Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing was entered into evidence and said notice was amended to reflect that the distance of an existing crossing north of the proposed crossing was 2,208' + north rather than 1,500' + north. The application was also changed to reflect that the proposed roadway was to extend the limits of a right of way to 120' instead of 100'. The change would place the mile post at a slightly different location. Upon examination of the area and taking testimony from the three attorneys involved in this hearing, it is the findings of this Hearing Officer that the change in location and the change in the proposed roadway is not of sufficient consequence that the hearing should have been postponed and re- noticed. Inasmuch as the parties directly involved were present, the owners of the railroad were represented, the owners of the Petitioner corporation were represented, there were representatives from the County and from the Florida Department of Transportation. A re-notice with the minor changes in location and in the width of the right of way would have been sent to the same representatives. The Notice of Hearing met the requirements of notice of public hearing. Petitioner Suntree Development Corporation is proposing to construct a connector road between Wickham Road and U.S. 1 approximately 2,208' south of an existing two-lane signalized (warning bells, lights, and gates) road crossing on Pineda Avenue in south Brevard County, Florida. The proposed road is to be four-laned with 120 foot right of way including a 20 foot medium strip. The road would be an access between U.S. 1 and the Suntree Community, a new community on approximately 2,800 acres of land which is predicted to have approximately 35,000 to 40,000 people after total development which is estimated to be completed within a 15 year period. The road would be a limited access with acceleration and deacceleration lines on U.S. 1 with an estimated total anticipated average daily traffic of from 23,000 to 60,000 trips per day. The proposed crossing involves a Type IV cantilevered signalization with bells, flashing lights and gates to be activated by trains. Cost of signalization and maintenance is to be borne by the Suntree Development Corporation. Petitioner is the primary owner of all the lands involved, but does not own all of the right of way needed to construct the crossing. Building is presently limited to a country club, sewage treatment plants, about a mile of roadway and two single family homes under construction and plans for the construction of some forty homes within the next few months. The proposed crossing was approved by the Brevard County Commission with the understanding that the crossing at Pineda Avenue would not be closed. The Florida East Coast Railway track in this area is a single track with 18 through freight trains a day which travel about 60 m.p.h. at the proposed crossing location. Two local freights move at unscheduled times across the railroad tracks. The tracks in the vicinity of the proposed crossing is nearly straight. The Florida East Coast Railway Company owns the right of way over the tracks and opposes the opening of another crossing in such close proximity to the crossing at Pineda Avenue, at this time. Storage capacity or storage area is the area in which cars can stand while awaiting clearance to proceed. The proposed road will contain 1,800' of storage area with 850' on the Wickham Road side and 950' on the U.S. 1 side. Using the average daily traffic figure when the community is developed, as calculated by Petitioner, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 3.28 minutes. Using the average daily traffic figures when the community is developed, as calculated by the Florida Department of Transportation, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 1.27 minutes. The Florida Department of Transportation recommends that an overpass be constructed rather than the at-grade crossing. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Pineda Avenue crossing can serve the vehicular traffic demand at present; Petitioner's plans for development, if realized, will demand another railroad cross- ing to serve the community; The proposed at-grade crossing is in such close proximity to U.S. 1 that it would be hazardous to vehicular traffic on U.S. 1 and the proposed Suntree entry road when the community is developed.
The Issue The granting or denial of permits to open and to close public at-grade railroad crossings as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, 1973.
Findings Of Fact The petitioner is in the process of constructing a major vehicular traffic facility linking U.S. Highways 17 and 92 with Interstate Highway 4. All administrative and legal prerequisites for the project have been accomplished and sanctioned by court order. The project, as designed, requires a realignment of Greenwood Road. It also requires the closing of an existing artery in this portion of Collier County and at present it dead-ends at Goodlette Road. The county's long-range road plans provide for expanding State Road 951A to the west to join U.S. 41, or to connect with a road in the city that would join U.S. 41. Pending the acquisition by the city of the right to cross the railroad track, the county has not obtained any rights-of-way that will be required to connect the proposed Coastland Boulevard with SR 951A from its intersection with Goodlette Road. In Exhibit 2 the connection of these two arteries is indicated in the yellow area on the map, which shows Coastland Boulevard crossing Goodlette Road, and extending in an inverted curve northward to join SR 951A. In the absence of the actual acquisition of the rights-of-way, however, the portion indicated on Exhibit 2 east of Goodlette Road is a general proposal rather than a specific indication of where the road will be placed. The proposed rail grade crossing insofar as the city is concerned and without considering any further action by the county, would result in a road that would cross the railroad track and dead-end on a north-south artery road. Some 700 feet to the north is SR 951A, which presently dead-ends at the eastern right-of-way of Goodlette Road. Some 200 feet to the north of SR 951A and leading to the westward of Goodlette Road is 22nd Avenue North, which also dead- ends at Goodlette Road. Without further action by Collier County to extend the proposed Coastland Boulevard across Goodlette Road there would be three T- intersections on Goodlette Road within a span of less than 1,000 feet. From the foregoing it is concluded that there is an urgent need for the proposed new boulevard and a grade crossing over the Seaboard Coastline Railroad tracks. It is further concluded, however, that to allow this crossing without extending the proposed Coastland Boulevard to the east of Goodlette Road would not be in the best interest of the safety of vehicular traffic in Use area concerned. It is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the petition of City of Naples, Florida to install a railroad grade crossing in the vicinity of the proposed Coastland Boulevard and 603 feet south of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company mile post AX999 in Naples, Florida be approved subject to Collier County taking official action to extend Coastland Boulevard eastward of Goodlette Road. It is further RECOMMENDED that final approval of this grade crossing be withheld until such time as the City of Naples and Collier County submit to the Department evidence that the necessary rights-of-way have been acquired and money has been appropriated for the construction of that portion of Coastland Boulevard east of Goodlette Road. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of September, 1975 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julian Clarkson, Esquire Philip Bennett, Esquire General Counsel's Office Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the application of the City of Boca Raton Applicant, to open an at-grade crossing at Southwest 18th Street (Milepost 326 + 100') within the City of Boca Raton should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the documentary evidence offered during the hearing, consideration of the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted by the parties, the following relevant facts are found. Southwest 18th Street is located in the southern quadrant of the City. Presently, it is unimproved from an area immediately west of Military Trail and proceeds east with an overpass over Interstate 95 into the Seaboard Railway tracks through the City and terminates just prior to the El Rio Canal (See City's Exhibit 1). Two citizens groups appeared at the hearing and offered testimony against the application. The first group consisted primarily of residents of the Boca Bayou Condominium, which is an area east of the Railway's mainline track and Dixie Highway. Opposition from residents of Boca Bayou was essentially to the fact that the proposed crossing and its extension at Southwest 18th Street would increase automobile traffic, train noise, and air pollution, and thus diminish the value of their residences; and, secondly, that the construction of another crossing would create an additional source of vehicular contact, and thus a source for additional automobile accidents. The other group opposition to the subject application emanated from residents of Camino Lakes. Stan Radzkowski, a resident of Camino Lakes Community, voiced concern about the attractiveness of the community, the increase of vehicular traffic with the advent of the new crossing and with other resulting safety problems (See Joint Exhibits 1, 2 and 3). Other citizens residing in the area west of the Railway's mainline tracks along the existing Southwest 18th Street (Camino Real Community) appeared and opposed the application. This group generally opposed the application on the basis that the crossing would have an adverse impact on street improvements in the immediate area adjoining their residences. Southwest 18th Street is designated in the West Palm Beach Urban Area Transportation Study (WPBUATS) as a major east/west arterial serving the southern quadrant of the City and Palm Beach County. WPBUATS is the basic transportation planning document in Palm Peach County (Applicant's Exhibits 4A, 4B, 5A and 5B are exhibits designating the studies conducted during the 1960's with the projection of traffic studies from 1985 with updates through the year 2000). The Applicant recognized in 1965, as did the Department of Transportation in 1968, that there existed a great need for a major route at Southwest 18th Street. To handle the traffic flow, the City designated Southwest 18th Street as a major arterial route in 1965. Interstate 95 was completed and opened for traffic during calendar year 1977. During September of 1977, the City Council proposed a bond issue which was approved by the electorate, including $800,000 set aside for the Southwest 18th Street bridge and a railroad crossing at that site. Existing available data revealed that all existing crossings within the immediate vicinity are either operating at capacity or over capacity, and that it is impossible to construct an above-grade crossing at Southwest 18th Street due to cost factors. John Carroll, the City Engineer since September of 1977, has approximately twenty-two years of experience in traffic engineering, highway design and traffic impact studies. Mr. Carroll was received as an expert in traffic related matters. Mr. Carroll testified that if the Southwest 18th Street crossing application is not granted, traffic will necessarily be shifted to other areas and that Southwest 18th Street could not function as proposed due to the manner in which traffic flows into the area. Carroll testified that there would be an approximate four minute reduction in travel time if the Southwest 18th Street crossing is approved, and that gas consumption could be reduced by approximately 500 gallons per day by the area motorists. Additionally, he testified that emergency vehicle response time would be reduced by the opening of the Southwest 18th Street crossing. According to Carroll's data, the traffic count for Camino Real during April 20, 1978, was approximately 17,000 vehicles per day, and that volume capacity for the area was 18,000 vehicles per day. He testified that area growth figures reveal that the average annual traffic increase is 16 percent. This, according to Mr. Carroll, shows that by April, 1979, the traffic flow will be beyond the peak for the area. Mr. Carroll testified that an engineering firm (Kimley-Horn and Associates) was engaged to study the feasibility and design of the proposed 18th Street's southwest crossing. Based on the study completed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, witnesses Carroll and Joe Pollack, an engineer from the firm of Kimley-Horn and Associates, concluded that the improvements engineered into the design of the Southwest 18th Street area would correct any alignment problems and solve the additional increase in traffic load for the area (See Exhibit 7). Mr. Pollack testified that in designing the Southwest 18th Street proposed crossing, Kimley-Horn and Associates considered the following factors: Traffic; Grade and elevation; Existing railroad crossings; Protective devices and signalization; and Traffic signals. He concluded that based on the study as presented by Kimley-Horn and Associates, the proposed crossing would reduce the likelihood of accidents. By reducing overflow traffic and by use of maximum signalization, including flashing lights coordinated with traffic signals along the roadway, gates, bells, and cantilevered lights with motion sensors, the proposed crossing, according to Mr. Pollack, would be a safe and efficiently designed crossing. Mr. E. H. McLaughlin, an employee of the Railway since approximately April of 1955 and presently a Trainmaster since 1971, is a qualified locomotive engineer. Mr. McLaughlin testified that the most prevalent problem that would face motorists if the proposed application is granted, would be that of a lack of visibility by the train engineers, to see motorists approaching from the south. Mr. McLaughlin testified that the proposed crossing is situated on the Railway's mainline and that approximately eighteen trains use the line daily. Mr. Frank Stuart, an employee of the Railway since 1955, is presently the manager of insurance and safety for the Railway. Mr. Stuart testified that if the proposed application is in fact granted, he would recommend as a safety supervisor that the crossing use safety devices consisting of flashing lights, gates, bells, cantilevered lights and motion sensors. He further recommended that no holding (storing) facilities be situated near the crossing. Mr. Stuart guesstimated the cost for the signalization required at approximately $54,000 excluding the motion sensors and site preparation. Mr. Joseph Rice, a Registered Professional Engineer and a consultant for the Railway, was called as expert witness to testify respecting the Railway's position. Mr. Rice testified that in his opinion the vehicular figures cited in the WPBUATS studies are too high; however, he was of the opinion that using the most realistic figures, all studies showed that the road (Southwest 18th Street) would necessarily have to be upgraded. Mr. Rice recommended that if the crossing is permitted, that maximum signalization be utilized at the crossing. Mr. Rice also conceded during cross-examination that staged construction was a good idea for a municipality to engage in to complement its overall growth. Although he was of the opinion that there were alternative routes available, he could not be specific as to whether or not there were feasible alternatives to the proposed crossing. Jeffrey DuBois, a District Coordinator in the Fourth District for the Department of Transportation, testified that a conference committee was conducted with respect to the subject crossing and that the conference recommended that if the application for the subject crossing is granted, cantilevered lights, gates, bells and flashing lights be used as signalization for the proposed crossing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the application of the City of Boca Raton to open an at-grade crossing at Southwest 18th Street (milepost 326 + 100') be GRANTED. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1979.
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted to open a public at-grade rail highway crossing of the Florida East Coast Railway Company track at West Avenue "A" (Railway Mile Post K-61 + 4361'), in the City of Belle Glade, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The City Commission of the City of Belle Glade, Florida, prior to July 1, 1972, determined that it needed a grade level crossing on West Avenue "A" across the Florida East Coast Railway tracks. Thereafter on April 19, 1977 it submitted an application to the Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, through its City Manager, Robert R. Sanders for the railroad grade crossing. The type of rail line existing is single track; the number of trains per day from November to May is 11, and from May to November is 2, and the speed of trains is 35 mph. The proposal is for a grade level crossing two- lane road. The cost of signal installation and the cost of annual maintenance is to be charged to the Petitioner. The railroad creates a dividing barrier separating the eastern part of the city from the western part of the city; a canal separates the southern part of the city from the northern part of the city. South of the canal there are three street level crossings across the railroad, of which the northernmost is the canal. The next one to the south lies approximately 600' south at Northwest Avenue "D". The third lies approximately 2800' south of Avenue "D" crossing. The proposed crossing is approximately 1,600' north of the southernmost Avenue "E" crossing and approximately 1,200' south of the Avenue "D" crossing. The area lying immediately west of the Avenue "D" crossing is primarily residential. West Canal Street and Avenue "E" carry the bulk of the traffic from east and west and from west to east lying south of the canal. The proposed crossing would provide an additional access from east to west lying south of the canal. The opening of a West Avenue "A" crossing would take some of the traffic from the crossing at Southwest Avenue The site for the proposed crossing is located along a curve of the railroad track and there are some sight problems because of the curve and because of vegetation. There are two at-grade crossings north of the canal. The police station is located on West Avenue "A" in the center of town east of the proposed crossing site. The fire department is located on Southwest Avenue "E", both of which provide emergency services to the high density area of the city without the use of a railroad crossing. The response time to the high density area is a matter of minutes for both the fire department and police department. Some response time could be saved to the affected area by the installation of the proposed crossing, but the time saving is under four minutes. No evidence was submitted as to the average number of police and fire calls from the affected area and there was no projection as to the average daily traffic across the proposed crossing.
Recommendation Deny the permit. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: John E. Baker, Esquire City of Belle Glade 257 Southeast Avenue E Belle Glade, Florida 33430 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Humes, Jr., Esquire Florida East Coast Railway Co. One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084
Findings Of Fact In 1927, the City of Haines City and the Atlantic Coastline Railroad Company entered into a written agreement to construct a crossing at Charles Street, now known generally as Currie Street. The city expended public funds in the construction of the crossing. The construction agreement contained no termination date and the crossing has been open and in use since its construction in 1927. The crossing is one of seven inside the city limits which are located along a two mile length of track. The track services four (4) passenger trains and ten (10) freight trains daily. While the train speed limit at the Charles Street crossing is seventy miles per hour for passenger trains and fifty miles per hour for freight trains, it is not possible for trains traveling at such speeds to stop quickly in the event of a blockage on the track. A passenger train would require approximately three quarters of a mile to stop while a freight train would require roughly one mile. Passenger trains primarily utilize the track during the day while freight trains utilize the track during an entire twenty-four hour period. Safety is the main factor considered by the Department in determining whether to open or close a railroad crossing. The Charles Street crossing is somewhat dangerous because of its "Z" shaped design which requires cars approaching the crossing to travel parallel to the tracks, thus hindering visibility. Visibility on the west side of the crossing is restricted because of the presence of an overpass and bridge piers. While visibility is impaired to a degree by the piers, a driver approaching the crossing has an adequate line of sight in both directions. The approach to the crossing is extremely rough and traffic by necessity crosses Charles Street at very low speeds. The crossing is not heavily utilized by vehicular traffic. Additionally, traffic noise from the nearby overpass could blend with a whistle signal thus causing a safety problem. However, on the days when readings at the crossing were taken, the adjacent noise level did not drown out the train whistle. In the opinion of the Department's Railroad Committee, the occurrence of accidents at the crossing is not required before the Committee determines a particular crossing to be hazardous. The Department also considers the need for emergency services and fire and police protection in determining whether to recommend closure. The proposed alternate crossing, McKay Street, is closer to the fire and police departments than Charles Street. However, because locomotives sometimes block the McKay Street crossing to service several industries located east of the crossing, 1/ emergency vehicles attempting to service certain residential areas would be required to travel an added distance of as much as two miles. Although the Railroad plans to install motion sensor devices, it does not appear that such devices would be satisfactory in a situation where a train was totally blocking a crossing. Although the railroad has a procedure for moving trains in emergency situations, it would be quicker to travel the approximate four minutes it could take to cover the added two miles rather than utilize the existing procedures. Moreover, response time is a factor in determining fire safety and is of added importance in this case because of the type of housing located in the area. Because of these factors, it appears that the closing of Charles Street could unduly inhibit the movement of emergency type vehicles. The alternative McKay Street route proposed by the Department and Railroad is through an existing residential area. McKay Street was neither designed nor built to accommodate heavy truck traffic. Additionally, a city ordinance prohibits driving semi-trucks through a residential area. The businesses utilizing the Charles Street crossing include a carnival operator and an automobile garage. Both businesses require the use of heavy equipment and trucks. McKay Street is not a viable alternative route for these businesses because of the cities prohibition on use of McKay Street for truck traffic and the manner in which the street was constructed. If the ordinances were not amended, these property owners and possibly others could lose lawful access to their property and businesses. The Department's Railroad Committee which recommends which rail/highway crossings should be closed, considers the existence of a feasible or viable alternate route to be critical to the recommendation regarding closure. If a viable alternate route does not exist, the committee would not recommend that a crossing be closed. While the Charles Street crossing has a number of features which could increase the chances of an accident occurring at the crossing, no such accidents have occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petition of the Florida Department of Transportation and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Inc., to close the rail/highway crossing at Charles Street is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Polk County proposes to relocate Hunt Brothers Road where it crosses the Seaboard Coastline Railroad near Highland Park some 350 feet to the north and to remove the existing roadway approach to the crossing. Hunt Brothers Road is a two lane highway 24 feet wide. The existing road has no signalling devices or warning lights installed other than a railroad crossing sign. Polk County proposes to put back-to-back flashing lights on each side of the road at the relocated crossing. However, the county has no objection to installing whatever signal devices are required at this crossing. The approach to the proposed crossing provides greater safety than exists at the old crossing. The new road exits a curve to the right 250 feet from the tracks. No other obstruction exists at this crossing, however, a second parallel track exists on which cars could be parked within 200 feet of the road. From the evidence adduced this appears to be a relatively short siding and not a track on which trains move. One northbound and one southbound train moves over this track daily. No evidence was presented that stanchions for flashing lights could not be located within 12 feet of the edge of the roadway. There is no record of any accident at the existing crossing and the safety factor of the crossing was not computed and presented at the hearing. The additional initial cost of installing cantilevered flashing lights and gates over the cost of installing roadside flashing lights is some $50,000. No cost benefit ratio or study showing the benefits to be obtained with use of the more expensive system was presented. The principal reason for the District Safety Engineer's recommendation for cantilevered flashing lights and gates was that as the driver of a car negotiated the curve approaching the track his eyes would of necessity be focused on the center line of the road and would better see lights located over the center of the road. He acknowledged however that if lights were on both sides of the road the field of vision of a driver looking straight ahead as he exited the curve would include a light on the left-hand side of the road before one in the middle of the road.
Findings Of Fact Lior Hason is the owner of Britt's Cafe, a restaurant which occupies property owned by the Petitioner's Stanislaw and Kasimiera Budzinski. On or about December 19, 1995, Harry S. Cline, an attorney for Mr. Hason and the Budzinskis, filed an application for a variance from the City of Clearwater's Development Code, for the purpose of eliminating three required parking spaces from the front of the subject property for the construction of an outdoor cafe at 201 South Gulfview Boulevard. The Code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, and a variance was required to remove three existing parking spaces from the unit's parking space inventory. The matter was brought before the City's Development Code Adjustment Board at its January 11, 1996 meeting. Mr. Cline appeared at the meeting on behalf of the applicant and presented the project. No one else was present to speak in support of or in opposition to the request. However, four letters in opposition from neighboring business owners were submitted. Notwithstanding these objections, the Board determined that the applicant had substantially met all standards for approval listed in the City's Land Development Code; and upon vote of the Board, the application was approved, subject to certain conditions, by a three to two majority. Mr. Hason entered into discussions with City officials to determine what was necessary. Official City reaction was initially favorable. Mr. Hason was advised of the requirements for the project and had plans drawn which called for a deck with a 35 to 36 inch railing with landscaping around it, and with posts and lights. When the plans were submitted to the City officials, the only change suggested was to raise the railing height to 45 inches, which was done, after which the City approved the plans and the permit was granted. The deck was then constructed exactly according to the approved plans. At some time during 1996, Mr. Hason discussed with some City employees putting an awning over the deck. During these discussions, the City employees sent Mr. Hason a copy of Section 41.221(1)(c), Clearwater City Code, which provides for awnings to be removable. Mr. Hason considered the sending of this Code provision to be tantamount to a favorable reply to his inquiry, and, based on that, he finalized his plans for the installation of a removable awning. The proposed awning is designed in such a fashion as to be extendible and retractable on a frame, capable of easily being pulled up against the front of the building like a drapery. With a minimum of further effort, consisting of the removal a several bolts, the entire awning construction can be removed from the frame. Mr. Hason submitted his application for the variance to install the awning on February 2, 1997. In the interim, the City employees with whom Mr. Hason discussed the project changed their position from favoring the project to opposing it. He was ultimately advised in December 1996 or January 1997 that the awning could not be permitted because an awning could not be approved over a deck for which a permit should not have been issued and for which the issuance was a mistake. Though the Board had not yet voted on the application, no information was given to Mr. Hason as to what he could do to make the project approvable. His application, on February 2, 1997, was submitted because, Hason claims, he had been told, by someone not further identified, that applying for a variance for the awning would make everything right. The Variance Staff Report submitted to the Board by the appropriate City employees acknowledged that the frame over which Mr. Hason proposed to put the awning does not meet code because it was constructed within a required setback area from South Gulfview Boulevard, but since the frame was built pursuant to a City-issued permit, consistent with City policy, the City accepted its existence. In its final recommendation to the Board, the staff concluded that notwithstanding the encroachment into the setback area, the project "appears to comply with all standards for approval, provided attention is given to the external appearance of the cafe:" The staff then went on to recommend approval of the project subject to certain conditions, all of which, Mr. Hason accepts and agrees to. Nonetheless, the Board denied the permit by a vote of four to one. Mr. Hason contends that the Board vote was an attempt by the Board to get back at him because of what it perceived as his failure to comply with the conditions placed upon the issuance of the first permit and his alleged misrepresentation of the scope of his project at the time. Mr. Hason, however, categorically denies he has done anything contrary to the dictates of the City. He went back to City officials many times during the construction of the deck to make sure the project was built as required. The majority of the Board members believe, however, that the deck as constructed, goes far beyond the limited structure approved by the granting of the parking space variance in January 1996. This animosity toward the project can be seen from a review of the audio record of the February 13, 1997, Board meeting where, during a colloquy between a Board member and Mr. Hason, it appeared the member was somewhat put out by the entire situation. His analysis indicates a less than complete recollection of the matter, however. Whereas one of the conditions to the issuance of the initial permit was that the area of the outdoor cafe should not be greater than 25 percent of the indoor area of the restaurant, this member pointed out that the 69 outdoor seats were far in excess of 25 percent of the 115 or so indoor seats. This constituted a confusion of seating as opposed to area. No evidence was presented concerning whether Mr. Hason had violated the area constraint. In the main, however, while it appeared that a majority of the Board members were unhappy about the way the project developed, and expressed the opinion that the project did not conform to what they had intended to approve, there was no indication any member s vote was motivated by anything other than a sincere belief in the correctness of his position. There was no indication of any inappropriate or vindictive action by anyone on the Board or its staff. Stephen Sarnoff, a central permitting specialist with the City reviewed the plans for the initial construction and for the current application. As he recalls, the plans for the initial deck construction did not show any support beams, fans, overhead structure or latticework fencing, and the deck, as built, does not conform to the plans as submitted. City Code requirements call for a railing of from 30 to 42 inches high. The current railing of 45 inches does not conform to that standard, and Mr. Sarnoff is not aware of any request from the City that the railing be raised to that height, as Mr. Hason claims. By the same token, while there is no requirement in the ordinance that a deck be of a certain height, anything higher than 12 inches is considered a structure and a waiver is required. This deck was approved for 12 inches. A certificate of occupancy is usually issued for a deck, but in the instant case, such a certificate has not been issued because the deck, as built, is not in compliance with the 1996 approval. If it is brought into compliance, it will be approved. Sarnoff is aware of and familiar with other outdoor restaurant decks built at various locations in the Clearwater area, as indicated by Mr. Hason. Some are not within the CR-28 zone and do not come under the same standards as are applicable here. Others, which must conform to the instant requirements appear to have movable awnings which are acceptable. Still others are in a different zoning district with different set-back requirements, and some were initially denied, but were subsequently approved when they were brought into compliance with the requirements. John Richter, a senior planner for the City, was the individual who prepared the staff report on the instant project and initially recommended approval, contingent upon changes to the external appearance of the facility. He made suggestions and has discussed the project with Hason on his several visits to the property. He did discuss an awning with Hason at some point, but their discussions did not deal with its mobility. All in all, Mr. Richter concluded that the project appears to meet the standard for approval, provided attention is given to the external appearance of the cafe. David S. Shuford, the City's central permitting director and development code administrator indicated that the variance required for the awning, which was an integral part of the structure already built, was not automatically granted with the granting of the permit for the deck structure. Section 42.221, Clearwater City Code, was adopted to promote a more festival atmosphere in some of the outdoor tourist areas. The intent of subsection (l)(c) of that provision was to require the use of moveable items and to design structures that would meet wind requirements and not interfere with pedestrian traffic. The term "moveable" means what it says, and in Shuford's opinion, from the plans he saw, the proposed awning would not be easily moveable on a daily basis. The Clearwater City Code establishes the area in question as one where, once guidelines are developed, they will be adopted and be complied with. Mr. Shuford opines that the current deck, in the rafter area, goes beyond what was proposed at the time the project was submitted for the parking variance and was approved. This is what appears to be the source of the difficulty the Board members have with it. However, if designed to comply with the guidelines, this awning could be approved. He would agree with the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation so far as they relate to painting and architectural matters.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Deltona Corporation, is managing a development known as Rotonda owned by Cape Cave Corporation and desires to open two at-grade railroad crossings from this development to SR 771, the major road providing access to and from the development. Both of these crossings were previously approved by the railroad and the county agreed to maintain the crossings once installed. However Petitioner desires to relocate the crossing previously existing at Rotonda Boulevard 50 feet to the north and change Ingram Boulevard crossing to a four lane road. The proposed crossing at Ingram Boulevard is some 2300 feet north of Rotonda Boulevard. The hurricane evacuation route for the people in the area to SR 771 is over Rotonda Boulevard. Most of the lots in the Rotonda development have been sold and the developer is not in the process of installing the streets. It is Petitioner's position that the additional crossing at Ingram Boulevard is needed to provide egress for the Rotonda residents when the other crossings congested with hurricane evacuation traffic. Neither of the roads involved approach the railroad at a right angle. Proceeding northeast Rotonda Boulevard parallels the railroad until just before reaching the point of crossing when Rotonda Boulevard turns 60 degrees to 70 degrees to the right. The track is then crossed at an angle of some 30 degrees from normal. The approach at Ingram Boulevard turns about 30 degrees to the right when proceeding eastward and the road then crosses the track nearly normal thereto. Additionally Antilla Drive joins Rotonda Boulevard at the point Rotonda turns right to cross the track thus creating a Y intersection immediately before the crossing. The view of the crossing at Rotonda Boulevard East is obstructed to some extent by vegetation and the angle of the crossing further impedes the safety features of this crossing. The approach to the Ingram boulevard crossing from SR 771 is nearly normal and from the development the angle is about 30 degrees. Accordingly the Ingram crossing, assuring proper signaling devices are installed, would provide the safer crossing. The SAL track here involved is infrequently used, with only one or two trains per day and the train speed is restricted to slow. Respondent, in regulating the crossings, prefers to have adjacent crossings of a track separated by considerably greater distances than one-half mile.
Findings Of Fact The railroad crossing which is the subject of this proceeding is crossing number 272859-B, in the City of Florida City, Florida. Its location at N.W. 14th Street is approximately 700 feet north of an existing crossing located at Lucy Street, and roughly 1900 feet south of a present crossing located at Arthur Vining Davis Parkway. The Railway's rationale for closing the N.W. 14th Street crossing is that these other two nearby crossings offer practical alternate routes to the N.W. 14th Street crossing, and can provide public access and emergency services to the area. The City's opposition is based on its contention that closure of the N.W. 14th Street crossing would affect emergency access to the area. The principal justification for the closure of the N.W. 14th Street crossing is its proximity to the other crossings located at Arthur Vining Davis Parkway and Lucy Street, and the resulting improvement in safety for vehicular traffic and railroad equipment. Removal of the subject crossing would eliminate vehicular accidents on the tracks, and eliminate upkeep and maintenance expenses caused by frequent vandalism at the N.W 14th Street crossing location. In addition, closure would eliminate the need to sound the train whistle at the N.W. 14th Street crossing which is located near a residential housing area. The Railway receives an average of two calls per week to report incidents of vandalism in the area of the N.W. 14th street crossing. This number of calls is above average compared to other crossings in the area. Moreover, closure of the subject crossing would permit the relocation of the signal devices now in use there to one of forty-four other crossings in or near Florida City. The traffic count taken in the vicinity of N.W. 14th Street, which is a local service road providing access to a single neighborhood, showed that about 600 vehicles per day use the crossing. Traffic counts taken at Lucy Street, a through street which provides service beyond any specific residential area, resulted in approximately 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day. The Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis Parkway crossings have sufficient capability to handle all traffic diverted to them if the 14th Street crossing should be closed. The N.W. 14th Street crossing also allows outside traffic to enter the residential area, contrary to good urban planning. By removal of the crossing, such through traffic would be eliminated. The alternate crossings at Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis parkway provide reasonable alternate routes, and removal of the subject crossing will not unduly inhibit access by emergency vehicles into the affected area. Although 75 percent of the calls the Florida City police receive originate from Cuban village, a heavily populated area surrounding N.W. 14th Street, if the subject crossing were closed, Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis Parkway could be used to respond to emergency police calls in the Cuban Village. Therefore, alternate routes are available for emergency access to the affected area. In addition, from a pedestrian safety standpoint, there is sufficient space along Lucy Street to allow pedestrians to walk there without being affected by vehicular traffic.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida East Coast Railway Company to close the at-grade railroad crossing at N.W. 14th Street in Florida City, Florida, be granted. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 15 day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15 day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Evans, Esquire One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Thomas Tomassi, Esquire 137 N.W. 10th Street Homestead, Florida 33030 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue and Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 104 + 172' in Ormond Beach, Florida should be closed.
Findings Of Fact By application the Florida East Coast Railway Company seeks a permit to close an existing at-grade public railroad crossing located in Volusia County, Florida, at Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 104 + 172' in the vicinity of Lincoln Avenue. There exists a standard cross buck sign or fixed sign at the subject crossing and there is a vehicular stop sign on each side of the crossing. There is a total of sixteen freight rail movements and a total of two local freight rail movements crossing each day. In addition to these scheduled moves there are a few unscheduled movements such as work trains. The speed limit for this area is 35 m.p.h. A 24-hour traffic survey was set up on Lincoln Avenue just west of the railroad-tracks where the number of vehicles counted was 567. The 24-hour period started at 11:00 a.m. on November 18, 1975, and continued until 11:00 a.m. on November 19, 1975. There is no sight problem from south to north but from north to south there is a curve that bears to the right coming into Lincoln Avenue which gives a railroad sight problem. For vehicles there is a sight problem going from west to east, but no sight problem going from east to west. There have been four documented accidents at the crossing: one in 1962, one in 1965, and two in 1973. There has been expansion of the city to the areas particularly west of the railroad tracks and north of the crossing at State Road Lincoln Avenue is the only crossing between State Road 40 and State Road 5A. It is approximately 1.5 miles. There is a need for a railroad crossing in the area as an alternate to the crossing on State Road 40. The railroad suggests bells, flashing lights and gates, in the event this application to close is not permitted. The Department of Transportation recommends flashing lights and bells, suggesting that gates would be better, but such signalization adequate. The City did not recommend a type of signalization but did recommend that the permit to close be denied. The Hearing Officer further finds: The permit should be denied inasmuch as there is a need for the crossing; The crossing should be signalized to make it less hazardess; Signalization without gates is adequate.
