BY: 'i!/-r....., ~ -
\Tv LlAM LORE , P.E., ECTOR
ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
APPROVED BY: G)M a;~L"J DATE: J -7-{0
NICK CASALANG~~INfERIM ADMINISTRATOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
DATE: 01-07-10
EX SUM TransmittaI20Q7-2008 combined Cycle GMPAs
G:\Comprehensive\COMP. PlANNING GMP DATA\Comp. Plan Amendments\2007-2008 Combined Cycle Petitions
dw/11-3-09 -1[7/10
o
8
1 ~. .', z ()
1 , ! m S2. )> r-..
~.. "'""!~'_#""'j'- Ci
' '/'. T-- ~ "ll"f,~ m >
() () '1J )> m CD ' 0.:;0
o 0 '-t (') C/l:::s , o.'c.:
3 () 3 0 Cti .-+ c.. ()'co
_.3. g---:-31 "Co C/l ~:::s -. ('I) ,m
.... . .. CD ::J .."
: en' iii. ":":':1 C/l C/l (C -j;v
, .... ':::J' CD ~ m,o.
;' 5-: OJ :" ::!ll c.. ~ en G> .., !
:e:.<'::=1 ""'::is: i
;' lJl : .c. "(J)' , J 0 '1J :
~:r. ' ~c:J3 0 "C)> !
. n -.- C" "'C ,
I ~ eo 3 :r () 1 I;~ <
I !!:" '" -P, ~ c':J ! C/l
". ri () '" I, - j 5-
- jii':::s CD 00 g ~--t.\ '\ : . i c..
-!' "(ii'
----...1 C/l it ~! , -"':"-'1--'-,--'-':;,
j 0 ~ ; ; . ":0- n
; ." C/l ~-'...~.. 0 '., ~
.'1 '" 5-! 3, _
I '" c. , I 3 "'t. .. 0
L...-I '" or, . . I . " . WILSON BLV,
I b ~ ',~ iJ, il. \ ~~~-~'---~7'
;:;u ., 0 0' ... WILSON BLVO_..~!'.,:::' -"~i- .'
"".( . L'~r~~1 ! 8-"-----' f [il~)~~~~~
c: I ' :.} z. '5 . "I~>~.;~>c:
. -!~, g j :l! ~ ! ,~" z~~ '" z~
o ----;"'1 ~ ~ ~ 0/: f~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~
~. I " :;- · 1 ;~" "'0-~~! :r lXl\;
'. g , ~ ; !\-;: m~~~~~,1 " r-~
. 0. 0 , ">, m,~":' .. 0"
"'1 0 fI ~ ..' !'~, }..~ .1' " c: en )> _ ."
f'j m iD )>_ -0 ! 'I'~"''' " 0 C/l '"'0 S CD
" , ." :oJ"" ~ c: , 0 ~ n _'"
'1 " !!l a Q .." !. 0 , ;: .g ;;; i:1 ~
' , < " "c. '~ 0 en _. "
~. :) 0. '8 !'! E- 3' . ~a -:'" . !!! ~: Q '"
' .. en =- '" " . '" ._ ~
. , " '" - , '-_~_I_'C.. c. :-' en G)
BLVD 0.. ~ lD G> 1-+---- ',. :::or
EVERGLADES .-.J () '" <" ;;:, 'Q" ~ jj 5- :;;
----.--------";--.---------------- 03 0 ~ ~ ~:" 'i'.." ~ :t-
m "~,~ .', -l ~()
__.m_._., !l' i 3 03" I ! ;i---- 1;,; ii' -p ,
~, ~ 3':"; i: c !; 0 c ~
zm'2. ! -, ,,0 '0 0
-. Dl,' fil .... 0 l I I 00 ......
"'0. , no>, ,
~., C/l --', " L_,_ w,
[ ~ ; DESOTO BL"':_,__;!i: ~ '" L=-=:'::l . ~
-g.g:,--...!--_.- _.-~ '" 5- '"
-- 0., i.__ l<: c. C/l
o Gl -'~ 0 or 0
~'!!l- <0 :r. ."
~. '" n -l
~CD 0 '" ()
~ -- 0
0. 3
:3
(!)
:!,
'"
!l.l
-
o
o
~.~ ~ r~
.;/ "'.~.
.,1,',
... .
/. ~;:j
t, j,~~
I.....,..
't'v
." '".::'- ,"~
'I'
}t'i:':l
1; '(1. .._ . I.' ",
' l' , 'r.',. "J., j' ".'. i
't .'}. '~,i~l,".j, i.*,i.\I'I",
::1,'; "'rl\~"! ',"i ') '-J)';,',I
l /'V.'.li'. ~ '! ~ t~ 1 ). "'/1
.. . 'I") x'" '- i"l r,;) ", I.,
\",\""""1,,,..1 /.,,}
,".',q 'J"'I"'I'~.
"'I'../r.. '. "'1'_\'"
~~ ,/. \.' i. ;"'1\ lJ, '0:."."'_
't'~':.'I"'~j: ,\ ',I"I','.! ,ft),
I'. l,',".}r.. , , .", 'd'/ I\('J ~
't I \.' I.'.' '. /'1'0"'11 I"
~i;h ;"'\(';"" ':i':'I~ r. t
"/t;,,'.JI,.I..I? ..4')d' IV"
.. ~ . 'f' ".....) 11~'i 1 +'11
""""'(')""'.1, J"'f 0
~t '.' } 10.) ~ J " " ...!.i )..
I It\. ~ ,., .., '.l., 0
:......."0 ",J, ,IV;"" :J
", ", \ I ",;u f? \ .! fl',', en
'Jl~;.'~(f),I, ~;, ,,\ 9l
~:; ,. \ m s: ";,-. "',\; 'II <.
"""\;,'/z ~,., -:'\',.. ~
":'JI\-I~"O~; "',';.:;, 6'
,.'".';.'<z"" IM,H) :::l
"t'.. ,mG);' 1.,,\.,
. Jff. '. \J . ..) ,. I '.~"
;; "I. '. r-: OJ '/'. I, "";'!,"';
."I",}!.':~ ~ /~ )"'/'1'.',1
".J'\"ZI..I, 'J.'.\"
,.' ',,' · Z:< t', "'-"jl;'~:
,OJ rv.lt;G))> ?.. }1~.I:f"...
'~J" '. 7. 1 .w ,.
.... )lO{;)., ":~;'"
It' ":" ", qJ '~' ~'~ 'J'i'.'.'
'.J,I,":I>_,.l """',
· · , ~ " ;U (') "i , '" "',.
;; I/J i <. -i."O ", 1\ '",
· 'j IS" \ I' ., I .
,',1,\ ~ m L;' >,!",.~,
.> ,. ": Z ('., I{\ I,+i-:,~,
"t'it!.~-1'f; ,....?/~\ ~.'
'.",.,J"" " ' """" '.,' , .., r,
", ",.; "",= ""', . . " ,'." < ".
'<'" "/ ''''/ ''.m', 'n,', .. ''',' '. ,,, ,. ,,",;. ..', ',;. '" '.,..: '
· 'I;'. -'1'" '. !)i, , >, ,";" ,"", '''''' > .,'" "1.: .. 'j. , , ','.' I'.. 'I
" "'., ;,',. """""""" .< 'j." ,. "'" <". \", ,'.
l:.{" "....,.: '" l' ,..';, '1'1.'.., '" f 'i . ,,', ,); ';;;', '~i'<',
,: '/;;"-'1";'''' ~; ; I, ~;,;. ,',}.., li'k h r,'" .': ".;, ,v....".;'.'
'" ,'''' . ;"";""", '>';'-''''''' '. " "'" ..; .'.
~; i{1 T., I'd ", 1.,(oJ .-,~,\)" lrf,',}, ) \; i) it i. \.', ;,Ii ...., III ". ~'I " I
">, 'J.' '1','." \ "" ';;"'.;, ";',,,,, "";":, ... '.'.'" ,. <
.. t .') .; t:.~.'~j 'i~~l' '" "', id"j '; -, j I,' ','./1"" '. I ~ ~", ). '.'.lll',',
"", """" "'-, ;'" '. 'i',.', > I; .' \., ,.,'.' . '. ',> '.'''''0'1 "
-,I. ,"V.';' 1'(;':'>, ~; '-':.b.'l0l.0!.'0i,~:'<;L~.,:;.','-': 2"" ' I .
~...~.~~:~~:~.:-...-.-):-. )"-"'.I"\""",\:,~,, .~
-~~.).. 1Io)~'''\...I,\..+ f.. . to
't",J1\ ....Jr t~, .. A
;0
r-
OO
>
,.
I
z
}./'
[-iI (", [J::::
~! ! ~ ~ : :
J t.L_~ ....
"'l~
t I~
G) S
o J!!,
- 0
~ -.
::J 0
G) 'lJ
[l) C
CD 0
m ~
lJl 'lJ
or C
CD 0
lJl
1-111
' m lJ
s:: Of ~. (\l
J!!. &'l ~ R
O::J ::l S'
--.-to <0 (.Q
~ Ro 0 G)
~ ~ ~ :5:
en m :3 ;g
~ (\l (fJ
QI n
o ~
o 'lJ
3 [l) 0
:3 C1 -.
ill ~
n (f)
QI
'lJ
[l)
...
()
ill
(j)
In
:;0
100
'0'1
~oo
;;0
"
s;:
C
o
I
(j)
ill
::l
9-:
::J
(Q
;;0
"
s;:
C
o
;0
ill
()
ill
$:
:::l
to
;;0
"
s;:
C
o
I
Z
ill
S.
-.
~
;;0
r
(j)
)>
.-.........-
II
i!
:j
I.
:j
I,
r!
CD!
(.Q:
CD
:::Ii
0..
I
I
m
[l)
lJl
~~
o
;;0
c.o
U1
-'-
~
J
\,
\....
"",....
\
i
SR 29
----"- -- '"":"-"-~--"r-~~--
.
~!
:1
'il
:j
I
I: ;
~: !
~. ,
"'\J )> -:::: ."
""l (') :3 Cl)
o .... 3 :::s
....CD c..
.... C/l 0 -.
,:! 0 .. " :::s
Ul ....lo III (0
CD 0-.....
c... CD UJ
()CN~s:
~ Q~
~ ~~
.... -,
(') -I\)
-. ;;U 0
W '" 0
11- """......
iW ()~
.10 0
:l I" 3
1"~ ~.-J~:-:I 3
',.1 r'/\'; """ CD
"'r'~\:/ 0 ...,;
1)J-Y '0 ()
o tri.
o
r
m
m
o
o
C
z
~
a
:'j~.;',:"
~~ ~\..! I!.t. ':,:
j.~; '0" ,', ...(.'
~ ,,' l J. Jr'),
"~., ~..;.~. \)
.'\~; I..r,' 0, ()
.. ..... I,. ", 3. '0'.
~.;~.. ?":"" ~3 z:..."
';~'V-';,t'f/t"" 'J 'm',AC}
'l..., ,"~ '. '\ CD' -"Ul
:~ .n~/r. ~ r r "J (;, ,'g.' <'\?
i':'i~: ..' "(e~ ~": 'j[.'C""ro ,'J
,.' 'ir}",Jn .o~;
I';, .; ....".iUli...._.,
.., '''''(., ,,', ',I:: '::J"; lJl ,
:..!-~;)r},.J..l 0- 0 :m:,"
I~.~.. .......j. ,e: 8,;'::JJ
i:' '~. . ..:r..r;tl"..f.!lJl..,....Jc..:J
i'l . " . . I',
" ~',Jf'I'.J, l ~ ~ .,_',
:h. \.',-\,",).i(1'!; ..,~(
"~""f""''''J-''J' ,
:", I. i 'j... 1,' ..'>
:t-~~f .J~~':')f')~}i .:_.,....:~
:~. ',") ....}. r,' '. u. ".r
':." ""'if""".,.I. ,',. }'j
.", '....,. {i} ': ) ).~ "., ~\ ~. ,
.' '~1,\". 1 .. I, ; . '... '.:
g' ~j.<.:. r.':';::: '" ,"
8: ;.-..-----",L~-.:,~:~".;.. ;
00" f \
[J ~ I }
(---~-- . :::. I.: . !;.
I sl.. ...:'.
I.
I
:
i
I.
\
:...,--- ------- ,- --
::0
r-
oo
>
--,-'~'i~.~...:-
::0
r-
oo
>
l.,
II
(
V""'(
1
/
r-'-
'--c.,
~~_'''''_....t...~_
/
~....~
/
/
,/
I
r ~II'---------\ r
' ., \]
~ [.f \, )
~ L______,~/ -I
1 l'\.. \.., ~
[,J <"Zp
:i g. ~
l\
~ ~~
' -l>
i!- 'j <;;tJ
'. ll:lI 111_
r .~)>
) Ul
'I ~~"-~"'=---r-
- ,
-~
;:!
O,j
x;
j>'
,.:
m
m
;u
t::J
m
-0
m
z
o
-
Z
GJ
G)
S
"0
>
(J;
'I.'
r-
o
(')
m~
)>~
(;)0
-iz
or.n
,,-
!\J
no
;;;00
"i
--
<.0
Ull\,.";
o
o
00
()
o
S
co
-
Z
m
o
(")
-<
(j
r-
m
--
c:
c
THE FLORIDA SENATE INTERIM REPORT
2010-107
,
.....
0e
0)
e
o
The Florida Senate
Interim Report 2010-107
October 2009
-
Committee on Community Affairs
POPULATION NEED AS A CRITERIA FOR CHANGES TO A LOCAL GoVERNMENT'S
FuTURE LAND USE MAP
:1s.$ue~Qesotiptit)n;':.~': <. .
'. ,":'.' ~ >: .:" '. .
.' '.
','~~~ ~., .....~:..::.<,. .~~:. ~
",... . -~-
":", ....
',:".' ','j'"
Needs Assessment
In the growth management regime, a "needs assessment" is a determination of whether a comprehensive plan
amendment submitted by a local government provides more land in a specific land use than is needed to
accommodate anticipated population growth. "\Vhen reviewing comprehensive plan amendments the Department.
of Community Affairs ("DCA" or ''the Department") reviews all residential, commercial, industrial, and
institutional amendments for need; the exceptions are rural, agriculture, and conservation uses.
The purpose of tbis interim report is to outline the current controversy surrounding the needs issue and to explain
~e potential effects of changing the existing policy. Currently, many of :florida's local governments already have
enough growth planned in their future land use maps to last for the next several decades! (this is also known as
over-allocation). Because a local government should only allow land use density increases when there is a need
for additional density, it can be unclear when and how a local government can amend its comprehensive plan if
the plan is already over-allocated. Additionally, with the housing market collapse causing thousands of homes to
go into foreclosure, many Florida citizens have become concerned that the Department has allowed more
development than is needed for future growth. Alternatively, those in favor of development, claim that
- Department has not been consistently applying the needs criteria in their review of comprehensive plan
amendments.
Finally, the time horizons for some local governments' comprehensive plans are relatively short. This is
frequently caused by local governments failing to consistently update their plans. The problem with short term
horizons is that it may be detrimental to reject thoughtful long term developments in favor of short-range, short-
term projects simply because. the local government has failed to plan far enough in advance. Other local
governments have made long term extensions to their planning time horizons. Unforturiately, some attempts at
long term planning make projections so far into the future that the data and analysis is no longer accurate enough
to be considered professionally acceptable methodology.
~ackgr.ound~: :." :';'. \.
." ,:. ,.:
.. .. . . "., ':
. ,:\ -."
:', ,
'., :';'
Adopted by the 1985 Legislature, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Ad-also kno"m as Florida's Growth Management Act - requires all of Florida's 67 counties and 410
municipalities to adopt Local Government Comprehensive Plans that guide future growth and development.
Comprehensive plans contain chapters or "elements" that address future land use, housing, transportation,
infrastructure, coastal management, conservation, recreation and open space, intergovernmental coordination, and
capital improvements. As part of each adopted comprehensive plan each local government must also adopt a
Future Land Use Map ("FLUM..).3 The FLUM puts each parcel in the jurisdiction into a designated land use
category; therefore, when a developer or landowner makes an application to change their designated land use they
1 In a survey of nine Florida Counties conducted by the Department, the Departnlent found there was between 27 and 993
years of growth that has been approved beyond the Counties' adopted planning horizons.
2 See Chapter 163, Part II, F.S.
3 Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.
Page 2
Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use Map
__'U u_.. O'
_ ..~=~~ are applying f~~ -~ FLUM amendmeiit: Assuming .the local government" votes' to transmit. the-pIan-amendment to
the Department, the Department then reviews the amendment for consistency with the comprehensive plan. Each
future land use plan amendment is required to be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area,
including the projected population of the area.4--. _u ..
Vv'hen adopting comprehensive plan amendments, local governments must ensure that each land use category is
allocated the proper amount of land. If the local government fails to make a proper allocation, it can run into
problems of over-allocation and under-allocation:
Over-allocation occurs where comprehensive plan amendments are approved where there is no demonstrated
need. The biggest problem caused by over-allocation is urban sprawL Urban sprawl occurs because there is a lack
of constraints on where development occurs. When there are no constraints on development, developers will often
develop land which is not contiguous to existing development. This causes increased infrastructure costs, depleted
urban cores, and the premature development of agricultural lands and natural areas. Furthermore, once this land
has been allocated for higher densities it is extremely difficult to reverse because vested property rights and the
Bert Hanis Act protect private property rights.s Although transferable development rights ("TDR's") are
frequently suggested as a solution to over-allocation, TDR programs are often very difficult to implement and
monitor consistently.
. Under-allocation occurs when there is not enough land in a land use category, in a specific area, to accommodate
demand. If there is a higher demand for land than what is available to build, land prices will increase and
development costs will go up. Location problems can also occur because under-allocation may limit a developer's
options on where to build a new development. Finally, because development is a job creator, under-allocation has
the potential to stifle economic growth. Because of the clear problems associated with under-allocation, local
governments have a tendency to over-allocate.
e
Without thoughtful planning, Florida rons the risk of revisiting problems such as the platted lands problem.. The
platted lands problem is a problem where thousands of plats were sold in areas that lacked proper infrastructure.
This resulted in underserved and blighted areas that are difficult or even impossible to revitalize or rezone. Once
an area is given a certain land use designation or density, it is difficult to change or decrease the intensity of the
zoning without interfering with private property rights.
How Need is Detennined
The needs assessment is a part of the land use planning process that provides a mechanism for local governments
to determine the appropriate supply of land uses necessary to accommodate anticipated demand. Tills is
particularly true because the "need" issue is one of the factors to be considered in any urban sprawl analysis.6
Therefore, it is important for landowners, developers, and local governments to have a clear understanding of how
need is determined so that each entity understands how need factors into the Department's comprehensive plan
amendment compliance decisions. Because of the high risks and costs associated with development, landowners
and developers want certainty before they invest their time and money in applying for a land use plan amendment.
CurrentlY: every large scale future land use map amendment to a comprehensive plan is reviewed, by both the
local government and Department, to determine if there is a need for the amendment. 7 To determine need, the
reviewer must analyze: the categories of land use and their densities or intensities of use, the estimated gross
acreage needed by category, and a description of the methodology used.s This methodology is then submitted to
the Department for review \vith the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. When reviewing this methodology,
the Department reviews both the numerical population and policy factors.
e
4 Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.
s Section 70.001(1), F.S.
6 Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1 F.A.C.
7 Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), FAC.
8 Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), FAC. For an example of how the ~ethodolgy is analyzed, see page 5.
o
.~
c)
.
o
Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use Map
Page 3
Information;for Calculating Needs Methodology
In addition to the basic outline provided above for calculating need, there are several components of the
methodology that need additional explanation.
:Market Factor
Residential: A market factor (also known as an allocation number or multiplier) is a numerical tool used by
professional planners to determine the amount of land use supply needed to accommodate anticipated growth.9
For residential land, a market factor is calculated by dividing the amount of dwelling unit capacity by the amount
of dwelling unit demand.10 The Department recommends a market factor of 1.25 which means a plan allows for
land uses to support 125% of the projected population.1I The additional 25% is designed to allow for market
flexibility; Therefore, if the proposed residential land use amendment-causes the market factor to go above 1.25,
the Department can find an amendment "not in compliance" because of a lack of need. However, there is no
statute or rule that mandates that every plan amendment must be denied where there is an over-allocation. Rather,
if the market factor goes above 1.25 it will cause the plan amendment to be subject to a heightened review to see
if it meets the indicators of urban sprawl 12
CommerciallIndnstrial: Similar to residential, examining the market factor for commercial and industrial lands
is a significant factor in determining need. However, case law has indicated that the need for additional
commercial or industrial land may also be demonstrated by other factors such as the suitability of the property for
change, loeational criteria, and community desires.13 For industrial land use changes, rural communities are also
provided a special exception. Section 163.3177(6)(a) F.S., states that '<the amount ofland designated for future
planned industrial use should be based on SIln'eys and studies that reflect the need for job creation, eapital
investment, and the necessity to strengthen and diversify the local economies and should not be limited solely by
the projected population of the rural community."
Planning Time Horizon
The Florida Growth Management Act of 1985 requires each local government comprehensive plan to include at
least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period occurring after the plan's adoption and one
covering at least a ten-year period.14 In planning for the amount of land needed for a particular land use, the local
government must analyze it within the adopted planning time horizon appliCable to that portion of the
comprehensive plan. Other local governments have also adopted a third planning time horizon for longer range
planning. These longer range planning time horizons have been extended out as far as 40 years, and DCA has
approved comprehensive plan amendments that have incorporated these longer term planning time horizons.1s
Population Projections
A key component of the needs issue are population projections. In 1986, rulemaking required comprehensive
plans to be based on resident and seasonal population estimates provided by the University of Florida, Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, the Executive Office of the Governor, or generated by the local government: 16
If the local government chooses to base its plan on the figures provided by the University of Florida or the
Executive Office of the Governor, medium range projections should be utilized..17 If the local government chooses
to base its plan on either low or high range projections provided by the University of Florida or the Executive
9 The Role ojNeed in Comprehensive Planning, Department of Community Affirirs Presentation, JUlie 26, 2009.
10 ld
Illd.
12 Sierra Club v. St. Johns County & DCA, DOAH OI-I85IGM (May 20, 2002).
13 O'Cormellv. Martin County, DOAH OI-4826GM (OclI6, 2002).
14 Section 163.3 I77(5)(a), F.S.
15 "There is not a prohibition against analyzing more time frames than just one planning horizon." Sierra Club & Panhandle
Citizens v. DCA and Franklin County, DOAH 05-2731 GM (June 12,2006).
16 Rule 91-5.005(2)(e), FAC.
171d
..._u __ Page 4
Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use Map
_. ____ office of ifie''G~~;;;;6i~ ;-.retailed doscrlptiori- of fue -iation.kfoF,uch"a choice lilioll be included wifu 'Uclk-- -- C)
projections.IS
e
-
Alternative Methodologies (for Population Projections).---- ..-.---
If a local government chooses to prepare its own estimates and projections, it is required to submit estimates and
projections and a description of the methodologies utilized to generate the projections and estimates to the
Department of Community Affairs with its plan amendments for compliance review, unless it has submitted them
for advance review. The Department will evaluate the alternative methodology to determine whether the
methodology is professionally accepted. In addition, the Department is required to make available examples of
methodologies for resident and seasonal population estimates and projections that it deems to be professionally
acceptable. Finally, in its review of any population estimates, projections, or methodologies proposed by local
governments, DCA must be guided by the Executive Office of the Governor, in particular the State Data Center.19
Example of Methodology Review
Vvllen conducting a needs methodology review, a professional planner should divide the amount of dwelling unit
capacity by the amount of dwelling unit demand to calculate the market factor. Dwelling unit demand is
calculated by examining the projected population for the jurisdiction over the adopted planning time borizon. If
there is not enough dwelling unit capacity to meet demand then a market factor will be too low and there is a
demonstrated need for the plan amendment. Policy reasons for adopting amendments sbould also be included in
this methodology.
How the Needs Criteria Has Been Reviewed in the Past
Residential: In the early 1990's, during the initial phase of the adoption of comprebensive plans, the Department
found several comprebensive plans "not in compliance" because tbe plans allocated more land than was needed
for residential land use. For example, in 1992 during the adoption of Escambia County's cornprebensive plan the
Department found the plan "not in compliance" because the plan allocated 5 times more residential land than was
needed.2o Walton and Lee County also had their plans found not in compliance because they allocated more
residential land than was needed, i.e. their market factors were too high?I Since the early 1990's, however, the
Department has typically found comprehensive plan amendments to be in compliance in regards to need, as long
as tbe data and analysis was calculated using professional planning methodologies. For example, in 1994, an
administrative law judge ("ALJ") upheld the Department's decision finding a comprehensive plan amendment "in
compliance" where the data and analysis was "calculated using acceptable professional planning
methodologies.'.22 The AU also based his decision on the fact that this plan was similar to other counties found
acceptable by the Department.23
.
CommerciallIndustrial: Because of the importance of commercial and industrial lands for job creation, the
Department and tbe courts have typically found that need may be demonstrated by factors other than simple
numerical need?4 For example, in 2003, a Putnam County commercial land use amendment was challenged by a
neighboring landowner because there was no demonstrated numerical need.25 Here, the Department had approved
the amendment and the ALl upheld the decision. The ALJ stated that "an amendment does not have to be found to
be not in compliance simply because of a numerical over allocation,,,26 rather the presence of an over-allocation
IS Id.
19 Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), FAC.
20 DCA v. Escambia County, DOAH 90-7663GM (Feb. 19,1992).
21 DCA et aI., v. Walton County, DOAH 91-001080GM (ApI. 13, 1992). Sheridanv. Lee County &DCA.DOAH 90-779lGM
(Jan. 27,1993).
22 DCA v. Lake County, DOAH 91-5960GM (Aug. 10, ]994).
23 Jd.
24 These factors include the suitability of the property for change, locational criteria, and community desires. O'Connell v.
Martin County, DOAH 0]-4826GM (Oct. 16,2002).
25 Parsons v. Putnam County, DOAH 02-1069GM (May 5, 2003)_
261d. at 14 citing Sierra Club v. St. Johns County & DCA. DOAH 01-l85lGM (May 20,2002).
.
_o~
0'
e
o
Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use Map
Page 5
-will trigger.a heightened, more thorough review of the indicators of urban sprawl and other factors may outweigh
the numerical over-allocation.27
Current Needs Criteria Review
Recently, the Department has been finding certain land use amendments in compliance despite the numerical
needs criteria; however, the Department has also found several amendments not in compliance based on the needs
criteria.
Land Use Amendments Allowed Despite the Needs Criteria
Although the Department has denied some projects based on need, it has been approving some large scale land
use amendments despite the needs criteria. For example, in November 2008, DCA approved the Clear Springs
Sector plan.28 Previously this site, which totals 17,466 acres, had a land use designation of Agriculture at one
dwelling unit per five acres. This would have allowed the owner to build 3,241 dwelling units. The site has now
been approved to build 11,016 dwelling units at up to 20 units/acre, 6.8 million square feet of Research/Corporate
Park/Commercial, 21.8 million square feet of Industrial, and still contain 4,093 acres Agriculture, and 5,597 acres
ConservationlWetlandsIWater Resources. Also, in a recent case in Putnam County, where the petitioners
contended the amendment designated additional acreage for industrial uses in excess of demonstrated need,
the Department found the amendment in compliance.29 The Department's decision was based on the
County's designation as a Rural Area of Critical Economic Concem.30 This decision was also recently
upheld by an AU.31 Finally, the Knight property in Bay County is also currently in the process of negotiating
with the Department to be approved as a sector plan.
The Department overall has also approved a large number of comprehensive plan amendments. In 2008 alone, the
Department approved 559 amendments which could allow up to 195,427 new dwelling units and almost 200
million square feet of non-residential development. See Table below jor more detailed injomwtion.
Department's Approved Future Land Use Map Amendments, 2008
Types and Numbers of
Approvals of
Residential
Development
Capacity
Approvals of
Non-Residential
Development
Capacity
Numbers of
Jurisdictions Amendments Acres Affected (Dwelling Units) (sq. ft.)
Rural Counties' (14) 50 13,630 17,422 16,404,881
Rural Municlpalities2 (12) 23 j.666 130,321 1,842,984
Non-Rural Counties (26) 200 ~6,427 6,108 72,419,398
Non-Rural Municipalities (76) 286 ~6,607 41,576 108,011,606
TOTALS
559
150,330
195.427
198.678.869
1. Rural counties include those designated as Rural Areas of Critical Economic concern (RACEC) and/or Rural Economic
Development Initiative (REDI).
2. Rural municipalities include those incorporated jurisdictions that are within RACEC counties as well as those that are
individually designated as either RACEC or REDI.
27 Sierra Club v. St. Johns County &DCA, DOAH 01-185IGM (May 20.2002).
28 For more information on Sector Plans, see page 7.
29 County afVolusia, et al. v. DCA and Putnam County, DOAH 07-5107GM (Sept 22, 2009).
301d
31Id
Page 6
Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Goverlllnent's Future Land Use Map
. ~ ..~ .C. -.", ''''''' '" ","".,.. - -,:];)..
.-e~.-Land Use=AIDendmentS" Dtmiecf Based (nfibe Needs Criteria'~~
Residential/CommerciallIndustrial: Recently, the Department has found several comprehensive plan
amendments "not in compliance" due to a lack of demonstrated need. Specifically, these amendments have not
been able to demonstrate a numerical population need. In some of the cases the communities have failed to update - ._- .-' .
the planning time horizons in their comprehensive plans. Because the Department's position is that the need for a
plan amendment must be reviewed ill conjunction with the planning time horizon adopted in the comprehensive
plan, several proposed plan amendments have not been able to demonstrate need. However, because of the time
and expense associated with updating comprehensive plans, many local governments have had difficulty keeping
their plans up to date. In response, the D~artment has allowed some communities to adopt longer range planning
time horizons and multiple time horizons. 2
Marion County Case: The highest profile case where a land use amendment was rejected because of the needs
issue was the case of W~ & Recio v. Marion County & DCA, which was recently considered by the Governor and
Cabinet33 In this case, a developer wanted to change the land use on 400 acres from Rural Land and Urban
Reserve to Residential Medium Density, to build 800 new homes. Although the Department originally found the
amendment in compliance, they later determined they failed to conduct a needs assessment on the proposed
amendment. Therefore, when the case went before an ALJ, the Department changed its position and argued that
the amendment should not be allowed because the methodology used was unprofessional in regards to its
demonstration of need.
e
To properly demonstrate need, an applicant must provide data and analysis showing there is a need for more
development, in this case residential dwelling units, within the local government's adopted planning horizon. The
Department discourages methodologies that plan for growth beyond the adopted planning time horizon in part
because of the potential for urban sprawl. Even if Marion County's adopted planning horizon had extended out to
2015,34 the applicant's data and analysis showed that if the amendment was allowed the plan would allow 5 times
more residential dwelling units than were needed to accommodate projected population. The AU sided with the
Department, finding the applicant's methodology unprofessional because it did not demonstrate need within the
adopted planning time horizon. The Governor and Cabinet upheld the findings of the AU.3s
.
There are several issues highlighted by this case that are of concern to the development community. First, they
argue that the strict needs assessment used in this case and the fmding that the methodology was not
professionally acceptable was a new non-rule policy, inconsistent with prior DCA policy. Second, the time
horizon ofth.e Marion County comprehensive plan was 2010. If population projections are limited by the very
short time horizon in the comprehensive plan, planning changes that rely on future population projections will be
unable to go forward until the comprehensive plan is updated in its entirety. Third, many jurisdictions are over-
allocated, meaning there are currently more dwelling units approved within their adopted planning time horizon
than population projections indicate will be needed. As a result, if need alone can defeat a plan amendment, a
local government will not be able to approve any land use amendment that increases the number of residential
dwelling units until population projections are revised or a new planning time horizon is adopted.
Charlotte County: The Department found an amendment expanding the Urban Service Area by 214 acres and
increasing density and intensity of development in this area not in compliance because the methodology presented
was not professionally accepted. Therefore, the Department found there was no demonstrated need for the
amendment. 36
'Washington County: The Department found an amendment changing 876 acres from Agriculture to Mixed Use
Planned Unit Development not in compliance because the residential needs analysis was not professionally
32 Sierra Club & Panhandle Citizens v. DCA and Franklin Countj, DOAH 05-273lGM (June 12,2006).
33 Woods & Recio v. Marion County & DCA, DOAH 08-1576GM (Feb. 4, 2009).
3~arion County's adopted planning time horizon was 2010; the submitted methodology used a planning time frame of 44
years. DCA used a six year planning time horizon of2015 for their analysis; this planning time horizon was purely
theoretical and only used for legal argument. Woods &Redov. Marion Caw1ty &DC4., DOAH 08-l576GM (Feb. 4, 2009).
3S Woods & Recio v. Marion County & DCA, Administration Commission (Sept 4, 2009).
36 Charlotte County Amendment 09-1
e
c~
0'
e
o
Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use Map
Page 7
acceptable. Although there was a need for an additional 1,058 dwelling units for 2010, the amendment had the
potential to create 7,359 new dwelling unitS.37
Miami-Dade County: A 2009 amendment expanding the urban service area and changing the land use from
Agriculture to Commercial was found not in compliance because the methodology was not ftrofessionally
accepted and ''there is no need for more commercial land in the area of the proposed Lowes site:' & The area of
the Lowe's site had a projected ratio of 11.3 acres of commercial per 1000 persons, wlnle the countywide ratio
was projected to be 6.1 acres per 1000 persons.
Alternative Planning Modes
Because large rural tracts are typically not located in areas where a need can be shown for more residential.
commercial, or industrial lands, the Legislature has created programs to allow some development in rural areas.
These programs are mown as Optional Sector Planning and the Rural Land Stewardship Program. Additionally,
in 2004, the Legislature created the Ave Maria Stewardship District and the Big Cypress Stewardship District as
independent special districts. These districts have independent governing bodies, and have been designed to work
in concert with the rural land stewardship program in Collier County.
Optional Sector Planning
In 1998, the Legislature pennitted the creation of five optional sector plans as an alternative to the Development
of Regional Impact process.39 A sector plan process consists of an agreement authorizing the preparation of a
sector plan between the county and Department, a conceptual long-term build-out overlay, and a detailed specific
area plan. Sector plans emphasize urban form, public participation throughout the process, protection of regional
resources and facilities and apply to areas greater than 5,000 acres. A sector plan is adopted as a comprehensive
plan amendment and similarly reviewed by the Department for consistency. There are currently three sector plans
in existence (West Bay Area Sector Plan, Orange County Sector Plan, Brennan Field Sector Plan), a fourth was
recently designated (Clear Springs Sector Plan) and a fifth will likely be officially designated in the near future.
Rural Land Stewardship
In 2001, the Legislature established the Rural Land Stewardship Area Program ("RLSAP") as a pilot program. 40
This program allowed counties to designate rural land stewardship areas, within areas that are classified on a
future land use map as agricultural, rural, open, or a substantively equivalent land use. Within these areas,
planning and economic incentives can encourage the implementation of flexible planning and development
strategies to increase densities in some locations while permanently preserving land in other areas. After several
legislative changes, in 2006 the Department received its first RLSAP amendments from St. Lucie County (Collier
County had also adopted a similar ruraIland stewardship program, however it was not adopted under the RLSAP
statute).41 After initially finding the St. Lucie County amendments in compliance in 2006, the Department
undertook a second look at them in 2007 when it drafted its annual RLSAP report for the Legislature. During this
review the Department found several shortcomings in the amendments.42
Specifically, the Department found:
· The St. Lucie County program was extremely complex.
· In Collier County, where development was actually happening, the development was being directed to
agricultural areas which the Department contends contravenes the principles of rural sustainability.
· The program did not have any requirements that the receiving area be clustered, thus allowing for the
possibility of scattered sprawling receiving areas.
37 DCA v. Washington County. DOAH 07-0609GM (June 26,2009).
3& DCA v. Miami-Dade County & David Brown. DOAH 08-36 I 4GM (May I I, 2009).
39 Section 163.3245, F.S.
40 Section 163.3177 (l1)(d), F.S.
41 Florida Chamber of Commerce, et af. v. DCA, DOAH 09-3488RP (Sept 14,2009).
42.ld
e.
e
.
Page 8
Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use Map
o
--"' :--.,--.. ,...:..
_.:pu~ to these' shortcomings, the Department has placed little, if any, reliance on the St. Lucie County RLSAP
. amendments as an example of proper planning under the RLSAP statute.43 There is also no evidence that any
development has occurred under the St. Lucie program, and its most recent correspondence indicated that none
may ever occur.44 Furthermore, Highlands and Osceola Counties which both applied for and were granted
authorization by the Department to designate RLSAP's, have since notified the Department that they would no
longer pursue them and the authorization was withdrawn by the Department.4s In order to clear up some of the
c.onfusion over the program, the J)epartment recently entered into rulemaking for the RLSAP. 46 Although these
rules were upheld by an ALJ, it remains to be seen whether this program will actually be used.
Findirigs"~fidlOr9bQdlfsibn$~. '.;~':.'~: :.;'.;';,;:,:..i:> ..
: ..~~~~:::'::':'.; . ~ ~.:.~
Need Assessment is a Factor in Land Use Planning
The needs assessment is a fundamental part ofland use planning. Specifically, the numerical needs assessment is
a useful tool to determine whether the amendment will cause an area to become over-allocated or exacerbate
existing over-allocation. It is also a key indicator of urban sprawL However, the numerical needs assessment is
only one factor to consider when conducting a needs assessment. It is also important to consider other policy
factors such as job creation potential, urban infill, form of development, or the promotion of development in areas
where it is most efficient for the local government to promote growth.
Inconsistent Enforcement
Although the needs assessment has been in the statutes for a long time, it has not been consistently enforced. In
reviewing case law, it appears the Department took a tougher stance against urban sprawl and the needs factor in
the early 1990's during the initial adoption of the comprehensive plans, then relaxed its review of this criterion for
many years when reviewing plan amendments, and has 'now once again been applying a tougher standard. The
market factor being used in many current needs assessments is 1.25. Some amendments are approved despite an
over-allocation of development in a given jurisdiction. However, the reason that these amendments are approved
is unclear.
Long Term Land Use Planning is Permitted but Must be Carefully Considered
In cases such as Woods &. Recio v. Marion County & DCA, 47 a one or two-year planning horizon in the
comprehensive plan will make a showing of future need for development difficult or impossible to demonstrate.
Long term planning can be valuable, but changing an entire c.omprehensive plan to reflect a 20 or 30-year
planning horizon, while currently allowed under the statutes, may present many difficulties. For instance, because
population projections are incorrect, and population projections are required to match the adopted planning time
horizon, adopting too long of a planning time horizon can lead to urban sprawl. Therefore, if a local government
adopts a longer term planning horizon that allows for more development they are taking a risk that they are
allowing development in areas that may never develop.
. Opti.ons'.an~lor ~ecommendathjris .'
", ,',\..
':1. oJ'
Planning for growth where growth is needed has. a number of benefits including the:
. discouragement of urban sprawl and the efficient use of infrastructure dollars;
. discouragement of premature conversion of agricultural lands;
. prevention of fragmentation of the environment; and
. promotion of coordination of the plan with the plans of adjacent local governments.
43 Jd.
44 ld.
4S ld.
46.ld
47 Woods &Recio v. MarUm County &DCA, DOAH 08-1576OM (Feb. 4, 2009).
()
c-
c'"
e
o
Population Need as a Criteria for Changes to a Local Government's Future Land Use Map
Page 9
A numerical needs assessment_~~g_a market factor. is one of the tools the state uses to achieve these important . .
policy objectives. It is 'possible that a development proposal could fail the numerical needs assessment and still
achieve the important policy goals that the test was created to protect. Therefore, a clear articulation of how the
test relates to the goals may allow interested parties to understand how particularly well-planned and beneficial
development might take plaCe even in a jurisdiction that is over-allocated. Rulemaking or legislative clarification
in this area could promote well planned developments where form, function, and location outweigh the
detrimental effects of over-allocation.
Either the Legislature by statute or the Department of Community Affairs through rule making could clarify the
role of needs assessment in the comprehensive planning process. The Department could, through rulemaking,
formalize and elaborate on its current policies and guidelines for analyzing a needs assessment. More clearly
identifying the factors considered in assessing need and the beneficial public policies supported by having a needs
assessment should assist planners, developers, and policymakers to develop plans that avoid over-allocation and
urban sprawl without restricting growth where it would be beneficial.
Finally, there are certain types of development that may not need to undergo stringent needs analysis. For
example, . local governments are often interested in gaining the efficiencies of enhanced urban infil1 and
redevelopment projects. It may be that these projectS are needed for public policy reasons and might not need to
provide population data that support their proposals. In addition, certain commercial or industrial job creation
projects might not require a stringent needs analysis. The Legislature or the Department may choose to exempt or
set different criteria for these projects.
~
c
STAFF SUMMARY OF
THE FLORIDA SENATE INTERIM REPORT
2010-107
0.
0)
I':) ·
Staff Summary of the Florida Senate Interim Report 2010-107, October 2009
Subsequent to preparation of the ccpe Staff Reports for the 2007/2008 combined cycles of
Growth Management Plan amendment petitions, Collier County was provided the October 2009 Rorida
Senate Interim Report 2010-107 entitled "POPULATION NEED AS A CRITERIA FOR CHANGES TO A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP." In addition to the Interim Report, a draft rule to amend the
Florida Administrativ:e Code was provided.
The Interim Report identified a primary issue of a "Needs Assessment" in determining whether a
comprehensive plan amendment as submitted by a local government provides more land than is needed
to accommodate anticipated population growth. Population growth is utilized in the context of
projected population during the 5 and 10 year planning time horizons.
The genesis for the Interim Report was a land use decision in Marion County where the
Governor and Cabinet upheld a decision of an administrative law judge (AU) that a proposed
comprehensive plan amendment would, if adopted, allow more than five times the residential units
needed in Marion County's 10 year planning horizon. The finding of the AU was that the applicant's
methodology was not professionally acceptable because it did not demonstrate the need within the
adopted planning time horizon.
The Report identified several proposed comprehensive plan amendments that were found not
in compliance based upon needs criteria, that is, because need was not demonstrated by the applicant.
However, the Report also identifies some instances where comprehensive plan amendments were
found in compliance despite failing to meet the needs assessment criteria; more about this later in this
'summary. One amendment highlighted in the Report not meeting the needs assessment involved the
re-designation of land for industrial development in Putnam County; another such amendment was for
the creation of the Clear Springs Sector Plan that re-designated 17,000+ acres to allow uses that
included over 11,000 dwelling units, 6.8 million square feet of Research/Corporate Park /Commercial,
and 21.8 million square feet of Industrial uses.
The needs analysis is a useful planning tool to ascertain whether a proposed plan amendment
will result in a local government's over-allocation of land in a specific land use category. One of the
biggest problems identified with the over-allocation of certain land uses is urban sprawl, which causes
increased infrastructure costs, a depleted urban core, and the premature development of agricultural
lands and natural areas.
The needs analysis explained in the Interim Report includes a market factor, planning time
horizon, and population projections. As previously noted, the planning horizon for Collier County is
presently out to 10 years (2020). The County utilizes medium range population projections as provided
annually by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The market factor is
a numerical tool used to determine the amount of land use supply needed to accommodate anticipated
growth. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) uses a market factor of 1.25, or 25 percent
greater than the anticipated need of land use supply necessary for the population projected in the [10
year] planning time horizon. The additional 25% is designed to allow for market flexibility.
Market factor is calculated by dividing the supply of land use by the demand for that land use.
The supply could be dwelling unit capacity (all built units plus all units allowed based on existing zoning
and future land use designation), commercial capacity (all built commercial square feet plus all
1
o
o
o
commercial square feet allowed based on existing zoning and future land use designation [land
converted to building square feet}), or industrial capacity (all built industrial square feet plus all
industrial square feet allowed based on existing zoning and future land use designation [land converted
to building square feet]). The demand could be dwelling unit demand, commercial square feet demand,
or industrial square feet demand - all based upon population projections within the 10-year planning
horizon.
Below are fictitious examples of commercial market factors for three different GMP
amendments within three different geographic areas, all at the lO-year planning horizon:
1) supply of 1.25 million SF/demand for 1 million SF = market factor of 1.25 (supply = 125% of demand)
2) supply of 950,000 SF/demand for 800,000 SF = market factor of 1.19 (supply = 119% of demand)
3) supply of 1.5 million SF/demand for 1 million SF = market factor of 1.50 (supply = 150% of demand)
In the above examples, based on market factor considerations only, there is a demonstrated
need for the first two amendments as the market factor is at or below 1.25, but there is no
demonstrated need for the third amendment as the market factor exceeds the recommended 1.25.
The Interim Report also notes that the numerical needs assessment (market factor), while a
significant factor in determining need, is not the only consideration. Case law indicates commercial or
industrial land use need may also be demonstrated by other factors such as suitability of the property
for change, locational criteria, and community desires. In the Report's Findings and/or Conclusions
section, it states:
The needs assessment is a fundamental part of land use planning. Specifically, the
numerical needs assessment is a useful tool to determine whether the amendment will
cause an area to become over-allocated or exacerbate existing over-allocation. It is also a
key indicator of urban sprawl. However, the numerical needs assessment is only one
factor to consider when conducting a needs assessment. It is also important to consider
other policy factors such as job creation potential, urban infill, form of development, or
the promotion of development in areas where it is most efficient for the local government
to promote growth."
When the numerical needs assessment exceeds the 1.25 market factor, the above additional
factors should be addressed, with specificity, in the proposed GMP amendment petition as part of the
data and analysis. The local government can then consider whether the overall needs assessment for a
certain land use supersedes the numerical needs assessment and, if so, would need to cite with
specificity the policy factors that were relied upon in making that determination. During the Transmittal
stage, DCA would make a determination in its Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report as
to whether the policy factors articulated provide the rational nexus to exceed the 1.25 market factor;
during the Adoption stage, DCA would do that as part of its determination of compliance with state law.
GMPA Needs Assessment for ExSum 07-08 combined cycles
G:\ComprehensivelCOMP PLANNING GMP DA TA\Comp Plan Amendments\2007-2008 Combined Cycle Petitions
rc-mm-dw12-23-09 & 1-7-10
2