Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2006

Home

Page 2 --April 10, 2006 Setbacks-- Request for decreased setbacks denied over incompatibility with neighborhood Developer claims interpretation of ordinance denies due process Citation: Premier Developers v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Court of Appeals of Florida, 4th Dist., No. 4D05-642 (2006) FLORIDA (02/22/06) -- Premier submitted a proposal to build a 12-story condo- minium building along a waterway. The building desig'n required approval be- cause it included decreased setbacks from those required by city code. Decreased setbacks were allowed Lf the proposed building complied with certain requirements. The city analyzed the proposal, and it concluded that the project did not meet "massing" guidelines, neighborhood compatibility stan- dards, a~d preservatitn guidelines. Therefore, the request for decreased set- backs -- and consequently, the proposal -- was denied. Premier petitioned the planning commission for review, arguing that it had complied with all the city's codes and that the neighborhood compatibility provision was not mandatory. The city responded that the neighborhood com- patibility was a requirement for plan approval, and that Premier therefore had not satisfied all the code's provisions. Also, Premier's proposal did not meet other requirements for approval. (i' ' After reviewing the relevant ordinances, the trial court found that the corn- ~. mission had used "competent ~ubstantial evidence" in denying Premier's re- quest. The commission's decision was upheld. Premier appealed. In its request for review, Premier claimed that it was de- nied due process because the trial court relied on information that had not been presented at the commission hearings to make its decision. DECISION: Request for review denied. The issues before the appeals court were: 1) to determine whether the lower court had afforded Premier its due process, and 2) if the lower court had applied the correct law in reaching its decision. · Premier argued that the trial court erred in two ways. First, it believed that the court's decision was based on the city's position that neighborhood com- patibility was a requirement for plan approval. Premier argued that this discus- sion was not part of the initial review process at the commission level; introduc- tion of the matter at trial violated its due process rights. Second, Premier said that the court did not apply the correct law. According to Premier -- since it had met the conditions of the code -- the burden of proof was shifted to the city. The state supreme court had stated that, once a petitioner, met the initial burden to show that its application met all criteria for approval, "the burden was upon the Planning Comrmssion to dem- . onstrate, by competent substantial evidence presented at the hearing and made : part of the record, that the [application] ... did not meet such standards and was 54 © 2006 Quinlan Put, fishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please calf (617) 542-0048.