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

442 So. 2d 221 ( Fla. I st DCA 1983), compensation under the constitution. 595 So. 2d at Chapter 380 specifically provides that: U. Nothing in this chapter authorizes any governmental agency to adopt a rule or regulation or issue any In the present case, the Master Development Plan order that is unduly restrictive or constitutes a taking submitted by Battaglia proposed office, commercial of property without the payment of full including a bank and restaurant), and multifamily development for the site and did not contain any compensation, in violation of the constitutions of this 2006 Thomson/ West. No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works. 629 So.2d 161 Page 5 629 So. 2d 161, 18 Fla. L.Weekly D2117 Cite as: 629 So. 2d 161) provisions for single family residential development. commission. This constitutes a much increased density use for the land than was possible under the prior single family residential zoning. Accordingly, it was necessary to FN6. Snvder. 595 So. 2d at 78. amend the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to FN4 accommodate the project. The Board did so, but FN7. Snvder 595 So. 2d at 78. added conditions aimed at buffering and limiting the impact of the project on the surrounding The hearing officer justified the conditions as based neighborhoods, which were primarily residential. in part on the fol1owing commercial policies from the Both the County' s and the City of Maitland' s plans Orange County Growth Management Policy: showed these areas are designed to remain B. COMMERCIAL POLICIES ( Policies outlined in residential. Sections 1. 0 through 4. 0 are applicable to all types of commercial activities within Orange County). 1. 0 GENERAL FN4. & & 163. 3184, 163.3194. Fla. Stat. 1. 0. 1 The County will encourage the concentration of 2D; Gardens Countrv Club Inc. v. Palm ill. expanded commercial facilities in centers suitably Beach Countv. 590 So.2d 488 ( Fla. 4th located provide their market areas with to DCA 1991); ia Batta'i!/ Fruit Co. v. Citv of accessibility and to discourage inappropriate roadway Maitland. 530 SO. 2d 940. 950 ( Fla. 5th strip commercial uses. Uses generally considered as DCA 1988) ( Sharp, W., C.l.,dissenting). a suitable replacement for strip commercial activities include all types of residential uses, institutional FN5 Ql The issue in this case, in contrast to Snyder. is development, or recreation areas and green belts. not whether the rezoning was * 165 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, because the plan itself was changed to accommodate the Lakepointe development. The new zoning, or P. U. D., 11. 0 OFFICES AND PROFESSIONAL incorporates and includes the conditions to which COMMERCIAL POLICIES Battaglia objects as essential parts of the rezoning. Offices and professional commercial developments Without them, the development order would not have are those provide office space for the which been approved. furnishing of professional services. Such uses may be located individually or in planned centers, such as office parks. FN5. In Snyder. this court said: " The nature 11. 1 Location and Compatibility of the chal1enge, in this case, is not to the 11 . 1 . 1 Large office uses should generally locate validity or constitutionality of the adjacent to arterial thoroughfares that connect to an underlying comprehensive plan, or to the interstate or expressway in order to lend accessibility zoning legislation enacting that plan, but to to a wider market area. the validity of the action denying the 11. 1.2 Smaller office uses should generally utilize minor arterials for site and requested rezoning of one parcel of real principal or access property." 595 So.2d at 79. location. 11. 1.3 Office parks should be encouraged to include Thus, in this case, we are being asked to review the corollary uses such as office supply stores, banks, propriety of an "[ i] nitial zoning enactment( s) and restaurants, conference centers and other compatible comprehensive rezoning( s) orFN6 rezonings affecting a business and commercial uses. This is " legislative 11. 1.4 Office compatible with adjacent large portion of the public"... uses are FN7 in character." And, pursuant to Snyder. the community and regional commercial shopping areas standard for review by the courts is limited to and may provide a buffer between these shopping detennining whether the rezoning (i.e.. imposition of areas and nearby residential areas. the objected to conditions) is unreasonable and 11. 1. 5 Professional service office parks should locate arbitrary. See Florida Land Co. v. Citv of Winter on major collectors and minor arterials. SlJrinfls. 427 So. 2d 170 ( Fla. 1983t Since this is the first court review of a zoning decision made by a The officer also found the following complex but purely administrative process, we are in hearing the same posture as a circuit court reviewing the residential policies relevant: 3. 0 LOCATION AND COMPATIBILITY zoning decision of a county board or zoning 2006 Thomson/ West. No Claim to Orig. U. S. Govt. Works. 629 So. 2d 161 Page 6 629 SO. 2d 161, 18 Fla. L. Weekly 02117 Cite as: 629 So. 2d 161) 3. I General particular, the County will consider prohibiting 3. 1. I Residential areas shall be buffered from major commercial development on all quadrants at major transportation arteries, and from commercial and road intersections where such development would industrial land uses which are not compatible with have a detrimental impact on nearby residential residential development. New commercial neighborhoods or where the location of commercial development will be discouraged where there would activities would unduly disrupt or overburden the be a detrimental impact on existing residential flow of traffic on existing and proposed facilities. properties due to excessive noise, pollution, traffic transportation congestion, unsafe highway conditions or where an unacceptable physical intrusion into residential neighborhoods would be created. Under the Orange County Growth Management Plan, the area west of 1- 4 has been designated as an FN8 activity center" high density, high where will be encouraged so they do not intensity uses 1663. 1.3 Land development controls should ensure locate in established single family, residential areas. that futuredevelopment which may allow a greater Freestanding commercial use is appropriate in these intensity of use is compatible with existing activity centers. But it is not