Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 04-11-06 Workshop — reading text

CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH City Council Workshop Agenda - April 11, 2006 - 5: 30 P.II City Council Chambers 107 Miracle Strip Parkway, SE Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Anderson I WORKSHOP AGENDA 1. Discussion of legal requirements for amendment of zoning ordinances in relation to the Comprehensive Plan. ( City Attorney) ( CD 2005- 02) ( See Backup). See 2. Discussion offuture uses of Fairgrounds and Softball Complex properties. ( Council Member Hartwell) ( Backup). 3. Discussion of progress of the Finance Director Recruitment. ( Human Resources Director) ( See Backup). 4. Discussion of funding methodologies for underground utilities. ( Council Member Pullen) ( See Backup). 5. General Public on items of City business. ( No Backup). ADJOURN matter at this meeting will need a Any person who decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any the record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of which the appeal is to be proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon based. (FS286. 0105). The City of Fort Walton Beach adheres to the American with Disabilities Act and will make reasonable modifications for access to this meeting upon request Please call City Cleric Helen Spencer at 850-833-9509 to make a request. For Hearing Impaired dial the City Hall TDD 8 #50- 8711 ( TDD) or 1- 833- 9925 or 1- 800-955- allow 800-955-8770 V(oice). Requests must be received at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting In orderto the City time to provide requested service.  CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP April 11 , 2006 Workshop Agenda Discussion regarding legal requirements for amendment of zoning ordinances in relation to the Comprehensive Plan City Attorney) WA- 1 Agenda Item Number:  Toni L. Craig Attorney at Law Memorandum of Advice Date: 6- Apr-06 To: Mayor Council City Manager CC: City Clerk From: City Attorney Re: Comprehensive Plan & Land Development Code Amendment Process This memorandum follows the adoption on first reading of the amendatory ordinances regarding heights in the C- l, C- 2, M- l, M-2, and MUW -24 districts. During that session, you heard argument from attorneys that the City was adopting Land Development Code provisions inconsistent with our Comprehensive Plan. This is my advice regarding that argument. The City's Comprehensive Plan is like a constitution for future development within the City and serves as a conceptual framework. It is " intended to provide for the future use of land, contemplating a gradual and ordered growth. It only establishes a long- range maximum limit on the possible intensity of land use; it does not simultaneously establish an immediate minimum limit on the possible intensity of land use. The present use of land may, by zoning ordinance, continue to be more limited than the future use contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan." The Department of Community Affairs has oversight authority to review all comprehensive plans and plan amendments for compliance with the Growth Management Act. The amendment process is restricted to twice per year and is a long, detailed, statutorily controlled process. On the other hand, our Land Development Code provisions provide the " nuts and bolts" of how we will carry out the Comprehensive Plan. Those provisions are more detailed and particular to specific zoning districts and specific development patterns. The LDC is more easily amended and not as statutorily controlled as amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Both the Comprehensive Plan and LDC amendments are legislative acts. The review of a legislative action of Council is restricted to determining whether the action is unreasonable and arbitrary. However, pursuant to section 163.3213, Fla. Stat. ( 2006), any substantially affected person has the right to file an administrative action to determine whether any land development regulation is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Such a challenge must be filed with the City within 12 months after final adoption of the land development regulation. The City would then have 30 days to respond; after which the person may petition the DCA for further determination. Essentially, the DCA is the first-tier appellate for such a challenge. The Courts would then be the final appellate authority. With these principles in mind, it is my advice that the Council's decision to reduce heights in the C- I, C- 2, M- l, M- 2, and MUW-24 districts is legitimate legislative action. The reduction of heights is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the amendments are more limited than the future use contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. At any time in the future, the Council could decide to again raise the heights; however, the Council could not legally exceed the height limitations set out in the Comprehensive Plan without first amending the Comprehensive Plan. Attached are backup cases for your review and information. I look forward to any discussion at the 11 April Workshop. 244 Racetrack Rd NE Fort Walton Beach FL 32547- 1866 850) 243- 6969 Fax: ( 850) 244- 8929 Email: attycrg@aol.com l t\ est1aw 739 So.2d 115 Page I 739 So.2d 115, 24 Fla. L.Weekly DI539 Cite as: 739 So. 2d lIS) r:' District Court of Appeal of Florida, ill Zoning and Planning ~ 159 Third District. 414k 159 Most Cited Cases MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, v. 191 ill Zoning and Planning ~ Bernice WALBERG, et aI., Respondents. 414k 191 Most Cited Cases No. 99- 840. A landowner has the seeking to rezone property burden of proving that the proposal is consistent with June 30, 1999. the all comprehensive plan and complies with Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1999. procedural requirements of the zoning ordinance. Landowners in district for single- family homes on ill Zoning and Planning ~ 194. 1 five- acre lots sought review of county commission' s 414k 194. 1 Most Cited Cases decision to deny request to rezone eight- acre lot to Proof by landowner that proposal to rezone property allow single- family homes on one acre- lots. The is consistent with the comprehensive plan and Circuit Court, Dade County, Appellate Division, complies with all procedural requirements of the ruled in favor of landowners. County petitioned for zoning ordinance shifts the burden to the writ of certiorari. The District Court of Appeal, governmental board to demonstrate that maintaining Jor~enson, J., held that landowners were not entitled the existing zoning classification with respect to the to rezoning oftheir property. property accomplishes a legitimate public purpose; the board will have the burden to prove that the Petition granted; order quashed; and commission refusal the is to rezone property not arbitrary, affinned. discriminatory, or unreasonable. West Headnotes ill Zoning and Planning ~ 159 414k 159 Most Cited Cases t67. ill Zoning and Planning €==> 1 Although a zoning change may be consistent with the 414k167. 1 Most Cited Cases comprehensive plan, the landowner is not Landowners in district for single- family homes on presumptively entitled to such use. five- acre lots were not entitled to rezoning of their eight- acre lot to allow single- family homes on one- 1159 acre lots, even if rezoning was consistent with the 1M Zoning and