sc061902

St Joe/Avida SummerCamp Development - Report Of Opinions, Comments & Recomendations From The Florida Department Of Community Affairs (DCA)

Attached please find a scanned version of the subject report which has been converted to a Word 2002 document. Please excuse any mis-spellings I did not catch caused by the conversion of the document. Please feel free to share it as you desire.

This report was recently provided to the Franklin County Board of County Commissioners by DCA. Franklin County and the developer must address the issues identified in the report prior to the development moving forward.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"

The Honorable Eddie Creamer, Chairman

Franklin County Commission

33Market Street, Ste. 203

Apalachicola, Florida 32320

Dear Chairman Creamer:

The Department of Community Affairs has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Franklin County (DCA No. 02-1), which was received on March 25, 2002. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional, and local agencies for their review, and their comments are enclosed. Enclosed is the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).

Franklin County has proposed several amendments to its comprehensive plan which would, among other things, assign a Mixed-Use Residential designation to a 784-acre parcel located at Turkey Point and impose certain conditions on the development of that land. The Department has completed a planning review of these proposed amendments and has identified significant issues relating to protection of natural resources, the vague nature of the amendments, internal consistency with the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan, emergency management, and the need to update the Comprehensive Plan.

The current Mixed-Use Residential land use classification as set forth in Policy 2.2(e) of the County Comprehensive Plan lacks several basic elements. The category allows an undefined, wide range of uses, and does not contain a meaningful intensity standard for these uses. The additional conditions imposed by proposed Policy 11.11 do not filly address these shortcomings, and fail to properly limit the types and amounts of allowable development under the Mixed-Use Residential designation. Under the current County Plan, it appears that land designated Mixed-Use Residential could contain significant amounts of residential, commercial, and industrial development, as well as public facilities, with the potential that none of these uses would be required to use central water or sewer.

This type of development is not appropriate for the 784-acre Turkey Point parcel. Based on information obtained during the review process, it is apparent that this property includes important natural resources and that inappropriate development of the property may result in direct and indirect water quality impacts to the adjacent bay and estuarine system. It appears that about one half of the site consists of wetlands, with additional floodplain areas. Soil types on the property are classified as having severe limitations, and research conducted at the Florida State University Marine Lab indicates a rapid infiltration of groundwater into the bay and estuarine system. Given those factors it is appropriate that a close evaluation be undertaken of the land development potential and development controls as they relate to the protection of natural resources. Because this evaluation and corresponding plan limitations are not included in the proposed amendment, the Department must object as provided in the attached report.

Other issues identified in the report relate to the location of the future land use plan amendment within Franklin County's adopted Coastal High Hazard Area, the proposal to rely on off-site water supply and wastewater treatment facilities, and unmet planning commitments by the County regarding stormwater management. These considerations suggest that in addition to a close evaluation of the subject property itself, there is a need for a stronger area-wide planning framework within which to consider the subject amendment. As it appears that Franklin County has not initiated a full set of Evaluation and Appraisal Report {EAR}-based plan amendments, it may be appropriate to establish such an area-wide framework in the context of EAR-based updates to the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan.

I understand the breadth of these objections, and the planning the County is being requested to undertake. The Department is certainly willing and ready to assist the County in this effort. I would be glad to appear before your Board of County Commissioners at a regular meeting or workshop to further discuss these matters and manners in which they may be addressed.

Upon receipt of this letter, Franklin County has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the County will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of local government comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s. 163.3 184, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 9J-1 1.0 11, F.A.C. The County must ensure that all ordinances adopting comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 163.31 89(2)(a),

Within ten working days of the date of adoption, Franklin County must submit the following to the Department:

Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments;

A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed;

A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included

in the ordinance; and

A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report.

The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent.

Please be advised that the Florida Legislature amended Section 163.3 184(8)(b), Florida Statutes, requiring the Department to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the Department's Notice of Intent to citizens who furnish their names and addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide this courtesy information statement, local governments are required by the law to furnish to the Department the names and addresses of the citizens requesting this information. This list is to be submitted at the time of transmittal of the adopted plan or plan amendment. As discussed in our letter sent to you on May 25, 2001, outlining the changes to Section 163.3 184(8)(b) which are effective July 1, 2001, and providing a model sign-in information sheet, please provide these required names and addresses to the Department when you transmit your adopted amendment package for compliance review. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in electronic format.

In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuant to Rule 9J-11.011(5) F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the Apalachee Regional Planning Council.

Please contact Barbara Lenczewski Planning Consultant or Jeff Bielling, Community Program Administrator at (850) 922-1760 if we can be of assistance as you formulate your response to this Report.

Charles Gauthier, AICP

Chief, Bureau of Local Planning

Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report

Review Agency Comments

Mr. Alan Pierce, Planning Director

Mr. Charles D. Blume, Executive Director, Apalachee Regional Planning Council

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS

FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY AMENDMENT 02-1

Division of Community Planning

Bureau of Local Planning

This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-l 1.010

The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of the Franklin County 02-1 proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan pursuant to s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.).

Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some of these objections may have initially been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence.

Each of these objections must be addressed by the local government and corrected when the amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items which the local government considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed.

The comments which follow the objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping, and reader comprehension.

Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report.

Department of Community Affairs

Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report for

Franklin County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 02-1

Proposed Franklin County Amendment 02-1: Franklin County has proposed changes to four objectives in the Coastal/Conservation Element that refer to maintaining wetlands, conserving and protecting native vegetation, maintaining estuarine quality and maintaining ambient air standards. The county also proposes to add several new policies to the Capital Improvements Element in order to improve recreational facilities. The Department raises no objections to the proposed comprehensive plan text changes to the Coastal/Conservation Element.

The amendment also proposes the re-designation of 784 acres on the Future Land Use Map from Agriculture to Mixed-Use Residential, and the addition of Policy 11.11 to the Future Land Use Element.

Policy 11.11 proposes to accomplish the following: establish a maximum limit of 499 residential dwelling units and a maximum gross density of one dwelling per acre; limit non-residential land uses by creating a cap of 2,000 net new external vehicle trips; provide for an internal transportation system to promote pedestrian and bicycle opportunities; allow wetland encroachment for roadways, utility crossings, boardwalks, and pedestrian and bicycle paths; require stormwater management systems to meet OFW standards; allow for the potential relocation of U.S. Highway 98 further inland; and prohibit any marina or associated facilities as part of this land use designation or any subsequent development plans.

The standards in Policy 11.11 would apply only to the "SummerCamp Planned Unit Development," which is the project proposed for the 784-acre re-designated parcel. These standards would be in addition to those generally applicable to the Mixed-Use Residential category as set forth in Policy 2.2(e).

The Department has objections to these proposed changes based on the environmentally sensitive nature of the subject property, the very general nature of the plan amendment, and the need to update the overall County Comprehensive Plan.

The Mixed-Use Residential category established in Future Land Use Policy 2.2(e) and requested as the new designation for the 784-acre parcel lacks several basic elements. The category allows an undefined, wide range of non-residential uses, and does not contain meaningful intensity standards for these uses. The category also lacks a predictable measure of the allowable mix of uses. Due to these shortcomings, it is impossible to assess the suitability of a site for designation as Mixed-Use Residential and the public facility demands attendant such a designation.

The additional conditions contained in Policy 11.11 do not cure the existing deficiencies of Policy 2.2(e). For instance, the limitation of non-residential development based on "net new external vehicular daily trips" is not a meaningful intensity standard, and does not establish a predictable mix of uses. The allowable density is also unclear, as it references both a maximum of 499 dwelling units ~ a maximum gross density of one dwelling unit per acre for the 784 acre amendment site.

As to the map amendment, these vague policies would allow development that is not suitable with the exceptionally sensitive nature of the site. The amendment site is adjacent to the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve. Because of the high water table and abundance of wetlands on the site, development can reasonably be expected to have some direct and indirect impacts on the estuarine system and water quality. The wide array and the nature of the uses allowed under the proposed amendment are not tailored to the nature of the amendment site. Additionally, the increase in residential development potential is not consistent with emergency management concerns.

To address these fundamental issues, the Department recommends the County undertake an update to its Comprehensive Plan to bring it into compliance with current State law. This is particularly important relative to the new wetland protection requirements in Rule 9J-5.0 13(3), Florida Administrative Code, which are not addressed in the County Plan. Additionally, the Mixed-Use Residential category should be amended to set forth an exclusive, meaningful list of allowable uses, and also to establish a predictable mix of those uses. If the County chooses to generally define the intensity and mix of uses in the land use category, it may wish to consider a requirement that further refmement of the type and mix of uses, such as was attempted in Policy 11.11, be added with each particular map amendment. Further updates to the Plan are necessary to correct outdated references and deadlines.

The Department recognizes the breadth of these objections and recommendations. However, it has been four years since the County adopted its Evaluation and Appraisal Report and over two years since implementing plan provisions were due to be adopted. According to our records, the County has not come forward with the full set of amendments required to bring the Plan up to date. The Department is ready to assist the County in now updating its Plan.

The specific objections and rule and statutory bases therefore are as set forth below:

Objection 1. Proposed Future Land Use Element Policy 11.11 does not provide an adequate intensity standard for non-residential land use as required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes [FS]. The proposed limit of 2,000 net external daily vehicle trips generated by the non-residential land uses within the proposed Planned Unit Development does not provide a predictable intensity standard for the use of land and from which the likely impacts of proposed uses can be readily assessed. In addition, it is not clear from the proposed Policy 11.11 what the maximum number of residential units allowed under this policy may be. The policy appears to set a maximum residential dwelling limit of 499 units. However, the policy also establishes a maximum gross density of one dwelling unit per acre, which implies a total of 784 units for the proposed site.

Section 163.3 177(2) & (6)(a), FS, Rule 9J-5.003(60), 9J-5.005(5), and 9J-5.006(3)(c)7., FAC

Recommendation. The County should establish an intensity standard such as floor area ratio [FAR] for the non-residential land uses allowed under the Mixed-Use Residential land use designation. Another potential intensity standard that may substitute for or supplement FAR is a combination of impervious surface area ratio and height limit. In either case, due to the sensitivity and the inherent suitability limitations of the site as noted below, any intensity standard established for the proposed site by this future land use designation, and any future application of this designation must take into consideration site suitability and adjust the intensity of allowable uses accordingly. In addition, the maximum allowable residential development potential should be clearly established and limited.

Objection 2. The Mixed-Use Residential Future Land Use category in Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2 and referenced by proposed Policy 11.11, would establish residential development as the primary land use but also provides for a wide array of other allowable land uses including commercial uses that may include retail, office, commercial/tourist and hotel/motel. These uses may be substantial given the proposed intensity standard. In addition, forms of shoreline development appear to be allowed including single family docks and private, multi-slip boat docking facilities. Policy 2.2(g) of the Future Land Use Element establishes as an intensity standard a maximum impervious lot coverage of 80%. As noted below, due to the characteristics of the site and the significant natural resources in the area, many of these allowable non-residential land uses are not environmentally suitable for the area subject to the amendment. The proposed amendment has not adequately coordinated future land use and site suitability. Further, while the data and analysis reference off site waste water treatment, the plan amendment does not commit the subject property to being served by central waste water treatment.

Section 163.3 177(6)(a), FS, Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b), FAC

Recommendation. Revise proposed policy 11.11 to limit the allowable future land uses to those that can be supported by the site subject to the amendment considering soil types, water tables, wetlands, and water bodies directly and indirectly receiving stormwater runoff In particular, the types of and conditions under which shoreline development may be allowed must be addressed.

Objection 3. The proposed amendment creates an internal inconsistency with Future Land Use Element Policy 3.1 prohibiting development of environmentally sensitive lands [ie, wetlands and all land fifty feet landward of wetland/upland boundary]. The proposed policy 11.11 explicitly allows wetland encroachment by roadway crossings, utility crossings, boardwalks and other pedestrian and bicycle path crossings that would otherwise appear to be prohibited by Policy 3.1.

Section 163.3177(2), and 163.3191 FS Rule 9J-5.005(5)&(6), and 9J-5.013, FAC

Recommendation. Revise proposed policy 11.11 to be consistent with the wetland protection provisions of the adopted Franklin County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, it appears that the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan has not been updated through Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based amendments to provide for the changes to Rule 9J-5, FAC, concerning the protection of wetlands. As a component of this amendment, the County should revise its plan as necessary to comply with the requirements of Rule 9J-5.013, FAC.

Objection 4. The environmental sensitivity and significance of the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve abutting the 784-acre Agricultural parcel proposed to change to the Mixed-Use Residential category raises the issue of environmental suitability of the site given the wide array of uses allowed in this designation. Please note that the soils at this site are identified as having limitations for many development activities and a seasonal water table that is within 1/2 foot of the ground surface. As the ground water movement in this area is toward tide, and therefore draining into the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve, activities on the land surface have the potential to adversely affect in-water resources. Much of the site is within the 100-year floodplain and wetlands. It is not clear from the proposed amendment how potential shoreline development, such as individual docks and multi-slip docking facilities, will be directed so as to avoid adverse impacts to the onsite resources as well as to the Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve. The proposed Future Land Use Map designation of Mixed-Use Residential has not been adequately demonstrated as a suitable land use for this site. Therefore, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Objective 1 and Policy 1.2, directing development activities to appropriate areas as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (to assure that soil conditions, topography, drainage and natural conditions are suitable for development and adequate public facilities are available. Coastal/Conservation Element Objective 3, to maintain estuarine water quality surrounding Franklin County's coastal resources such that there shall be no loss of any approved shellfish harvesting classification.

Section 163.31 77(2),(6)(a)&(9)(b), FS, Rule 9J-5 .005(5), and 9J-5 .006(3)(b), FAC

Recommendation. Alternatively, revise the Mixed-Use Residential future land use category to coordinate the land uses that are allowed on a given site with the characteristics, limitations, and suitability of that site. The land use category should be revised to provide for enhanced development controls when site characteristics would indicate that they are needed. In addition, the significant natural resource areas, such as wetlands, on a proposed site should be assigned the Conservation Future Land Use designation.

Objection 5. The proposed Future Land Use Map change is not consistent with the provisions of the adopted Franklin County Plan to limit development within and direct development away from the Coastal High Hazard Area [CHHA]. Figure 41 of the adopted Franklin County Plan delineates the proposed site as being within the CHHA.

Section 163.3 177(2)&(9)(b), 163.3 178(1)&(2), and 163.3 191 FS Rule 9J-5.005(5) and 9J- 5.012(3)(a)&(b)l .,2.,5.,6.,&7., FAC [Franklin County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Objective 9, and Objective 13 of the Coastal/Conservation Element to limit development density and intensity within the CHRA and to direct development outside of the CHHA]

Recommendation. There appears to be a discrepancy between the extent of the CHHA as mapped in the Franklin County Plan and Category 1 hurricane evacuation zone [the CHHA] as depicted in the Apalachee Bay Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study. This discrepancy should be resolved as the County proceeds with EAR-based updates to its comprehensive plan. The designated CHHA should be consistent with the provisions of section 163.3178 (2) (h), FS, which defines the CHHA as the category 1 evacuation zone. This definition of the CHHA should also be reflected in the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study.

Objection 6. Infrastructure Element Policy 2.16 requires, among other things, stormwater studies of an area designated as Agriculture before these lands can be converted for development purposes. It is not clear if such a study has been completed for the proposed amendment site. Changing the Future Land Use Map designation on this site from Agriculture to Mixed-Use Residential creates an internal inconsistency in the adopted Franklin County Plan unless the appropriate stormwater studies are completed.

Section 163.3 177(2), FS Rule 9J-5.005(5), FAC [Franklin County Plan Infrastructure Element Policy 2.16 concerning stormwater studies]

Recommendation. Complete the required stormwater study for the proposed site. Such a study should assess and document the type and extent of stormwater management that would be needed given the uses proposed for the site, the storm water management standards established for this site, and the characteristics of the site. This study should also address the movement and ultimate fate of material transported by stormwater that may be applied to the site such as fertilizers, pesticides, or other chemicals of concern. Based upon this study, Franklin County should establish appropriate land use limitations and development controls which will assure protection of water quality and do so as part of a plan amendment for the site.

Objection 7. The proposed Policy 11.11 creates the potential for a re-alignment of US 98 and an reconfiguration of the US 98/US 319 intersection. However, no amendment to the adopted Traffic Circulation Element or Future Traffic Circulation Map has been proposed which would appear to create an internal inconsistency within the adopted Franklin County Plan. Furthermore data and analysis has not been provided to justify the amendment.

Section 163.3 177(2), FS Rule 9J-5.005(2)&(5), FAC

Recommendation. Franklin County should revise its Future traffic Circulation Map to reflect any roadway re-alignment. Data and analysis to support and just~5i the revision should be provided. The County should coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation on any potential re-alignment of US 98 and US 319.

Objection 8. The proposed amendment has not adequately a need for the proposed increase in residential development capacity on the Franklin County Future Land Use Map. The current residential development capacity of the Future Land Use Map appears to be in significant excess of the forecast demand for the planning horizon of the adopted Franklin County Plan.

Section 163.3 l77(6)(a), FS Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c) and (5)(g), FAC

Recommendation. Provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to support the need for the proposed amendment.

Objection 9. The proposed amendment has not provided adequate data and analysis to demonstrate consistency of the proposed amendment with the provisions of Coastal/Conservation Element Objective 18 and Policies 18.1 and 18.2 concerning the maintenance of the US 98 corridor as a scenic route.

Section 163.3 177(2), FS Rule 9J-5.005(5), FAC

Recommendation. Provide adequate and relevant data and analysis to demonstrate the consistency of the proposed amendment with the provisions of the adopted Franklin County Comprehensive Plan.

The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187. FS:

Sections 187.201 (8)(a), FS concerning the maintenance of natural systems function and water quality; l87.201(8)(b)(2), FS regarding water recharge areas; 187.201(8)(b)(8), FS concerning preservation of hydrologically significant wetlands and floodplain features; 187.201(8)(b)(9), FS concerning protection of aquifers; 187.201(8)(b)(10), FS concerning protection of surface and groundwater quality; 187.201 (8)(b)(12), FS concerning wastewater discharge and stormwater runoff; and 187.201(8)(b)(13) concerning degradation of water resources.

Sections 187.201(9)(b)(4), FS concerning protection of coastal and marine resources from adverse effects of development; 187.201 (9)(b)(5), FS concerning the implementation of coordinated planning to ensure integrity of coastal areas; l87.201(9)(b)(6), FS concerning the encouragement of land and water uses which are compatible with protection of sensitive coastal resources; and 187.201 (9)(b)(7), FS concerning the protection and restoration of long-term productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources.

Sections 187.20l(l0)(a), FS concerning the protection of natural habitats and ecological systems; 187.201(9)(b)(1), FS concerning conservation of wetlands, fish, marine life and wildlife to maintain environmental, economic, aesthetic and recreational values; 187.201(9)(b)(3), FS, concerning endangered species and habitat protection; l87.201(9)(b)(7), FS concerning the protection of wetland systems; and 187.201(9)(b)(10), FS concerning the maintenance of ecologically intact systems.

Sections 187.201(16)(a), FS concerning the preservation of natural resources and enhancing quality of life and directing development to areas that can accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner; and 187.201(1 6)(b)(6), FS concerning the impact of land use on water quality and quantity.