The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners' application for site plan approval for a proposed renovation and addition to their restaurant should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this local land use dispute, Petitioners, Ypapanti and Sevasti Alexiou, who operate a restaurant under the name of Frenchy's Rockaway Grill, have appealed a decision by the Community Development Board (Board) to deny an application to renovate and expand their restaurant located at 7 Rockaway Street, Clearwater Beach, Florida. The Board, which is made up of seven local residents, acts as the local planning agency for Respondent, City of Clearwater (City). Although the City staff supports the project, the City is technically opposed to the application since the Board failed to approve the project by a 3-3 tie vote. In denying the application, the Board rejected the City staff's recommendation that the application be approved. Intervenor, Hunter Hotel Company, owns and operates a hotel known as Clearwater Beach Hotel which is contiguous to, and south of, Petitioners' property. It objects to the application on the grounds that "the criteria for the flexible development approval were not met nor proved, [and] that the relief requested [by Petitioners] is of such a magnitude that it is not warranted and cannot be allowed under the Code." As further clarified by Intervenor, the City's parking shortage in the Beach area is the "core issue on this appeal." Until the City solves the parking problem, Intervenor suggests that there should be a moratorium on development in the Beach area. Petitioners own and operate a popular and successful one-story restaurant and bar on a 0.38-acre lot at 7 Rockaway Street, Clearwater Beach, which fronts directly on the Gulf of Mexico. The property is zoned as a part of the City's Tourist District and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, a municipal parking lot to the north, a motel on the east, and the Clearwater Beach Hotel on the south. Due to the small size of their lot, Petitioners seek to vertically expand their restaurant by adding a second story consisting of 3,487 square feet, including an approximately 2,300 square foot open deck and 1,200 square feet of enclosed area. Both sections will accommodate bar patrons and diners. Petitioners also intend to remove and replace a 945 square foot storage room attached to the south side of the building which is structurally unsound. To accomplish these changes, Petitioners will need "flexibility" in meeting setback and parking requirements. Because more than 95 percent of the City is now "built out," and very little land is vacant, the City has adopted comprehensive infill criteria for non-conforming structures, such as Petitioners' restaurant. The criteria which apply to Petitioners' project are found in Section 2- 803C. of the City of Clearwater Redevelopment Code (Code) and allow flexibility in promoting redevelopment and infill throughout the City, including the Clearwater Beach area. As pointed out by City staff, infill projects are often used on Clearwater Beach because there are so many non-conforming structures in that area. In determining whether a project should be given flexibility as an infill project, the City evaluates the proposed project against its infill criteria. Strict compliance with all criteria is not required, but rather the criteria are weighed or balanced collectively. If a project cannot meet a "significant number of [criteria], or a significant one in a meaningful way," then an applicant "would have problems [with gaining approval]." Once a project qualifies as an infill project, an applicant may then use flexible development standards for setbacks, height, size, and minimum off-street parking. In this case, Petitioners seek flexibility for setback and off-street parking requirements. As noted earlier, the main concern raised by Intervenor centers around item 9. of the criteria, which reads as follow: 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Intervenor contends that this criterion was not satisfied, and thus the project cannot qualify as an infill project. In addition, in its Proposed Final Order, the City contends that Petitioners have failed to satisfy items 1. and 5., which read as follows: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards; 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. Table 2-803 of the Code establishes minimum off- street parking requirements of 7 to 15 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for restaurants in the Tourist District. Therefore, a restaurant of Petitioners' size (that was not an infill project) would be required to have at least 47 off- street parking spaces. In actuality, Petitioners have only 13, due to a variance having been previously granted. Since Petitioners intend to add around 3,400 square feet through the second floor addition, the Code would normally require a minimum of 24 additional parking spaces, or a total of 71. However, these off-street standards do not apply to infill projects. Instead, another provision in Table 2-803 of the Code provides that minimum off-street parking for infill projects shall be "[d]etermined by the community development coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE [Institute of Transportation Engineers] Manual standards." Therefore, using the guidelines in the foregoing provision, the community development coordinator determines the number of additional off-street parking spaces, if any, that an infill project will require. Because the City staff concluded that a parking study would assist it in analyzing the specific use of the property, it requested that Petitioners perform a parking study. The study was conducted by Robert Pergolizzi, a certified planner, who has performed a number of parking studies during his career. The Code does not describe any criteria for a parking study for an infill project. Therefore, the staff looked at other sections of the Code in arriving at a methodology to be used for the study. More specifically, it first considered Section 2-803J.6.a., which provides in part that off-street parking requirements can be relaxed if "the physical characteristics of the proposed building are such that the likely uses of the property will require fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required." Because the restaurant sits directly on the beach, the staff believed that the primary destination of many of the customers was the beach, and not the restaurant, and that the visit to the restaurant was a side trip by the customers. Thus, the parking study methodology was designed, in part, to confirm or disaffirm that assumption. Section 2-803J.6.c. also provides flexibility in off-street parking requirements if "adequate parking is available on a shared basis as determined by all existing land uses within 1,000 feet of the parcel proposed for development, or parking is available through any existing or planned and committed parking facilities." The staff used this section of the Code to determine that 1,000 feet was an appropriate distance to analyze available parking for a restaurant. Therefore, Pergolizzi was directed by the staff to analyze available parking within 1,000 feet of the restaurant. Pergolizzi conducted his study on August 25 and 26, 2000, the Friday and Saturday which preceded the Labor Day holiday weekend. It is undisputed, and the parties have stipulated, that Pergolozzi conducted the study entirely consistent with the agreed methodology. The study confirmed that the primary destination of 49 percent of the restaurant's customers was the beach, and not the restaurant. In other words, the expansion would not affect the parking demand generated by almost one-half of the customers. The study also confirmed that there was available parking within 1,000 feet of the restaurant to accommodate not only the existing business, but the proposed expansion as well. As noted above, Table 2-803 of the Code required that the community development coordinator determine the minimum off-street parking after consideration of the specific proposed use and/or the ITE Manual standards. Here, the City staff looked at the specific use, the ITE Manual standards, and the parking study to determine the minimum off-street parking required for the restaurant. It concluded that there was available parking within 1,000 feet of the restaurant and that no additional parking spaces were required. The community development coordinator concurred with the results of the study and analysis and likewise determined that the minimum off-street parking for the project were the existing 13 spaces. This determination was wholly consistent with the requirements of the Code. In recommending to the Board that the project should be given flexibility as an infill project, the staff's report contained the following conclusion: The proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for flexible development approval, with maximum development potential, requirements of the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects, and with all applicable standards of the Community Development Code. A more detailed analysis of how each of the ten criteria were satisfied is found in Petitioners' Exhibits 9 and 14 received in evidence. At the hearing on March 27, 2001, the City's assistant planning director also established that the proposed expansion and renovation complied with all applicable standards of the Code. Intervenor's expert witness, Gail Easley, a certified planner, questioned whether the methodology used by Pergolizzi complied with the Code. More specifically, she contended that the City was required to determine minimum off- street parking for infill projects in the manner described in Section 2-803C.9. That section provides that "[a]dequate off- street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development." If this contention were true, however, it would render meaningless the provision in Section 2-803C.8., which provides that "[f]lexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole." In other words, there would be no flexibility for off-street parking as permitted by that section. This would be contrary to the very purpose of infill projects. Witness Easley's interpretation is also inconsistent with Table 2-803, which states that "minimum off-street parking will be determined by the community development coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards." Under her interpretation of the Code, the community development coordinator would have no right to determine minimum off-street parking for infill projects based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards, despite clear language in the Code to the contrary. More importantly, the criteria in Section 2-803C., including item 9., are used to determine whether a project should be considered an infill redevelopment project under the Code. Item 9. is simply one of those criteria, and it does not establish minimum off-street parking requirements for an infill project. Witness Easley also opined that it was inappropriate for the parking study to consider on-street parking. However, the Code does not prohibit the community development coordinator from requesting a parking study which includes on- street parking. It only requires that he consider the specific use and/or ITE manual standards when determining off- street parking for an infill project. Other contentions that the methodology was flawed, including a concern about the date and time of the study and the use of 1,000 feet as a measuring stick for available parking, have been considered and found to be without merit. A contention was also made that certain other infill criteria were not met. However, there was no evidence to support these contentions, and the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that all criteria have been satisfied, and that Petitioners qualify as an infill project. The undersigned has also considered the testimony of the owners of two competing restaurants who object to the project. While they contended that the lack of parking motivated their opposition to the application, it is fair to infer from their testimony that they object mainly because they fear that Petitioners may capture some of their business through an expansion of their restaurant. Finally, in its Proposed Final Order, the City has contended that Petitioners have failed to satisfy a general standard contained in Section 3-913A.6., which requires that an applicant ensure that: [t]he design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. Given the modifications agreed to by Petitioners in the following Finding of Fact, the requirements of this section have been met. In the nature of an affirmative defense, Petitioners have raised the issue of equitable estoppel and contend that Intervenor should be estopped from opposing the application. The facts underlying this argument are as follows. On November 21, 2000, the Board heard testimony and considered the application for the first time. At that meeting, Intervenor's counsel represented to the Board that "my client's concern is not the parking. My client's concern is because of proximity of noise and light intrusion." In light of these concerns, counsel for Petitioners and Intervenor reached an agreement wherein Petitioners agreed to limit the addition to the northern one-half of the existing building, construct an 8-foot concrete block wall on the south property line between the restaurant and the hotel, close the upstairs addition at 10:00 p.m. on week nights and 11:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, place no outside speakers and allow no live music on the upstairs addition, and direct upstairs lighting away from the hotel. With these accommodations, counsel for the hotel represented to the Board that "if [the Board] approve[s] this, you have addressed our primary areas of concern." After the close of public comments, the Board voted to approve the application by a 3-2 vote. Because four votes are required to approve an application, and one member was absent from the meeting, the matter was continued to the next meeting on December 12, 2000. By letter sent to Petitioners' counsel on December 5, 2000, Intervenor's counsel identified the "commitments at the preceding hearing, which [Petitioners were] willing to make to the Clearwater Beach Hotel." Upon receipt of that letter, Petitioners advised the City by letter that they were in agreement with Intervenor's counsel that "these are the conditions agreed to at the last CDB meeting, which shall be binding upon my client." Notwithstanding earlier representations, by letter dated December 7, 2000, counsel for Intervenor indicated that "the owners of Clearwater Beach Hotel have instructed us to object to the pending application. Upon further review, prompted by the renderings, the magnitude of this project is simply too great for the size of the property." The letter further stated that it was to be considered "as withdrawal of our prior letter and position of 'no objection,'" and that Intervenor would attend the December 12 hearing "to formally object." Petitioners have further contended that Board member William Johnson had ex parte communications with some of his neighbors concerning the merits of this application, and this constituted a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Section 4-206D.2. of the Code provides that "no member of the community development board or the city commission shall engage in any ex parte communications with any person in regard to the substance of a quasi-judicial matter which is to be considered by the board or commission, as the case may be." If such communications occur, Section 4-206D.3.a. requires that a member disclose these communications at the meeting. There is no record of any disclosure being made. At the first Board meeting on November 21, 2000, member Johnson had moved for approval of the application. Without any explanation, at the second meeting on December 12, 2000, he voted against the application. Member Johnson did not testify at hearing to confirm or deny Petitioners' allegation of wrongdoing. However, witness Pergolizzi testified that he spoke with member Johnson just after the December 12 meeting, at which time member Johnson allegedly admitted that he had such conversations with his neighbors and was sorry for his change of vote. But the out-of-court statements of member Johnson are hearsay in nature, do not supplement or explain any other competent evidence on this issue, and they cannot form the basis for a finding of fact.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether a land development regulation adopted as City of Key West Ordinance 98-31, and approved by a Final Order of the Department of Community Affairs, DCA Docket No. DCA98-OR-237, is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the City of Key West Area of Critical State Concern set forth in Rule 28-36.003(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. All of the Petitioners in Case No. 99-0666GM, except Neal Hirsh and Property Management of Key West, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Abbe Petitioners"), are all involved in the rental of real property in Key West, Monroe County, Florida. No evidence was presented concerning the identity of Mr. Hirsh or Property Management of Key West, Inc. The Abbe Petitioners are involved in the rental of Key West real property as owners or as rental managers of residential properties which are rented to tourists for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month (hereinafter referred to as "Transient Rentals). None of the properties used as Transient Rentals by the Abbe Petitioners constitute the Abbe Petitioners' primary residences. Petitioner in Case No. 99-0667GM, Jerry Coleman, owns residential property located in Key West. Mr. Coleman rents the residential property owned by him to tourists for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month. Mr. Coleman also resides in Key West. Petitioner in Case No. 99-1081DRI, John F. Rooney, failed to present any evidence in support of his case or his standing. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the approval or rejection of the comprehensive growth management plan, plan amendments, and land development regulations adopted by the City of Key West. Intervenor, the City of Key West (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Consistent with the requirements of Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the City has adopted a comprehensive growth management plan, the City of Key West Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan"). The City's Plan became effective in 1993. The City's Plan consists of twelve elements: (a) Land Use; (b) Historic Preservation; (c) Traffic Circulation; (d) Housing; (e) Public Facilities; (f) Coastal Management; (g) Port Facilities; (h) Conservation; (i) Open Space and Recreation; (j) Intergovernmental Coordination; (k) Capital Improvements; and (l) General Monitoring and Review. Data Inventory and Analysis in support of the City's Plan was compiled by the City. The City has been designated as an area of critical state concern (hereinafter referred to as the "City ACSC"), pursuant to Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, since 1974. Rule 28-36.001, et seq., Florida Administrative Code. As an area of critical state concern, all comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations adopted by the City must be reviewed by the Department for consistency with the Principles for Guiding Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Principles"), set out in Rule 28-36.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Principles were adopted by the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission, in February 1984. Intervenors, Henry and Martha duPont, reside at 326 Whitehead Street, Key West, Florida. The duPonts reside in an area known as the "Truman Annex." The properties on both sides of the duPonts' residence are used as Transient Rentals. Key West History and Tourism. The City is located primarily on the southern-most bridged island of the Florida Keys, a chain of islands, or keys, which run in a generally southwesterly direction from the southeastern tip of the Florida peninsula. The City, like the Florida Keys, is bounded on the west by the Gulf of Mexico and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The City is connected to the Florida peninsula by a series of bridges which connect the keys. The road which runs the length of the Florida Keys is designated U. S. Highway 1. It is approximately 112 miles from the Florida mainland to the City. Prior to the early 1970s, the two most significant components of the City's economy were commercial fishing and the military. Tourism also played a role, but not to the extent that it does today. Toward the middle and end of the 1970s the military presence in the City was significantly reduced and the fishing industry was on the decline. To replace the fading fishing and the lost military components of the City's economy, the City turned to tourism. The City's efforts began in earnest during the 1980s and have continued through the present. The City is now a major tourist destination. The City's most attractive features include its historic character, especially the area of the City designated as "Old Town," its warm climate, its extensive shoreline, and its water resources, including coral reef systems. Approximately two-thirds of the City's economic base is now associated with tourism. While the City shares many of the characteristics of most tourist-resort destinations, it also features certain unique characteristics not found in other destinations. Those features include its geographic remoteness and its limited size. The island where the City is principally located is only approximately eight square miles. Currently, approximately 6.82 million tourists visit the City annually. Approximately 62 percent, or 4.25 million visitors, stay overnight in the City. Approximately 480,000 tourists, or about 11 percent of the overnight guests, stay in Transient Rentals. Tourism in the City represents, directly and indirectly, approximately 66 percent of the economic base of the City. The City's economy in turn represents approximately half of the economy of Monroe County. Approximately 15,000 of the 23,000 jobs in Monroe County and Key West are associated with the tourist industry. Of those jobs, 54 percent of all retail sales jobs are involved in the tourist industry. Approximately 50 percent of the estimated $187 million of Monroe County-wide personal income comes from the tourist industry. The tourist industry should continue to prosper in the City as long as the natural environmental characteristics of the City (the climate, surrounding waters, and tropical features of the Keys) and the unique historical and "community" character of the City remain vibrant. It is the natural environment, the climate, and local community character in combination with the historical and cultural attractions of the City that create a diverse mix of attractions which make the City a unique vacation destination. The City's mixture of attractions must be served by a mixture of tourist accommodation services, including hotels, motels, guest houses, and Transient Rentals. Those accommodations are currently available. There are approximately 3,768 hotel/motel rooms available in the City. There are also approximately 507 residential properties with 906 units which are licensed as Transient Rentals in the City and approximately 647 unlicensed residential properties used for Transient Rentals. The loss of the availability of unlicensed Transient Rentals will not have a lasting adverse impact on tourism in the City. The City's Plan recognizes the importance of tourism. Objective 1-1.3, "Planning for Industrial Development and Economic Base," of the land use element of the City's Plan provides, in pertinent part, the following: . . . . Tourism is the most significant component of the City of Key West economic base. The City of Key West is a major tourist destination. It's principal attributes are its historic character, warm climate, extensive shoreline, water resources, the coral reef system, abundant water related and water-dependent activities, and the ambiance of Old Town. The historic district contains many old structures which do not comply with the City's size and dimension regulations since many structures pre-date these local regulations. Realizing the significant contribution of Old Town, especially the unique character of its structures and their historic and architectural significance, and realizing the substantial impact of tourism to the economic base, the City shall direct considerable attention to its growth management decisions to maintaining the historic character of Old Town and preserving tourism as a major contributor to the City's economic base. Similarly, the City shall carefully consider supply and demand factors impacting tourism and the local economy to ensure the long term economic stability. The two policies adopted to implement Objective 1-1.3, Policies 1-1.3.1, "Mandatory Planning and Management Framework for Industrial Development," and Policy 1- 1.3.2, "Pursue Nuisance Abatement Standards and Criteria," provide for measures to deal with industrial development and not tourism. Reliance upon Objective 1-1.3 of the City's Plan by Petitioners' witnesses is misplaced. While the Objective does reflect the importance of tourism in the City, it does not provide any guidance concerning appropriate land uses which may be allowed throughout the City. There is no direction in the Objective concerning land uses which the City must maintain. Land uses are considered and dealt with in other provisions of the City's land use element. Additionally, the reliance upon Objective 1-1.3 of the City's Plan fails to give adequate weight to other provisions of the Plan. The Historic Significance of the City and "Old Town." The importance of the City's history is recognized throughout the Plan. Objective 1-1.3 of the City's Plan quoted, supra, points to the City's history and the role it plays in tourism. An area of the City has been designated as the Key West Historic District. The area is described in the Data Inventory and Analysis as the "physical manifestation of the 170 year existence of [the City]." Page 1A-11 of the Data Inventory and Analysis. Objective 1-2.3 of the Future Land Use Map Goal of the City's Plan deals with the importance of the Key West Historic District and an area which is largely located within the historic district known as "Old Town": OBJECTIVE 1-2.3: MANAGING OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES. Areas delineated on the Future Land Use Map for historic preservation shall be planned and managed using a regulatory framework designed to preserve the form, function, image, and ambiance of the historic Old Town. The City's Historic Architectural Review Commission (HARC), in addition to the Planning Board, shall review all development proposals within the historic area designated by the National Register of Historic Places. The land development regulations shall be amended upon plan adoption to incorporate design guideline standards recently adopted by HARC. Development in any area of Old Town within and outside the HARC review area may impact the historic significance of Old Town. Any development plans for these areas shall be subjected to site plan review and shall be designed in a manner compatible with historic structures within the vicinity. While Objective 1-2.3 makes reference to the preservation of the "function" of Old Town, the Objective does not require that any particular "land use" which may exist in Old Town be preserved in perpetuity. The Objective and other provisions of the City's Plan addressing the historic significance of the City evidence a concern for the overall character of the area, not particular land uses. That character is described in, and adopted as part of, the Future Land Use Map of the City's Plan. See Policy 1-3.4.1 and Objective 1-3.4 of the City's Plan. Objective 1-1.5 of the Land Use element emphasizes the importance of maintaining and enhancing the appearance of gateway corridors into the City and the "major activiy centers such as Old Town." The Historic Preservation Element of the City's Plan, Chapter 1A, deals with historic resources, structures, and sites. No particular land use of these resources, structures, and sites, other than "housing," is mentioned. Throughout the history of the City, residents have to varying degrees rented their residences or parts of their residences on a short-term basis to tourists and other guests to the City. Most of the rentals involved the rental of portions of a residence while the owner of the property continued to reside in the rest of the property. Monroe County Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey, Joe Crusoe, Robert Lastres, Vincent Catala, and Olivia Rowe, all long-term residents of the City, all testified about such rentals. The evidence failed to prove, however, that the types of rentals historically undertaken in the City constitute a part of the significant "history" of the City, at least not in the context of the historical significance of the City addressed in the City's Plan. Nor were the historical rentals testified to during hearing of the scale and scope of the rentals that now exist in the City. Additionally, to the extent that Transient Rentals are considered to be part of the significant "history" of the City, nothing in the land development regulation which is the subject of this proceeding absolutely prohibits such rentals. In fact, Transient Rentals of property for which a transient rental license has been obtained are not impacted by the land development regulation. Transient Rentals will, therefore, continue in the City. Nothing in the City's Plan dealing with the historical significance of the City requires that the City allow Transient Rentals of residential property to continue unregulated in the City. Regulation of the extent and location of Transient Rentals in the City does nothing to harm the historical significance of the City. In suggesting that Transient Rentals constitute part of the "history" of the City, and in particular, a part of the history of Old Town, the Abbe Petitioners have relied upon Policy 1-2.3.9, which provides, in part, the following: Policy 1-2.3.9: Retention of Historic Character and All Permanent Single Family Housing Units. The City desires to retain in perpetuity the existing character, density, and intensity of all historic sites and contributing sites within the historic district; and shall protect all the City's permanent single family housing stock citywide which was legally established prior to the adoption of the plan or a legal single family lot of record. Therefore, the City shall protect and preserve these resources against natural disaster, including fire, hurricane, or other natural or man-made disaster, by allowing any permanent single family units within the City, or other structures located on historic sites or contributing sites, which are so damaged to be rebuilt as they previously existed. . . . The reliance upon Policy 1-2.3.9 is misplaced. First, this Policy deals with all permanent single-family housing stock of the City and not just housing used for Transient Rentals. Secondly, the Policy does not provide for the protection of any particular use of single-family housing stock; it provides for the protection of the structures used as single-family housing. It recognizes the unique, historical construction of homes in the City and provides for their continued protection. The Impact of the City's Limited Land Mass and the City's Effort to Control Transient Rentals. As a relatively small island, the City has a limited land area and little opportunity for expansion without significantly altering the traditional character of the City. Because of the limited land area, maintaining adequate housing, including affordable housing, is a significant concern in the City. Residential property in the City has been used by tourists for accommodations for many years, long before the tourist boom now being experienced in the City. Transient uses of residential property were less organized and were less available than they are today, however. Often times, transient uses of residential property consisted of people renting out rooms in their residences to tourists. While the extent to which residential property has been used historically for tourist accommodations was not accurately quantified by the evidence, the evidence did establish that the use of residential property for Transient Rentals has significantly increased since the 1980s. As tourism has increased since the 1980s, there has been an increasing demand for tourist accommodations of all types. This demand for tourist accommodations, especially the demand for Transient Rentals, has adversely impacted the need and demand for residential housing in the City. In an effort to address the problem the Key West City Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "City Commission"), adopted a Growth Management Ordinance in 1985 mandating a ratio of Transient Rentals to residential units for the City. The intent of the 1985 Growth Management Ordinance was to maintain a suitable balance between tourist accommodations and housing for permanent residents of the City. In 1993 the City Commission adopted a dwelling unit allocation ordinance, or the "rate of growth ordinance," which was designed, at least in part, to achieve a balance between the demand for tourist accommodations and the need for permanent housing, including affordable housing. The 1993 rate of growth ordinance was subsequently incorporated into the City's Plan as Objective 1-3.12. Pursuant to the City's Plan, Transient Rentals are not to exceed 25 percent of single family units permitted annually. Note 2 to Policy 1-3.12.3 of the Plan provides that "[t]he number of transient units reflect a preference for preserving housing opportunities for permanent residents as opposed to transient residents since historical trends indicate an erosion of the permanent housing stock which is largely attributed to conversion of permanent housing units to transient housing." The City's Failure to Control Transient Rentals; The "50% Rule." In 1989, the City required that an occupational license be obtained by property owners using their property for both long-term rentals and Transient Rentals. These occupational licenses were not subject to review by the Department for consistency with the City's Plan and land development regulations. Occupational licenses are essentially a revenue raising requirement. The issuance of an occupational license does not constitute a zoning decision or otherwise constitute the approval of a land use. By the time the City adopted the 1993 rate of growth ordinance and the City's Plan, the number of occupational licenses issued for Transient Rentals had already exceeded the allocation of Transient Rentals which are allowable in the City. As a consequence, owners of residential property who desired to use their property for Transient Rental purposes have been unable to obtain an occupational license for such use. The lack of allowable Transient Rentals under the City's Plan did not, however, actually stop individuals from using their property for Transient Rentals. In addition to licensed Transient Rentals, there are approximately 647 unlicensed Transient Rental properties in the City. Properties owned by the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman are among these unlicensed Transient Rentals. The Abbe Petitioners who own Transient Rentals rather than manage them have occupational licenses issued by the State of Florida and Monroe County, but not a Transient Rental occupational license issued by the City. Mr. Coleman has a "nontransient" license issued by the City and occupational licenses issued by the State and Monroe County, but not a Transient Rental occupational license from the City. The number of unlicensed Transient Rental properties in the City has been contributed to, in part, by an interpretation of a former definition of "tourist and transient living accommodations" found in the City's land development regulations. The definition was adopted in 1986. Accommodations meeting this definition were prohibited in a number of zoning districts in the City. Accommodations which did not come within the definition were not prohibited in those districts. The 1986 definition of "tourist and transient living accommodations" (hereinafter referred to as the "Former Transient Definition"), was as follows: Tourist and transient living accommodations. Commercially operated housing principally available to short-term visitors for less than twenty-eight (28) days. Pursuant to this definition, any property used "principally" for visitors for less than 28 days constituted a tourist or transient living accommodation. There were some who advocated that the term "principally" meant that a residence had to be used as a 28-day short-term visitor accommodation for at least 50 percent of the year. Pursuant to this definition, any residence used at least 50 percent of the year for 28-day or less rentals is considered to constitute a "tourist and transient living accommodation." Conversely, if a residence was used less than 50 percent of the year for 28-day or less rental the property is not considered to constitute a tourist or transient living accommodation. This interpretation of the Former Transient Definition has been referred to as the "50% Rule." Pursuant to the 50% Rule, the owner of residential property in the City could rent the property for periods of less than 28 days without obtaining an occupational license for the property as long as the property was not rented more than half of the year. This rationale was assumed to apply regardless of where the property was located; even in land use districts where Transient Rentals were prohibited. The developer of Truman Annex, an area formerly owned by the Navy located to the immediate south of Old Town, advocated the 50% Rule in his dealings with the City in the early 1990s. The City's licensing department also issued "non- transient" licenses for residences which met the 50% Rule. Code enforcement citations against owners of residences used as Transient Rentals for less than 50 percent of the year without an occupational license were withdrawn. Despite the foregoing, the evidence at hearing in these cases failed to prove that the 50% Rule became an official "policy" of the City Commission. What the evidence proved was that the City took no action to adopt or reject the 50% Rule as an official position. The City simply failed to take any action to reject the 50% Rule and interpret the definition of tourist and transient living accommodations in a more reasonable manner. Given the City's efforts to limit Transient Rentals through the adoption of the 1985 Growth Management Ordinance, the 1993 rate of growth ordinance, and the City's Plan, it is clear, however, that reliance upon the 50% Rule is not reasonable. See findings of fact 39 through 45 of the Department of Community Affairs and City of Key West's Joint Proposed Recommended Order, which are hereby incorporated herein by reference. Finally, even if the 50% Rule did constitute the legislative intent of the City Commission in adopting the Former Transient Definition, it was eliminated by the City Commission in 1997 by the adoption of City Ordinance 97-20. City Ordinance 97-20 was adopted September 16, 1997, and was approved by Final Order of the Department dated November 19, 1997. The new definition of transient living accommodations adopted by City Ordinance 97-20, and still in effect today, is as follows: SECTION 5-21.2: DEFINITION OF TERMS TRANSIENT LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS. Any unit, group of units, dwelling, building, or group of buildings within a single complex of buildings, which is 1) rented for periods of less than 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less; or which is 2) advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented to transients. (Emphasis added). The current definition of transient living accommodations has eliminated the reference to properties "principally" used as a Transient Rental. The new definition includes any residence rented for any period of time, even once a year, as long as the rental is for a period of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. The Former Transient Definition and, consequently, the 50% Rule, was also superceded by the adoption of the City's Plan. The City recognized the foregoing history in the ordinance which is the subject of this proceeding. In rejecting the notion that the City had adopted the 50% Rule as City policy, the City stated the following in the ordinance: . . . . In 1986, the City enacted former zoning code Section 35.24(44) which provided the following definition of a transient living accommodation "Commercially operated housing principally available to short-term visitors for less than twenty-eight (28) days." (This definition shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Former Transient Definition.") Some property owners and developers interpreted the Former Transient Definition to mean that an owner could rent his or her residential dwelling for less than half the year without the dwelling losing its residential status, and therefore without the need for City-issued transient license . . . . This interpretation went unchallenged by the City. . . . . . . . Therefore, the City of Key West intends by these regulations to establish a uniform definition of transient living accommodations, and to halt the use of residences for transient purposes in order to preserve the residential character of neighborhoods. . . . Based upon the foregoing, any reliance by Petitioners in these cases upon the 50% Rule as City policy is rejected. The City's Adoption of Ordinance No. 98-31. During 1997 and 1998 the City conducted workshops and held public meetings to consider and develop an ordinance regulating Transient Rentals. The workshops were conducted by City staff and were attended by representatives of essentially all those interested in the Transient Rental issue. An effort was made to achieve consensus on the issue. During these workshops, the 50% Rule and the history of Transient Rentals in the City were fully considered. In addition to the workshops conducted by the City, the City hired Frank Pallini with PRG, Real Estate Research and Advisory Services, Clearwater, Florida, to conduct an analysis of the economic impact of an ordinance limiting Transient Rentals. The report prepared by Mr. Pallini (hereinafter referred to as the "Pallini Report"), was submitted to the City on August 28, 1998. The Pallini Report and, consequently, the negative economic impact of the ordinance at issue in this proceeding was fully considered by the City when it adopted the ordinance. On June 2, 1998, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 98-16, which amended the definition of "transient living accommodations" in the City's land development regulations. Unlicensed short-term Transient Rentals were expressly prohibited by Ordinance 98-16 with the exception of four specified City land use districts. Those districts, referred to during the hearing as "gated communities," are all single, contiguous zoning district areas of the City with controlled access and which are governed by homeowners' or condominium associations. Truman Annex was one of the four excluded gated communities. Ordinance 98-16 was found by the Department to be inconsistent with the Principles on July 29, 1998, by Final Order DCA98-OR-135. The Department concluded that Ordinance 98- 16 was inconsistent with the Principles because it allowed the use of residential property as Transient Rentals in areas where, according to the Department, such rentals were prohibited under the City's Plan. The City initially challenged the Department's decision, but subsequently withdrew its challenge. The City subsequently repealed Ordinance 98-16. On November 10, 1998, the City adopted Ordinance 98-31 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance"), which is the subject of this proceeding. The Ordinance contains the same provisions, except the exception for gated communities, that had been contained in Ordinance 98-16. The Ordinance is a "land development regulation" as defined in Section 380.031(8), Florida Statutes. It is, therefore, subject to review for consistency with the Principles by the Department. During the process of adopting the Ordinance the City recognized the confusion that the 50% Rule had caused concerning the intent of the City's Plan with regard to Transient Rentals. The City expressly dealt with the 50% Rule and rejected it as policy of the City. In particular, the Ordinance provides that the City's purpose in enacting the Ordinance was to phase out unlicensed transient uses of residential properties in land use zoning districts in which they are not permitted. This goal is accomplished by further modifying the definition of "transient living accommodations" adopted in 1997 in Section 5-21.2 of the City's land development regulations: Sec. 5-21.2 Definition of terms. Transient Living Accommodations. Or Transient Lodging. Any unit, group of units, dwelling, building, or group of buildings within a single complex of buildings, which is 1) rented for a period or periods of less than 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less; or which is 2) advertised or held out to the public as a place rented to regularly regularly rented to transients. , regardless of the occurrence of an actual rental. Such a short-term rental use of or within a single family dwelling, a two family dwelling or a multi-family dwelling (each also known as a "residential dwelling") shall be deemed a transient living accommodation. (Words struckstruck through were eliminated from the definition and underlined words were added). The Ordinance also adds Section 2-7.21 to the City's land development regulations explaining its action in modifying the definition of transient living accommodations and expressly prohibiting unlicensed Transient Rentals of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. The Ordinance does not provide for a complete ban on Transient Rentals. On the contrary, Transient Rentals of properties for which transient occupational licenses have been issued by the City are expressly allowed by the Ordinance. The City estimated that 507 residential properties containing a total of 906 transient units hold such licenses. Under the Ordinance, these units may continue to be used as Transient Rentals. The Department's Review of the Ordinance. On November 24, 1998, the City transmitted a copy of the Ordinance to the Department for approval or rejection pursuant to Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes. The Department conducted its review of the Ordinance following its customary procedures for review of land development regulations that impact an area of critical state concern. The review included a consideration of Chapter 28-36, Florida Administrative Code, including the Principles, the City's Plan, and the legislative intent of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The Ordinance was directed to Kenneth Metcalf, the person in the Department responsible for supervision of the City ACSC. Mr. Metcalf reviewed the ordinance and assigned it to the Department's Field Office with directions as to which issues the Field Office should address during its review. Following staff review, an evaluation was prepared addressing the Ordinance's consistency with the Principles. The evaluation was reviewed by Mr. Metcalf. After receipt and review of the evaluation, it was discussed at a meeting of Department staff. As a result of the meeting, it was recommended that the Secretary of the Department find the Ordinance consistent with the Principles. On January 5, 1999, the Department entered a Final Order, DCA98-OR-237, finding that the Ordinance was consistent with the Principles. The Department caused notice of the Final Order to published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Petitioners' Challenge to the Ordinance. The Abbe Petitioners, Mr. Coleman and over 200 other owners of property in Truman Annex, and Mr. Rooney all timely filed petitions challenging the Department's Final Order pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to the Department's Final Order approving the Ordinance. The petitions were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Department. The petitions were designated Case Nos. 99-0666GM, 99-0667GM and 99-1081DRI, respectively. Following dismissal of the petitions in all three cases, amended petitions were filed. Mr. Coleman's amended petition, filed on or about June 14, 1999, named Mr. Coleman as the only Petitioner remaining in that case. Standing. The parties stipulated to certain facts relating to the standing of the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman. In addition to stipulating to the facts found, supra, concerning the ownership and use of real property by the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman in the City, it was agreed that the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman have transient occupational licenses issued by the State of Florida and Monroe County for their City real property. The Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman suggested in their proposed orders that it had been stipulated during the hearing that they have standing to initiate, and participate in, this proceeding. A close reading of the stipulation of the parties, however, fails to support this contention. What the Department, City, and the duPonts stipulated to were certain underlying facts; they did not stipulate to the ultimate finding. The Department, City, and duPonts did not stipulate to whether the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman will suffer an immediate injury as a result of the Ordinance. The evidence proved that, the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman do not have the legal right to use their properties as Transient Rentals. Neither a reasonable interpretation of existing land development regulations nor the 50% Rule legalizes such use. As a consequence, the Ordinance cannot have the effect of preventing the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman from using their properties for Transient Rental purposes because that is not a purpose for which they are legally authorized to use the properties anyway. The evidence also proved, however, that the City has allowed the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman to continue to use their properties as Transient Rentals, legally or not, and that, without the City's taking some action, the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman would continue to do so. As a consequence, the Ordinance will have the practical and real effect of preventing the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman from continuing to use their properties as Transient Rentals, to their economic detriment. The Abbe Petitioners, other than Neal Hirsh and Property Management of Key West, Inc., and Mr. Coleman have proved that they have standing to institute and participate in this proceeding. The duPonts proved that they have standing to participate in this proceeding. The City proved that its substantial interests were determined by the Department's decision in this matter. The City has standing to participate in this proceeding. Mr. Hirsh, Property Management of Key West, Inc., and Mr. Rooney failed to prove that they have standing to institute or participate in this proceeding. The Principles. Rule 28-36.003, Florida Administrative Code, contains the Principles: Strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development; Protection of tidal mangroves and associated shoreline and marine resources and wildlife; Minimize the adverse impacts of development of the quality of water in and around the City of Key West and throughout the Florida Keys; Protection of scenic resources of the City of Key West and promotion of the management of unique, tropical vegetation; Protection of the historical heritage of Key West and the Key West Historical Preservation District; Protection of the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities, Sewage collection and disposal facilities, Solid waste collection and disposal facilities, Key West Naval Air Station, The maintenance and expansion of transportation facilities, and Other utilities, as appropriate; Minimize the adverse impacts of proposed public investments on the natural and environmental resources of the City of Key West; and Protection of the public health, safety, welfare and economy of the City of Key West, and the maintenance of Key West as a unique Florida resource. In determining whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles, the Principles should be considered as a whole. No specific provision should be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. The Ordinance has little or no impact on those Principles that relate to the natural resources of, and public facilities in, the City. Those Principles include Rule 28- 36.003(1)(b), (c), (d), (f), and (g), Florida Administrative Code. Those Principles are considered neutral in the determination to be made in these cases. The determination of whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles is limited to a balancing of the Principles listed in Rule 28-36.003(1)(a), (e), and (h), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as "Principles A, E, and H," respectively). Principle A: The Ordinance Strengthens the City's Capabilities for Managing Land Use and Development. In order for the Ordinance to be considered as strengthening the City's capabilities for managing land use and development, the Ordinance must be consistent with the City's Plan. The evidence proved that it is. The City's Plan contains various land use districts, all of which have certain allowable and prohibited uses. The districts established in the City's Plan and the relevant prohibition of transient lodgings are as follows: Coastal Low Density Residential Development district: prohibits "transient lodging and guest homes." Single Family Residential Development district: prohibits "transient accommodations" and "transient rental housing." Medium Density Residential Development district: prohibits "transient lodging and guest homes." Mixed Use Residential/Office: prohibits "transient lodging." Limited Commercial Development: Prohibits "transient residential land use activities." Historic High Density Residential Development and Historic Medium Density Residential Development districts: prohibit "transient residential uses, including guest homes, motels, or hotels." Historic Residential Commercial Core 2: prohibits "transient residential uses." Historic Residential/Office district: prohibits "transient lodging or guest houses" unless previously licensed. Conservation, Military, and Public Services districts: prohibit transient uses. The following districts established by the City Plan allow Transient Rentals: Salt Pond Commercial Tourist: allows "motels, [and] limited scale tourist facilities." General Commercial Development: allows "transient lodging including hotels and motels, timesharing or fractional fee residential complexes, and other transient quarters." Mixed Use Planned Redevelopment and Development districts: uses are determined, not by the City's Plan, but the land development regulations and development approvals for these large scale development districts. Historic Residential Commercial Core 1 and 3 districts: allow "transient residential accommodations" and "tourist accommodations." Historic Neighborhood Commercial: allows "transient rental accommodations" in HNC-1 and HNC-3 districts as long as they do not displace permanent resident housing and "transient accommodations" in HNC-2 districts. Historic Commercial Tourist: allows "hotels, motels, and/or transient lodging facilities." The most reasonable interpretation of the restricted and allowable land uses for the land use districts established under the City's Plan is that references to "transient rental accommodations," "transient residential uses," "transient rental housing," and "transient lodging facilities" are intended to include Transient Rentals. One other district is established by the City's Plan which is relevant to this matter: Historic Planned Redevelopment and Development districts (hereinafter referred to as "HPRD" districts). Land uses allowable in an HPRD district are to be established by land development regulations. The only HPRD district in the City is currently the Truman Annex. Truman Annex was being developed at the time the City's Plan was adopted. While the City's Plan provides that the specific requirements for any HPRD district is to be provided by land development regulations, Policy 1-2.3.4 of the City's Plan does provide, among other things, that the regulations are to "[a]void replacement of permanent housing stock with transient lodging." The Ordinance, and its application to Truman Annex, is consistent with this direction of the City's Plan. Truman Annex was developed as a development of regional impact, or "DRI." As a DRI and HPRD district, land uses in Truman Annex are subject to development agreements between the City and the developer of Truman Annex. Those agreements have been amended 12 times. The Truman Annex development agreements allow the development of "housing units," which included both transient and non-transient uses. "Housing units" were further broken down into the following types: "affordable," "hotel transient housing units," "time share transient housing units," and "other residential housing units." "Affordable" and "other residential housing units" are intended to be "residential" development in the context of the Truman Annex development agreements; "hotel transient housing units" and "time share transient housing units" are intended to be Transient Rentals in the context of the Truman Annex development agreements. Given the distinction between "transient" housing units and other uses in the Truman Annex development agreements, no approval of Transient Rentals of "affordable" or "other residential housing units" was contemplated or allowed by the City. The Truman Annex development agreements and the HPRD district land development regulations do not authorize the use of "affordable" or "other residential housing units" in Truman Annex as Transient Rentals. The Ordinance is, therefore, consistent with the Truman Annex development agreements and the HPRD district land development regulations. The Ordinance, if nothing else, clarifies the state of the law with regard to which Transient Rentals are allowed and which are prohibited in the City. The Ordinance eliminates any lingering confusion caused by the failure of the City to reject the 50% Rule in all circumstances and to properly interpret the Former Transient Definition. The suggestion of the Abbe Petitioners that the 50% Rule was adopted as a part of the City's Plan because it existed when the City's Plan was adopted is not supported by the evidence. Again, the 50% Rule was never adopted as the official policy of the City; it simply went unchallenged by the City. In fact, the 50% Rule was allowed to be advanced by some despite the adoption of the City's Plan and its prohibition against Transient Rentals in the land use districts described, supra. Nor does Objective 1-1.3 of the City's Plan support the Petitioners' position in these cases. That Objective does not require that any particular land use be continued in the City. Nor do those provisions of the City's Plan dealing with the historic significance of the City detract from the conclusion that the Ordinance is consistent with the City's Plan. The provisions dealing with the historic significance of the City are concerned with the significance of structures which have been a part of the history of the City's existence. The City's Plan also evidences a desire to preserve historically significant housing, not any particular use of those structures. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Ordinance is consistent with Principal A. Principle E: Protection of the Historic Heritage of the City and the Key West Historical Preservation District. Principle E requires a consideration of significant events in the history of the City, famous visitors and residences of the City throughout its history, the architectural history of the City, and other aspects of the City's character. This conclusion is supported, in part, by Rule 28-36.003(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code: (e) Historic Resource Protection. A management and enforcement plan and ordinance shall be adopted by the City of Key West providing that designs and uses of development reconstruction within the Key West Historical Preservation District shall be compatible with the existing unique architectural styles and shall protect the historical values of the District. The City of Key shall maintain an architectural review board established pursuant to Section 266.207(2), Florida Statutes. . . . . The evidence in these cases proved that the Ordinance will preserve and ensure the preservation of the City's historical significance. It will do so by limiting the destruction of the character and community of the City, as discussed, infra. Principle E does not support a conclusion, as argued by Petitioners, that Transient Rentals have played such a large part in the history of the City that they should not be regulated in the manner the Ordinance provides for. Petitioners' argument also fails because the Ordinance only regulates Transient Rentals, it does not eliminate historical Transient Rental uses. The City's Plan also fails to support Petitioners' argument. The City's Plan does not address, or require, the continuation of "historical" land uses such as Transient Rentals. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, it is concluded that the Ordinance is consistent with Principal E. Principle H: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare and the Economy of the City. Principal H requires a consideration of the public health, safety, and welfare, and the economic viability of the City. These factors are inextricably tied to the tourist industry of the City. Without the tourist industry, the City's economy would likely falter to the detriment of the public health, safety, and welfare. A large part of what makes the City attractive, to tourist and residents alike, is the unique community atmosphere and the historical character of the City. The health of the tourist industry in the City is, in part, caused by the City's vibrant and viable communities. An essential characteristic of that vibrancy is the fabric of the people that inhabit the City and the interactions of those inhabitants among themselves and with tourists. As long as tourists continue to enjoy the unique character of the City, they will continue to enjoy their experience and will continue to come back to the City. If that unique character is significantly diminished or lost, so too will be the tourist industry. A number of factors threaten the quality of the tourist experience in the City and, therefore, the continued viability of the tourist industry. Those factors include the shortage of available and affordable housing, a shortage of labor to serve the tourist industry, crowding, and conflicts between tourist and residents of the City. All of these factors are related and must be adequately addressed in order to protect the economic viability of the City. Left unchecked, tourism in the City will likely be seriously impacted. Tourism requires a large labor force to provide the services which tourist expect. The labor force must provide lodging, food, retail sales, amusements, and other services. Indirect services, such as fire protection, police, and others must be provided for also by the labor force. The labor force necessary to serve a tourist industry must be provided with adequate housing. The ability to meet this need must be balanced with the need to provide adequate accommodations to the tourists who visit a destination. The need to balance these competing interests is an even greater challenge in the City because of the existing shortage of available residential property in the City and the lack of viable measures which can be taken to address the shortage. The City's shortage of residential property is caused by the fact that the supply of available land in the City is so restricted it simply cannot meet the demand. The problem caused by the lack of available land is exacerbated by restrictions on development, including those imposed by the rate of growth ordinance and the City's Historic Architectural Review Commission. Actions of the City's Historic Architectural Review Commission cause increases in the cost of redeveloping property and limits the types of redevelopment that may be pursed. Alternatives, like housing the labor force some distance from a tourist destination and providing transportation to bring the labor force into the destination, cannot be utilized in the City to meet the demand for housing for its labor force. The unavailability of adequate land is a problem throughout the length of the Florida Keys. Tourist are now demanding a variety of accommodations. The national trend has seen a increase in the demand for accommodations other than the traditional hotel or motel. Many tourists desire accommodations that include multiple rooms, including kitchen facilities. Transient Rentals have become increasingly available in order to meet part of this demand. Hotels and motels have also begun to offer efficiency- like units. Transient Rentals have also increased because of 1986 changes in federal income tax laws. Those changes have resulted in more owners of vacation housing turning their properties into Transient Rentals in order to offset the cost of the properties. The availability of Transient Rentals has significantly increased in scope and magnitude over what was historically experienced in the City. In addition to the impact on the types of accommodations desired by tourist and the tax benefits of converting property to Transient Rental use, tourism itself has increased dramatically during the past 30 years, further increasing the demand for tourist accommodations. According to a report on housing in the City known as the "Shimberg Report," from 1990 to 1995 the number of housing units decreased from 12,221 to 11,733, a decrease of 488 units. Despite this decrease, the number of households in the City during the same period increased from 10,424 to 11,298, an increase of 874. Economically, a commercial-type use, such as Transient Rentals, will usually be more profitable than a residential use of the same property. The City has experienced this economic impact. As a result of the higher economic value of using a residence as a Transient Rental, tourist use of residential property have in many cases displaced the residential use of property. The demand for Transient Rentals and the need to provide for housing for the labor force necessary to serve the City's tourist industry involve competing and inconsistent goals. In order to meet the need for Transient Rentals in the City, it has been necessary to convert housing formerly used to house the City's residents, including those who make up the labor force. The resulting decrease in residential housing and the increase in Transient Rentals also result in crowding, with members of the labor force in the City being required to share available space with tourists. Crowding results in unacceptable densities of use and increased user conflict. The resulting decrease in residential housing caused by the increase in Transient Rental use in the City has not only resulted in permanent residents leaving the City's communities, but in their departure from the City and the Florida Keys altogether. In addition to the negative impacts on housing, a tourist destination can become so popular that the very quality of the location is negatively impacted or even destroyed. John Pennekamp State Park, located in the northern part of the Florida Keys, has been so successful at attracting visitors that it has been negatively impacted. Although tourism has not reached a point where it is destroying the unique character of the City, the very thing that attracts many visitors to the City, it has the potential of reaching that stage without adequate planning by the City. Shopping by residents in the "downtown" area of the City has already been displaced by shopping areas located away from Old Town. Dr. Virginia Cronk testified during the hearing of these cases concerning what can happen to a community's identity if tourism becomes too dominate. The City is already showing some signs of the negative impact tourism can have on a community. As more stress from overcrowding is placed on the City's communities, the very base of the City's tourist industry is impacted. Not only will the labor force be moved out, the community atmosphere of communities that is so attractive in the City may be diminished or even destroyed. As in many other tourist destinations, the activities of tourists and permanent residents the City are often incompatible. This is especially true in the City because much of what attracts tourists to the City is associated with the City's residential neighborhoods. Part of the tourist destination of the City is its neighborhoods. The type of visitors attracted to the City over the last decade has changed significantly. Many tourists now come to "party" on Duval Street, often late into the night and the early morning hours. The partying often continues back to, and at, the accommodations that the tourists utilize. Many tourists make every effort to maximize their "fun time" by staying up late and playing hard. Because tourists are on vacation, they are not as concerned about when they go to sleep and when they enjoy the City. They are not required to keep any particular schedule, so they are more at liberty to stay up into the early morning hours. Because tourists are only in the City for a short time, they are also less concerned with getting along with their neighbors. They want to have a good time and assume that everyone around them is there for the same reason. Permanent residents of the City are much like permanent residents everywhere. The adults are employed during the day and their children attend school. They go to bed and rise earlier than tourists generally do. Because of the differences in the goals of tourists and permanent residents, inevitable conflicts arise when tourists and residents mix. Unless those conflicts are controlled in the City, permanent residents will be forced out, threatening to end one of the very features that has made the City so attractive to tourists: the unique community atmosphere and historical character of the City. Dr. Cronk explained the different social forces which impact the behavior of tourists and residents. Tourists are simply not subject to the same informal social controls that residents are. As a result, the behavior of tourists often comes into conflict with the behavior normally associated with a true community neighborhood. Because the behavior of tourists is not subject to the same informal social controls as residents, residents must turn increasingly to more formal social controls such as the police and private security forces. These controls often do not work and are more expensive than the informal social controls normally associated with neighborhoods. Witnesses during the hearing of these cases gave examples of clashes between permanent residents and tourists. Those incidents are fully reported in the transcript of the hearing of this matter and are summarized in the proposed orders filed by the Department and City, and the duPonts. The need to resort to more formal social controls, such as the police and private security was also explained by these witnesses. The credible testimony of Ms. Rowe, Margaret Domanski, and Martha duPont accurately describe the types of conflicts the Ordinance is intended to reduce. The impact which the conversion of residential properties to Transient Rentals has on affordable housing in the City is difficult to measure. The Department has suggested that it is significant. Petitioners argue that there is no impact and that, even if there were some impact, affordable housing is not one of the Principles and, therefore, should play no part in the review of the Ordinance. The principles which apply to Monroe County require that Monroe County "make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys." Section 380.0552(7)(j), Florida Statutes. This principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(d), Florida Statutes, that a local government provide affordable housing in close proximity to places of employment in the Florida Keys. The Principles applicable to the City ACSC do not contain a principle specifically requiring that affordable housing be maintained. The lack of a specific requirement concerning affordable housing does not, however, support a conclusion that affordable housing should be ignored when applying the Principles to land development regulations adopted by the City. On the contrary, Principle H is broad enough to require a consideration of affordable housing. After all, any consideration of the "public health . . . welfare, and economy" of the City, necessarily must include a consideration of affordable housing. Without adequate housing for all sectors of the City's population, the public health and welfare of the City cannot be maintained. Nor can the economy of the City survive without adequate housing for all segments of the work force. "Affordable housing" does not mean housing for the poor. "Affordable housing" is defined in terms of the percentage of a household's income spent on housing which is considered "affordable" by very-low income, low-income, and moderate-income persons. What is considered affordable is based upon the median household income of a community's very-low income, low-income, and moderate-income population. The approximate median household income of City residents is $49,000.00. In order for the City to be considered to have adequate "affordable housing," persons making between 80 and 120 percent of the median household income, or $39,000 to $59,000, should be able to afford a house. The average value of a single-family house in the City, however, is $300,000, well above the price affordable to persons with a household income of between $39,000 and $59,000. Because of the disparity between the average price of homes and the low median household income of City residents, an enormous burden is placed on residents to fund any type of housing. As much as 30 percent of residents' income must be spent on housing. The number of residents spending at least 30 percent of their income on housing increased significantly between 1990 and 1995. That number is likely to continue to increase. As the cost of residential property increases, the economic burden on residents for housing continues to increase. The cost of residential property is increasing, and will continue to increase, because of the conversion of residential property to Transient Rentals. If the City takes no action with regard to balancing tourist accommodations, particularly Transient Rentals, and housing for its residents, the ability of residents to afford any housing will continue to be negatively impacted. Even though it is doubtful that the Ordinance will increase the ability of residents to actually own their own home, there is no doubt that their ability to afford any housing will continue to be negatively impacted if Transient Rentals continue to displace the use of property for residential purposes. In adopting the Ordinance, the City recognized the negative impact that tourism is having on the City: . . . the transient use of residential dwellings has had deleterious consequences in the residential neighborhoods of Key West; and . . . the increase in the conversion of residential dwellings to transient use is, in part, responsible for the affordable housing shortage in Key West, a shortage confirmed in a study of the City by the Shimberg Center of the University of Florida . . . The finding concerning affordable housing is consistent with the City's Plan. Objective 3-1.1 and Note 2, Policy 1-3.12.3 of the City's Plan. In adopting the Ordinance, the City took a reasonable step to address the problems associated with tourism. The Ordinance, while causing an initial negative impact to the economy, will promote the protection of residential neighborhoods from unnecessary intrusion, promote affordable housing, and ultimately ensure the continued viability of the tourist economy of the City. By limiting the intrusion of Transient Rentals into most residential neighborhoods in the City, the Ordinance will limit the intrusion of negative tourist activities into those neighborhoods. Those negative impacts testified about by Ms. Rowe, Ms. Domanski, and Ms. duPont will be, in most cases, prevented or at least reduced. The reduction of tourist intrusions into neighborhoods will also ensure that the unique community character of the City remains viable. The Ordinance will go a long way in keeping the charm of the City's neighborhoods intact for tourists and residents both. The Ordinance goes a long way in planning for tourism in the City. Reducing economically competitive uses of property in the City, such as the use of property for Transient Rentals, will ensure that the scarce supply of residential property is not further reduced. Stabilizing the supply of residential property, while not eliminating cost increases, will at least eliminate the increase in housing costs associated with the conversion of residential property to Transient Rental use. Eliminating the unlicensed use of Transient Rentals, which the Ordinance will do, will have the effect of actually returning some residential property to the supply of property available to residents. By prohibiting the use of residential properties as Transient Rentals, the total properties in the City available for housing, including for long-term rentals, for permanent residents, will increase. As supply increases, the demand for all housing, including to a very limited extent affordable housing, will be better met. By reducing the drain on residential properties in the City, the strain on the work force necessary to serve the tourist economy of the City will also be reduced. The City recognized and accepted the fact that the Ordinance will have an initial negative impact on the economy of the City. The Pallini Report was commissioned by, and considered by the City Commission. There will be an immediate reduction in revenues from unlicensed Transient Rentals that comply with the Ordinance and the income associated with providing services to those Transient Rentals. Some tourists who would otherwise select the City as their vacation destination will go elsewhere. Unlicensed Transient Rentals (taxed and untaxed), however, make up no more than ten percent of the total accommodations available in the City. It is estimated that the Ordinance will result in a loss in gross sales of $31 million, a loss in personal income of $9 million, and a loss in City revenues annually of $260,000. It is also estimated that there will be a loss of approximately 500 jobs associated with unlicensed Transient Rentals. These estimates are the "worst case" scenario figures. Actual losses will likely be somewhat less. The losses associated with the Ordinance will, however, not be long-term. Gradually, the tourist industry will adjust to the decrease in tourist accommodations and the negative impact on the economy. Some tourists will adjust the time of year they come to the City, resulting in greater tourist business during traditionally slower times. Persons who experience unemployment as a result of the Ordinance will also very likely find other employment relatively quickly because of the tight labor market in the City. The negative economic impacts to the City caused by the Ordinance should not last longer than three to five years. After that time, the economy will adjust. The overall impact of the Ordinance will be to help balance the need to provide tourist accommodations and the need to protect the charm of the City and the ability of the City to provide a work force. Protection of residential neighborhoods in the City comes within the City's responsibility to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and is a necessary consideration in providing for the economic well- being of the City. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Ordinance is consistent with Principal H. Truman Annex. It has been argued by Mr. Coleman that the application of the Ordinance to the Truman Annex supports a conclusion that the Ordinance is not consistent with the Principles. The evidence failed to support this contention. Truman Annex is located within walking distance of most tourist destinations in the City. The character and atmosphere of Truman Annex makes it an attractive tourist destination in itself. The "Little Whitehouse," a house utilized by President Harry Truman, is located within Truman Annex as is a tourist destination itself. While the Truman Annex is located in an area conducive to use as tourist accommodations, nothing in the City's Plan or land development regulations, the development orders associated with Truman Annex, the historic use of Truman Annex, the public health, safety and welfare, or the continued economic viability of the City depends upon such use. Truman Annex consists of residential housing and tourist accommodations, as well as some commercial facilities. Those activities are, however, largely buffered from each other. Most of the commercial activities are located in the western portion of Truman Annex. The residential housing is located primarily in the eastern portion of Truman Annex. Truman Annex without Transient Rentals constitutes appropriate planning by the developer of Truman Annex and the City. The Ordinance, even when applied to Truman Annex, constitutes an appropriate effort of the City to manage land uses and development. The Ordinance, even when applied to Truman Annex, will protect the historic heritage of Truman Annex and, more importantly, the City. Finally, the evidence proved that the application of the Ordinance to Truman Annex will not adversely impact the public health, safety, welfare, or the long-term economy of the City. Consideration of the Principles as a Whole. The evidence in these cases supports a conclusion that the Ordinance has no or little impact on most of the Principles, except Principles A, E, and H. The evidence proved that the Ordinance is neutral with regard to the other Principles. When Principles A, E, and H are considered individually and together, the evidence proved that the Ordinance is consistent with Principles A, E, and H. The Ordinance constitutes an effort of the City to manage land uses and development in the City, consistent with Principal A. The Ordinance will also help to protect the historic heritage of the City by preserving the character of the City's neighborhoods and, as a result, will preserve the tourist industry, consistent with Principal E. Just as clearly, the Ordinance will enhance the safety, health, and welfare of the residents of the City. Finally, the Ordinance is consistent with Principal H because it will benefit the public health, safety, and welfare of the City by protecting neighborhoods from the intrusion of tourists, reducing the impact of the conversion of residential housing for Transient Rentals, and ensuring the continued character of the City. While there will be an initial negative impact on the economy of the City as a result of the Ordinance, ultimately the Ordinance will have a positive impact on the economy of the City due to the positive impact on the City's tourist industry which will result from the regulation of Transient Rentals. Abbey Petitioners' Rule Challenge, Constitutional Issues, and Other Issues. In the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing (hereinafter referred to as the "Amended Petition") filed by the Abbe Petitioners, the Abbe Petitioners attempted to challenge pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, portions of the Final Order of the Department as an unpromulgated rule. The Amended Petition was not, however, filed consistent with the requirements of Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes. This challenge was required to be filed in a separate petition filed solely with the Division of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter referred to as the "Division") and not through an amendment to a petition originally filed with the Department which was subsequently filed by the Department with the Division with a request that the Division hear the matter. Additionally, even if the issue were properly before the Division, the evidence in this case failed to prove that the statements in the Final Order have any application other than to the Ordinance. Therefore, those statements are not "agency statements of general applicability." The statements are not, therefore, "rules" as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. The Abbe Petitioners also raised issues in the Amended Petition other than the consistency of the Ordinance with the Principles. Other than the question of the consistency of the Ordinance with the Principles, the evidence failed to support the Abbe Petitioners' argument that the issues raised in the Amended Petition are relevant to this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order approving City of Key West Ordinance 98-31 as consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development of Rule 28-36.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey M. Bell, Esquire Ritter, Chusid, Bivona & Cohen, LLP 7000 West Palmetto Park Road, Suite 400 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Jerry Coleman, Esquire Post Office Box 1393 Key West, Florida 33041 John F. Rooney 208-10 Southard Street Key West, Florida 33040 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Robert Tischenkel, City Attorney City of Key West Post Office Box 1409 Key West, Florida 33041 David J. Audlin, Jr., Esquire Eaton Street Professional Center 524 Eaton Street, Suite 110 Key West, Florida 33040 Lee R. Rohe, Esquire Post Office Box 500252 Marathon, Florida 33050 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carol A. Licko, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issues are (1) whether the City of Lake Worth (City) followed required statutory and rule procedures in adopting the height restrictions on pages 22 and 23 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendments, and (2) whether the adoption of the EAR-based amendments by the City more than 120 days after receiving the Department of Community Affairs' (Department's) Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report renders them not in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Sunset is a Florida limited liability company whose principal address is 5601 Corporate Way, Suite 111, West Palm Beach, Florida. It owns property located at 826 Sunset Drive South within the City. See Sunset Exhibit 3. The property is currently classified on the FLUM as County Medium Residential 5.1 There is no factual dispute that Sunset is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. Ms. Hayes-Tomanek owns property within the City. She submitted comments regarding the height restrictions during the public hearing on October 20, 2009, adopting the EAR amendments. See City Exhibit 6, Minutes, p. 7. The City is a local government that administers the City's Plan. The City adopted the EAR-based amendments which are being contested here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the City. The Amendments On October 1, 2008, the City's EAR-based amendments were passed on first reading and transmitted to the Department. See Joint Exhibit 2. These amendments did not include any height-based restrictions on the three categories of residential property in the Plan: Single-Family, Medium-Density, and High- Density. These three categories make up around 75 percent of the City's total land area. According to Sunset's expert, height restrictions for those categories (which are less stringent than those later adopted and being challenged here) were then in the City's zoning ordinances. On January 14, 2009, the Department issued its ORC report regarding the EAR-based amendments. See Joint Exhibit 3. Objection 4 in the report stated in part that the "City has not adequately established its mixed use districts . . . because the mixed used categories do not establish the types of non- residential uses or the appropriate percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement. In addition, the General Commercial, Industrial, Public, Public Recreation and Open Space Future Land Use categories do not include the densities and intensities of use for these categories." Id. Sunset's expert points out that the ORC report, and in particular Objection 4, did not recommend any changes to the residential categories of property. Accompanying the ORC report was a document styled "Transmittal Procedures," which stated, among other things, that "[u]pon receipt of this letter, the City of Lake Worth has 120 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed EAR-based amendments." Id. The 120-day period expired on May 14, 2009. See Sunset Exhibit 15. The City initially scheduled an adoption hearing on May 5, 2009. See Sunset Exhibit 8. For reasons not of record, the EAR amendments were not considered that day. On June 25, 2009, then City Commissioner Jennings wrote Bob Dennis, Department Regional Planning Administrator, and asked whether the City could incorporate certain substantive changes into its EAR amendments between the first (transmittal) and second (adoption) readings. Among others, she asked if the following change to the EAR amendments could be made: Establish or change the maximum building heights in various land use classifications. During the master plan process, the city received public input regarding maximum building heights . . . . The height changes vary from a 10' reduction to a 25' reduction in different land use categories. The letter included an outline of the proposed changes in seven land use categories, including the three residential categories. See City Exhibit 2. In her deposition, Commissioner Jennings stated that around the time of the transmittal hearing in January 2008 she had requested that new height restrictions be incorporated into the EAR amendments, but based on conversations with City staff, she was under the impression that these changes could not be made at that time. See City Exhibit 9. By letter dated July 29, 2009, the Department, through its Chief of Office of Comprehensive Planning, responded to Commissioner Jennings' inquiry as follows: The proposed maximum building height changes identified in your letter are for the Single Family Residential, Medium Density Multi-family Residential, High Density Multi-family Residential, Mixed Use, Downtown Mixed Use, Transit Oriented Development, and the General Commercial land use categories. Contrary to the [FLUM] revisions discussed above, the City did transmit proposed amendments to Future Land [Use] Policy 1.1.3, including new and revised Sub-policies 1.1.3.1 through 1.1.3.11 concerning these land use classifications. Height limitations were proposed for the Mixed Use and Downtown Mixed Use land use categories. In addition, the Department's ORC Report includes an objection that the Mixed Use, Downtown Mixed Use, Transit Oriented Development, General Commercial, Industrial, Public, Recreation and Open Space land use classifications do not establish adequate densities and intensities of use for these categories. In preparing this letter, the Department notes that an intensity standard of 0.1 F.A.R. (floor area ratio) was proposed for the Recreation and Open Space category. To address the Department's objection, the Department recommended the City include densities and intensities for the listed land use categories and specify the percentage distribution among the mix of uses in the mixed use categories. Appropriate intensity standards for non-residential uses include a height limit and maximum square footage or a floor area ratio. Because the City transmitted amendments that included revisions to the residential and several non- residential land use categories and because the Department's ORC Report identified the need to include density and intensity standards for the mixed use categories and several non-residential land use categories, it would be acceptable for the City to revise the proposed height limitations previously submitted or to include height limitations for the other land use categories. As noted above, height alone is not a density or intensity standard. (Emphasis added) City Exhibit 3. This determination by the Department was just as reasonable, or even more so, than the contrary view expressed by Sunset's expert. After receiving this advice, the City conducted a number of meetings regarding the adoption of the EAR-based amendments, including a change in the height restrictions. On September 2, 2009, a Board meeting was conducted regarding the proposed new height restrictions. The Board voted unanimously to adopt the changes. The Minutes of that meeting reflect that a "special workshop" would be conducted by the Commission at 6:00 p.m., September 14, 2009, "to address height and intensity" changes to the EAR amendments. See City Exhibit 4, Minutes, p. On October 11, 2009, a "special meeting" of the Commission was conducted. Finally, on October 20, 2009, the City conducted the adoption hearing. There is no dispute that Petitioners appeared and presented comments in opposition to the proposed changes. By a 3-2 vote, Ordinance No. 2008-25 was adopted with the new height restrictions described on Table 1, pages 22 and 23 of the FLUE.2 See Joint Exhibit 4; Sunset Exhibit 6. This was 279 days after the City received the ORC report. The adopted amendments were then submitted to the Department for its review. Notices for each hearing (but not the special workshop) were published in a local newspaper. See City Exhibits 4, 5, and 6. Each advertisement indicated that one of the purposes of the meetings was to consider the "City's EAR- Based Amendments." No further detail regarding the EAR amendments was given. Sunset's expert acknowledged that local governments do not always provide more specificity than this in their plan amendment notices but stated he considers it to be a good planning practice to provide more information. On December 30, 2009, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. See City Exhibit 5. The following day, a copy of the Notice of Intent was published in The Lake Worth Herald. On January 19, 2010, Sunset timely filed a petition contending that certain procedural errors were committed by the City during the adoption process. This petition was twice amended prior to hearing. A petition was filed by Ms. Hayes-Tomanek on April 5, 2010. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners first point out that the City did not follow the requirement in section 163.3184(7)(a) that it "shall" adopt the amendments no more than 120 days after receipt of the ORC report. They contend that because the City failed to do so, this requires a determination that the EAR-based amendments are not in compliance. At hearing, Sunset also relied upon (for the first time) Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-11.009(8)(e), which provides that "[p]ursuant to Section 163.3191(10), no amendment may be adopted if the local government has failed to timely adopt and transmit the evaluation and appraisal report- based amendments." The parties agree that the City did not adopt the EAR- based amendments until 279 days after receipt of the ORC report. According to the Department's Regional Planning Administrator, Bob Dennis, the Department took no action after the 120 days had run because the statute "gives no guidance as to what happens when a local government does take more than the prescribed time in the statute." See City Exhibit 8. He also indicated that the Department has no policy relative to this situation. Sunset's expert agreed that there is no penalty in the statute in the event a local government takes more than the prescribed time. Richard Post, a Department Planning Analyst, noted that local governments sometimes take longer than the statutory time periods to "send in adopted amendments, and the Department has taken no particular posture regarding their tardiness." See City Exhibit 7. He further noted that if a filing is late, as it was here, it does not affect the Department's review. As a safeguard, if an adopted amendment is transmitted to the Department after the statutory time period, it is reviewed by a planner to determine whether the information is still relevant and appropriate or has become "stale" and out-of-date. In this case, the Department reviewed the adopted amendments and, notwithstanding the passage of 279 days since the ORC report was received by the City, the amendments were found to be in compliance. For the reasons expressed in Endnote 3, infra, rule 9J-11.009(8)(e) does not prohibit the City from adopting the challenged amendments.3 While Petitioners stated that they have suffered prejudice because the new height restrictions will adversely impact the use of their property, there was no evidence that the delay in adopting the amendments affected their ability to participate in the planning process. Petitioners also contend that the City failed to follow statutory and rule procedures when it added the height restrictions between the first and second readings of the amendments. By the City doing so, Petitioners argue that rule 9J-5.004 was violated, which requires that the City "adopt procedures to provide for and encourage public participation in the planning process, including consideration of amendments to the . . . evaluation and appraisal reports[,]" and procedures to assure that the public is noticed regarding such changes and has the opportunity to submit written comments. Petitioners further argue that subsections 163.3191(4) and (10) were violated by this action. The first subsection requires the local planning agency (the Planning & Zoning Board) to prepare the EAR report (as opposed to the amendments) in conformity with "its public participation procedures adopted as required by s. 163.3181[,]" while the second subsection requires that the City adopt the EAR-based amendments in conformity with sections 163.3184, 163.3187, and 163.3189. They also argue that the notice of the adoption hearing violated section 163.3184(15) because it failed to describe the changes being made to the original EAR-based amendments. Finally, they contend the new height restrictions were not responsive to the ORC report.4 Petitioners do not contend that the City has failed to adopt adequate public participation procedures, as required by rule 9J-5.004. Rather, they contend that the participation procedures were violated, and that members of the public and other reviewing agencies, such as the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, were not given an opportunity to provide input on the new height restrictions. The record shows that, notwithstanding the content of the notice in the newspaper, both Petitioners were aware of new height restrictions being considered by the City prior to their adoption, and both were given the opportunity to participate at the adoption hearing. There is no dispute that Sunset submitted written or oral comments to the Commission prior to the adoption of the new height restrictions. Likewise, Ms. Hayes-Tomanek has closely followed the planning process for years (mainly because she wants the density/intensity standards on her property increased) and became aware of the new height restrictions well before they were adopted. The record further shows that the new height limitations were discussed by City officials before June 2009, when Commissioner Jennings authored her letter to the Department, and that written input on that issue was received from 239 residents. See Sunset Exhibit 9; City Exhibit 9. It is fair to construe these comments from numerous citizens as "public input." Even if there was an error in procedure, there is no evidence that either Petitioner was substantially prejudiced in the planning process. Finally, Petitioners' assertion that the new height restrictions are not responsive to the ORC report has been considered and rejected. See Finding of Fact 9, supra; City Exhibits 7 and 8.5
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the EAR-based amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-25 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2011.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, the Respondent, Department of Transportation, was the state agency responsible for the monitoring and control of vehicular access to and traffic control on the state highways of this state. Petitioner, Pablo Sanchez, owns the property in issue. This property is a 24 x 40 foot house located on a 70 x 103.62 foot lot located at the corner of East 8th Avenue (LeJeune Road) and East 7th Street in Hialeah, Florida. LeJeune Road, depending upon the location, both has and does not have a restrictive median. At this location it does not. Mr. Sanchez currently and historically, over the 3 years he has lived in the property in question, enters and exits the property, which has no formal driveway, from LeJeune Road. By the same token, guests who visit him enter and exit the property the same way. During this 3 year period there have been no accidents or traffic problems as a result of this use even though traffic on LeJeune Road, a main thoroughfare, is heavy. There is no obstruction on or near the property to hinder visibility of either an individual exiting the property onto LeJeune Road or a driver on LeJeune Road observing anyone coming off the property. In Mr. Sanchez' opinion, a permitted driveway practically would change nothing from the current situation. The area in which the property is located is rapidly changing from residential to commercial. Mr. Sanchez is trying to have the zoning of his property changed from residential to office use. His efforts in this regard are with the City of Hialeah. If his application for zoning change is approved, it is his intention to use the house as an office for his insurance business which is currently conducted at a different location at 24th Street and LeJeune Road. The current office is located on a corner lot from which Mr. Sanchez has access onto LeJeune Road and it is his contention there have been no traffic problems at that location either. No evidence to rebut this contention was forthcoming. There are currently commercial businesses in operation on both sides of LeJeune Road between the area now being used as a business by Petitioner and the area for which he submitted his application. The majority of these enter onto LeJeune Road. Mr. Sanchez contends that the use of the property in issue as an insurance office would not generate as much traffic as either the neighboring bank or service station in the area, and if he were to receive the driveway permit for this property, he claims, the amount of traffic onto LeJeune Road from it would not be increased by any significant amount. He submitted his application and paid the $1,000.00 fee. Most of Mr. Sanchez' time is spent at his business building because his parents live at that location and when he is not working, he spends a great deal of time with them. His experience has been that he can easily go from his home to his office on LeJeune Road at any time without difficulty, and he goes up and back each day expending 6 or 7 minutes for each trip. Petitioner introduced photographs of several businesses purported to be in the area which, he claims, have commercial entrances onto LeJeune Road. Respondent entered no evidence to contradict the identity or location of the sites reflected in the photos and they are, therefore, accepted as offered. One of them is a bank which, he contends, has been in operation for approximately 10 years. Another is a service station which has been in operation for "a considerable amount of time." This facility was there before Petitioner arrived in the area. Another business depicted, Marina Insurance, opened approximately two years ago. The facility used to be a residence and Mr. Sanchez does not know when or if a driveway permit was issued for that property. Another service station in the area was opened "many years ago" and a store for wedding gowns was opened "seven or eight years ago." The photographs fail to show any traffic, however, either in front of, exiting, or entering the properties. Mr. Sanchez claims they are active businesses and have been contributing to traffic on LeJeune Road for many years. In the absence of evidence to contradict that assertion, it is accepted. Mr. Sanchez' contentions were supported by his son, Joel, who is in business with his father and who used to live in the house in question with his father, his mother, his wife and his two children. With four adults living there, three cars were frequently in use, and all usually entered and exited the property from LeJeune Road. On occasion, they would come in or exit from 7th Street, but between 80 and 85% of the time the LeJeune Road access was utilized, primarily because the property faces on LeJeune Road. Visitors to the property usually park to the right of the front door, and so far there has been no problem getting on or off of LeJeune Road. The younger Sanchez confirms his father's testimony that entrance onto or exit from LeJeune Road from either the current residence or the current business property has not been a problem over the years, and he sees no traffic hazard. According to Joel Sanchez, LeJeune Road is no longer a residential street. He confirms his father's statement that new businesses are constantly going in and all seem to have been able to get driveway access onto LeJeune Road. The older businesses have had access to LeJeune for a long time and there appears to have been no problem with traffic. The property in issue here became a problem only when the Sanchezes tried to rezone it. Notwithstanding the fact that at the residence they already use an access onto LeJeune Road, according to the city zoning officials, if the property were to be converted into a business use property, a formal access onto LeJeune, to accommodate 8 parking spaces on the property, would be necessary. The only way 8 parking spaces could be placed onto the existing property would be to place the entrance and exit onto LeJeune Road. From a practical standpoint, the only change would be the actual paving of access ramps out to the highway instead of driving onto and off the property across the lawn as is the current practice. The number of the customers the business would bring to the new site would not be heavy, no more than 6 or 7 per day. This would be a maximum, Petitioner claims, because the nature of the insurance business he is conducting is changing to that which would reduce to an even lesser amount the traffic required. Most of the business customers are now renewals who deal with the company by mail, and the only traffic would be new business. In that regard, they are changing more to commercial lines of insurance, dealing with businesses, which does not have a large office visit rate. Neither of the Sanchez men have any training in traffic management or safety, but both sincerely feel their proposal will not increase traffic or pose a risk to traffic safety in the area. Debora Moran Rivera, a traffic engineer with the Department's Miami District is familiar with the instant permit application and, in fact, reviewed it when it was submitted. When first received by the District, the application was sent to the field for comments. It was determined that a 25 foot radius exit was required. Photographs were received along with the comments and based on the review by both the field office and the District office, it was determined that the application here was not consistent with the rules of the Department governing permits of this nature. As a result, on February 26, 1991, a Notice of Intent to Deny the application was sent to Mr. Sanchez in which the reason for denial was the availability of access to the State Highway from another public road, (East 7th Street). Sometime thereafter, Ms. Rivera was contacted by Joel Sanchez who asked for a formal denial which could be appealed and thereafter, a formal denial letter dated March 19, 1991 was sent. This letter indicated the Department rules limited access to a point at least 115 feet from the nearest connection, East 7th Street. The denial decision was based on information provided by the field operations office to whom the application was sent for verification. The decision to grant or deny is a joint one made by several individuals whose identity is dependant upon where the property in question is located. Mr. Pego, Ms. Rivera's supervisor and Ms. Rivera were the individuals who made this decision based upon the input from the staff in the field. In this case, the field information consisted of a statement based upon his visit to the site and two photographs. Based on this information along with that provided by the applicant, the decision to deny was made. Admittedly no traffic study of the area in question was made by either party. Further, in evaluating the application, however, Ms. Rivera did not look at any other driveway permits for property in the immediate area. She thinks she went out to visit the site before the official denial letter was sent out on March 19, 1991 but she does not recall what the business characteristics of the area were like. While she is generally familiar with the area, she does not recall the specifics. Based on the evidence presented, nothing was put before the undersigned to demonstrate the insufficiency or impropriety of the Department's evaluation and decision making process and it is accepted that the process was sufficient and adequate. There is some indication from the testimony of Petitioner that he had called the District office to request a Spanish speaking representative come out to the property. In response, the District sent out a Mr. Montez. According to Mr. Sanchez, Montez initially told him that the application would probably not be approved because the property fronted on LeJeune Road. However, Sanchez claims Montez later changed his mind and indicated the application would probably be granted because of the small nature of the business. The evidence on this point is unclear as to whether the visit by Mr. Montez is the site visit described by Ms. Rivera. No evidence was presented to clarify this, but in any case, there is no showing that Montez had any authority to commit the Department to a position. His opinions, therefore, are irrelevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case denying Petitioner's application for a connection from his property located at 700 East 8th Avenue, Hialeah, onto East 8th Avenue, (Lejeune Road). RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 29th day of January, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Juan Carlos Perez, Esquire 4770 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137 Michael A. Bienstock, Esquire 25 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1240 Miami, Florida 33134 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the construction activity was begun within the 45 day period within which the issuance of the permit by the city could have been challenged and was not in compliance with local codes and ordinances.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency empowered to enforce the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. (Section 380.031-.032, F.S.). Billy Marlar owns and operates the Rainbow Motel, located at 123 Water Street, Apalachicola, Florida. (R. 9) Petitioner Marlar is the record title holder of wharf lots 13 and 14 in the City of Apalachicola according to the map or plat commonly used. Lots 13 and 14 are held in the name of Rainbow Motel and Marina. Lots 13 and 14 are located within the Riverfront District, as identified in the Land Development Code of the City of Apalachicola. (R. 57) Old plats reflect that the dimensions of wharf lots 13 and 14 are 206.54 feet wide and approximately 70 feet deep, or 14,250.75 square feet. Over the years, sand has accreted to the eastern boundary of these wharf lots and for the past 35 years there have been improved structures on the eastern boundary of the property. Although the Franklin County tax rolls reflect wharf lots 13 and 14 as being approximately 200 feet wide by 180 feet deep, the Rainbow Hotel is built on pilings over water or land which is tidal. Inspection of the property reveals that the water line of the Apalachicola Bay lies approximately at the western edge of the main portion of the hotel. On May 13, 1988, Billy Marlar applied for a permit to construct a concrete parking lot on wharf lots 13 and 14 in the City of Apalachicola. (Rainbow Exhibit 2) On May 16, 1988, the Apalachicola Planning and Zoning Commission considered Mr. Marlar's application at a special meeting, and granted the permit application. (Rainbow Exhibit 9). On May 25, 1988, Permit No. 1172 was forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs for consideration as a development order. (Rainbow Exhibit 2). Prior to the permit being forwarded to DCA, construction of the parking lot commenced. A portion of the parking lot was poured on May 23, 1988, and the remainder of the parking lot was completed within 2 - 3 weeks of that date. (R. 50-51, 53). The Land Development Code provides that lot coverage within the Riverfront District shall contain a minimum of 50 percent pervious surface. The term "pervious surface" means that water will percolate through that surface that covers the earth. (R. 59). The concrete parking lot constructed by Billy Marlar on wharf lots 13 and 14 is not a pervious surface. (R. 70). The dimensions of the portion of the parking lot on lots 13 and 14 are 78 feet along the northern boundary, 205 feet along the eastern boundary, 78 feet along the southern boundary and 205 along western boundary. There is a planter in the southwestern corner which has approximately 704 square feet. The proposed finding submitted by the Department states that the parking lot contains 12,589.87 square feet, which will be the area used. (DCA Exhibit 1 and R. 71). The dimensions of the pervious surface of the property are based upon the area of the non-tidal portion of the two lots. The dimensions of the non- tidal area of the two lots are determined from resolution of the conflicts in the testimony and evidence presented and an examination of the property. The western boundary is 215 feet; northern boundary is 112 feet; eastern boundary is 215 feet; and southern boundary is 122.5 feet. The total non-tidal area of the two lots based upon these dimensions is 25,208 square feet. (Rainbow Exhibit 3). Although the records of the Franklin County Property Appraiser's Officer indicated the dimensions of wharf lots 13 and 14 were 200 feet wide by 180 feet deep, a substantial portion of the eastern boundary of that area is submerged. (Rainbow Exhibit 3 and 5, R. 32). Conflicting evidence was presented as to the dimensions of the non-tidal property from the street frontage to the mean high water line. The drawings show a meander line along the mean high water line; however, observation revealed water under the majority of the hotel, particularly on the northeast corner. Based upon those observations, the eastern boundary on non-tidal land is computed as a straight line parallel to the western edge of the longest portion of the hotel and five (5) feet to the east of longest portion of the hotel running from southern boundary to the northern boundary. See pencil additions to Rainbow Exhibit 3 made by fact finder after observation of the property pursuant to motion. A portion of the Rainbow Motel and the Pot Restaurant extend over the water. (R. 32 and Rainbow Exhibit 3). A portion of the hotel approximately 21.9 feet by 17.3 feet and 5 feet by 136.32 feet is located on the pervious surface of lots 13 and 14. Approximately 33% of the restaurant, the dimensions of which are 47 by 46 feet, is located on the pervious surface of lot 13. The buildings cover a total of 1,781 square feet. The total impervious surface on lots 14 and 13 is 14,371 square feet. The total non-tidal area of the two lots is 25,209 square feet. The impervious surface must be reduced by 1767 square feet. (R. 76).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered requiring Billy Marlar and Rainbow Hotel to bring the project into compliance within 30 days by removal of 1767 square feet of impervious surface from the non-tidal portions of lots 13 and 14. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August, 1989. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1989. ANNEX A Consideration of Proposed Findings of Fact The proposed findings of the Department of Community Affairs were read and considered as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 Adopted. Paragraph 11 The proposed dimensions are rejected as being contrary to the best evidence of the dimensions of the non-tidal area of the two lots. Paragraphs 12 & 13 Adopted. The proposed findings of Marlar and Rainbow Hotel were read and considered as follows: Paragraphs 1 & 2 Adopted. Paragraph 3 The existence of non-tidal land to a depth of 180 feet is rejected as contrary to the best evidence. Paragraph 4 & 5 Substantially adopted. Paragraphs 6 & 7 Rejected as a finding, although included as portions of the conclusions of law or statement of case. Paragraph 8 Some land has accreted; however, that the accretion is all pervious surface is rejected as contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 9 The stormwater management plan is irrelevant to how much of the pervious area of the two lots is covered with impervious structures. Paragraph 10 The city map is rejected as the best evidence of the area of the non-tidal area of the two lots. COPIES FURNISHED: L. Kathryn Funchess, Esquire David L. Jordan, Esquire C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Deborah Hardin-Wagner, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 J. Ben Watkins, Esquire 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32 320 J. Patrick Floyd, Esquire 408 Long Avenue Post Office Drawer 950 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Honorable Jimmy Nichols Mayor, City of Apalachicola Post Office Box 10 Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Apalachicola Planning and Zoning Commission Post Office Box 10 Apalachicola, Florida 32320
The Issue Whether Somerset Park Condominium Association, Inc.; Wise Property Management, Inc.; and Thomas Kelleher (collectively referred to as Respondents) discriminated against Lusheryl Walden (Ms. Walden or Petitioner), on the basis of Ms. Walden’s disability; and, if so, the relief to which Ms. Walden is entitled.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Walden is a 49-year-old woman. She has a muscle disorder which causes her to need the assistance of a medical walker. She also uses a cane and electronic wheelchair. Ms. Walden lives in a rented condominium unit at Somerset Park Condominiums (Somerset Park), which is located at 2866 Somerset Park Drive, Unit 103, Tampa, Florida. She has lived in unit 103 since March 2018. Unit 103 is privately owned, but is managed, along with the other condominium units at Somerset Park, by Wise Property Management, Inc. Mr. Kelleher is employed by Wise Property Management, Inc., as the property manager for Somerset Park. Somerset Park was created by, and continues to be governed by, a Declaration of Condominium of Somerset Park, A Condominium (Declaration), which instrument was recorded in 2006, in the public records of Hillsborough County, Florida. The Declaration describes parking spaces as follows: (c) Parking Spaces. Parking for the Condominium is part of the Common Elements of the Condominium on the Condominium Property. The parking spaces shown on Exhibit 2 of the Declaration may be assigned to a Unit (which assignment need not be recorded in the public records of the County) by the Developer (for so long as the Developer offers a Unit for sale in the Condominium and thereafter by the Association), whereupon it shall become Limited Common Elements of the Unit to which it is assigned. Any consideration paid for the assignment of the parking spaces shall belong to the Developer. A Unit Owner may assign the Limited Common Element parking space appurtenant to his Unit to another Unit by written instrument delivered to (and to be held by) the Association; provided however that no Unit may be left without one Limited Common Element parking space. Upon making such assignment, the Limited Common Element so assigned shall become an appurtenance to the Unit(s) and shall pass with the title thereto regardless of whether or not specifically referenced in the deed or other instrument of conveyance of the Unit. According to the Declaration, parking spaces at Somerset Park are considered “limited common elements” after they are assigned to a unit. Generally speaking, limited common elements consist of properties, equipment, or structures whose use is reserved to a particular unit to the exclusion of other units. Units at Somerset Park are individually owned. When a unit is sold by Somerset Park, the unit comes with its own parking space, which is considered a limited common element “appurtenant thereto.” Other types of limited common elements include patios, balconies, and terraces, as well as air conditioning compressors and water heaters that are located outside of the condominium unit. When Ms. Walden moved into unit 103 in 2018, she was notified that she was assigned to parking space number 409. Parking space number 409 is the limited common element attached to unit 103. In March 2020, Ms. Walden made a verbal request to Mr. Kelleher to be reassigned a parking space closer to her unit. Mr. Kelleher told Ms. Walden that he could not reassign a parking space, but that she was welcomed to reach out to her neighbors to find someone willing to switch. The Declaration specifically sets forth the means by which an assigned parking space may be reassigned. It provides that a “unit owner may assign the limited common element parking space appurtenant to his unit to another unit by written instrument delivered to [Somerset Park.]” For a parking space assigned to a unit that is still owned by Somerset Park, Somerset Park may reassign such parking space to another unit. Ms. Walden’s assigned parking space—parking space number 409—is four parking spaces away from her unit. Ms. Walden has an informal agreement with the resident assigned to parking space number 408 (which is three spaces away from her unit), who allows her to park in that space. There are six parking spaces closer to Ms. Walden’s unit than her assigned space—three to the left and three to the right of the walkway to her unit. All six parking spaces are assigned as limited common elements to condominium units not owned by Somerset Park. All six are outside the control of Respondents who have no authority to force the owners to switch spaces with Ms. Walden. Ultimate Findings of Fact Petitioner failed to prove that there was any reasonable accommodation Respondents could have given her that would have enabled her to park closer to her unit. Respondents offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for denying Petitioner’s request for a parking space closer to her unit. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents intentionally discriminated against Petitioner because of her disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. 1 Fairway Villas was vacated through settlement agreement during the pendency of an appeal. 2 Somerset Park has unassigned parking spaces that are not reserved as limited common elements. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2021. Joseph G. Riopelle, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Lusheryl Walden 2866 Somerset Park Drive, #103 Tampa, Florida 33613 Boyd, Richards, Parker and Colonnelli, P.L. 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 1150 Tampa, Florida 33602 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, as alleged in the Housing Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on or about October 9, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, since March 2015, has been a resident at Respondent’s facility. Respondent is a private residential condominium association, which operates and maintains three condominiums in Osprey, Florida. Each condominium unit has its own designated parking space. Petitioner’s assigned parking space, number 364, lies between parking spaces 362 and 366. The respective parking spaces are next to each other, with parallel lines dividing the same. Each parking space has a concrete tire-stop that has painted on it the corresponding condominium unit number so that when a vehicle turns into a space the driver is able to discern the corresponding unit number. All parking spaces and road surfaces relevant to this dispute are paved. If one is positioned such that the painted numbers on the tire-stops are visible, then to the left of space 362 is an unassigned space (unassigned space #1) and to the right of space 366 is an area containing shrubbery. From the photographs admitted into evidence, the dimensions of unassigned space #1 appear to be essentially the same as parking spaces 362, 364, and 366. However, unassigned space #1 differs from the others in that on either side of the parallel lines that demark the interior boundaries of the parking space, there are pathways which provide more space for pedestrian traffic. Although neither party offered evidence of the dimensions of the parking spaces, photographs of the area demonstrate that unassigned space #1, when considering the usable pathways, is wide enough to allow for reasonable entry to and exit from a mid-sized sedan while the vehicle’s occupant is being assisted by a walker or wheelchair. In order to access the parking spaces discussed in the preceding paragraph, motorists must use a one-way road which requires them to turn to the right when they are parking their vehicles such that the front tires are closest to the concrete tire-stops. Approximately 20 feet from unassigned space #1, on the other side of the one-way road used to access the parking area, is another unassigned parking space (unassigned space #2). Unassigned space #2 is perpendicular to unassigned space #1 and spaces 362, 364, and 366. Accordingly, motorists parking in unassigned space #2 enter the space by veering to the left off of the one-way road and driving head-on into the parking space (essentially a parallel parking space). There is no evidence of record as to the exact dimensions of unassigned space #2, but in comparing the photographic evidence, this space is comparable in size to the handicapped parking space near the condominium complex clubhouse. Additionally, unassigned space #2 is situated such that no other vehicles can park in front of, behind, or on either side of a vehicle parked in the space, and there is no curbing that would serve as barrier to accessing one’s vehicle while parked in the space. Although each unit is assigned one designated parking space, Petitioner recalls that when she initially moved in, she parked her vehicle by straddling the line between parking spaces 364 and 366. According to Petitioner, she was able to use both spaces because the respective tire-stops for the spaces were each marked “364.” Petitioner stopped parking her vehicle in this manner after the association re-painted all of the tire- stops; which included refreshing the unit numbers painted on the same so as to make it clear that there were not two parking spaces for unit 364. Also, Petitioner testified that her vehicle was vandalized once while parking her car in spot 364. After Petitioner’s car was vandalized and Respondent re-painted the tire-stops, Petitioner, during the weeks leading to June 2015, began occasionally parking her vehicle in the designated handicapped parking space located at the condominium clubhouse parking lot. Petitioner asserts that because of issues related to her physical disability, it is necessary that she be able to park her car, without restriction, in the handicapped parking space designated by Respondent for use by visitors and residents at the condominium complex clubhouse. The handicap parking space is several hundred feet from Petitioner’s condominium unit, and in order to access the handicap parking space, Petitioner utilizes a pathway constructed of dirt and crushed seashells. There is no record evidence indicating that Petitioner has difficulty traversing the seashell pathway or walking from her condominium unit to her car, and vice versa. Petitioner’s designated parking space is considerably closer to her unit (less than one hundred feet) than the handicapped parking space, but, according to Petitioner, her designated parking space is inadequate because it does not provide her with sufficient space to enter and exit her vehicle. Respondent does not dispute this fact. Petitioner suffers from a physical disability which requires her to ambulate with the occasional assistance of either a walker or wheelchair. Petitioner drives a late model, mid-size four-door Mercedes Benz. Petitioner’s vehicle is not equipped with any special assistive devices, such as a ramp, which would add to the amount of space needed for vehicle ingress and egress. When Petitioner is either entering or exiting her vehicle while using her walker or wheelchair, she requires additional space beyond the swing path of her car doors. Petitioner did not offer evidence of the amount of space required for her to enter or exit her vehicle when using either her walker or wheelchair. Petitioner also did not offer evidence regarding the dimensions of her vehicle, or the dimensions of either her designated parking space or any of the other parking spaces at issue. Nevertheless, Respondent concedes that Petitioner’s designated parking space, when cars are parked on either side of her in spaces 362 and 366, does not afford Petitioner adequate space to reasonably access her walker or wheelchair when entering and exiting her vehicle. In June 2015, Petitioner, as she often did, parked her car overnight in the handicapped parking space at the clubhouse. When Petitioner arrived at her vehicle, she noticed that a note from Respondent had been placed on the car, which reads as follows: Overnight parking in this clubhouse lot must have approval of the Pine Run Board of Directors. Approval is normally awarded for stays of no more than one week. In addition, this handicapped space is reserved for residents or visitors to the pool or clubhouse, not for general resident parking. We discourage resident parking in this lot if not for these reasons. However, if on rare occasion, you wish to park a car in this lot during the day when you are not using the pool or clubhouse, please use an unassigned space on the pond side. This minimizes the chance that you will interfere with our maintenance crew, or the delivery of a large quantity of materials. Within a few days of receiving the note, Petitioner explained to Respondent that she has a handicapped parking decal and should therefore be able to park in the handicapped parking space without restriction. Under the circumstances, Petitioner’s statement is reasonably interpreted as a request to Respondent that her physical disability should be accommodated by allowing her to park in the handicapped space. Respondent took no immediate action regarding Petitioner’s request for accommodation. Respondent did, however, allow Petitioner to continue to park in the handicapped space whenever Petitioner desired to do so. On August 27, 2015, Petitioner sent an email to Respondent and stated therein the following: We are formally informing you again, since our encounters with Mrs. and Mr. Foley, that we do indeed, have a disabled tag, and need and expect accommodations for ours and others, disabled individuals, owners, lessees and visitors, with any parking accommodations, walkers, chairs, etc., and their vehicles and equipment and with regards to any and all entrances to, and any and common areas, we should have easy access to. The circumstances leading up to, and including, Petitioner’s correspondence of August 27, 2015, make clear that Petitioner continues to seek a parking accommodation. At 4:51 p.m. on October 5, 2015, a letter from Petitioner’s attorney, Ms. Jennifer Daly, was sent to Respondent’s representative Jim Kraut. The missive from Ms. Daly states: As you are aware, this firm represents Ms. Valerie Collier [Walters] and I am contacting you to notify you and the Association that she will be parking in the handicapped parking spot tomorrow due to a surgery she is having. Please notify the Board of Directors to ensure no threats of towing are made and no notes are left on her car during her recovery. Upon receipt of the email from Ms. Daly, Mr. Kraut immediately conveyed the request to Mrs. Foley, who at the time was president of Respondent’s board of directors. In response to Petitioner’s request, Mrs. Foley, at 5:02 p.m. on October 5, 2015, sent the following email message to Mr. Kraut: Jim, Since the handicapped spot by the Club House is a considerable distance from her unit could you suggest that she just pick a spot in front of her unit that is much closer? We would have no problem identifying a handicapped spot closer to her unit. Mr. Kraut conveyed Mrs. Foley’s suggestion to Petitioner’s attorney Ms. Daly, who at 5:21 p.m. on October 5, 2015, responded via email as follows: Jim, Thank you for your rapid response and Ms. Foley’s suggestion; however, please let her know that choosing a different spot near her unit will not address our client’s needs. Rather, the problem is when the Association repainted the parking lot, the parking spots were made too small. From what we have been advised, all the spaces in close proximity to our client’s unit are only slightly bigger than the width of a sedan and offer no additional space for the opening of doors, much less the further space needed for someone who requires the assistance of a walker or wheelchair in addition to other equipment. Mrs. Foley, in response to Ms. Daly’s email, stated the following: I note your reply concerning Mrs. Valerie Collier [Walters]. Please be advised that the Association has not changed either the size or assignment of any parking spaces in the even 300’s on Pine Run Drive. All of the spaces have been repainted if the numbers were not visible or the curbs required repair in the entire Association. The size of the spaces ha[s] never changed. We would be very willing to accommodate Mrs. Collier’s [Walters] need for a handicapped space closer to her unit if she requested such. My suggestion was the quite large parallel space next to the grass island [unassigned space #2]. There is no curb there and no vehicle could park beside her. Another suggestion would be to swap her space for the adjacent space for #366. This is the same size but an end space, however I think she would have more room with the parallel space just behind her assigned space. Petitioner’s reaction to Respondent’s suggested parking accommodations was to file, on or about October 9, 2015, a charge of housing discrimination. Additionally, Petitioner parked her car in the handicap space without incident following her surgery. As noted in Ms. Daly’s email of October 5, 2015, Petitioner rejected the parking spaces offered by Respondent because the spaces are “too small.” Petitioner offered no standard by which to determine the appropriateness of the offered parking spaces other than her own subjective opinion. Additionally, Petitioner testified that both unassigned spaces are unacceptable because they are too close to the condominium unit of a neighbor she dislikes. Petitioner testified that what she now wants is to park in space 366, if Respondent widens the space by removing the hedges to the immediate right and paving the newly-cleared area. Petitioner offered no credible evidence establishing that this proposed accommodation is equal to, or more reasonable than the accommodations offered by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Respondent, Pine Run Association, Inc., did not commit unlawful housing discrimination as alleged by Petitioner, Valerie Walters, and denying Petitioner’s Housing Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Cindy Hill, Esquire Hill Law Firm, P.A. 456 South Tamiami Trail Osprey, Florida 34229 (eServed) Gary Parker, Esquire Legal Aid of Manasota 1900 Main Street, Suite 302 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Sharon S. Vander Wulp, Esquire Sharon S. Vander Wulp, P.A. 712 Shamrock Boulevard Venice, Florida 34293 (eServed) Scott H. Jackman, Esquire Cole, Scott and Kissane, P.A. Suite 400 4301 West Boy Scout Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33607 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Fair Housing Act by discriminating against Petitioner based on her sex, national origin, and/or handicap by the manner it enforced its vehicle parking rules.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an 81-year-old female who is a native of Peru. Petitioner does not speak, write, or read English. Petitioner and her late husband were owners and residents of a condominium unit managed by Respondent. Petitioner continued to own and reside in the unit after her husband's death in September 2009. Petitioner and her husband had ten children, two of whom are Patricia Ramirez and Gloria Silva. At the time of his death, Petitioner's husband owned an automobile that he had properly registered with Respondent. Following her husband's death, Petitioner inherited the automobile he had owned. Petitioner does not drive and does not have a driver's license. On September 17, 2009, the title to the car was changed into the names of Petitioner and Gloria Silva. Gloria Silva has not been recognized by Respondent as a "resident" of Petitioner's unit.2 Respondent's rules and policies are set forth in a "Handbook of Rules and Regulations" (the Handbook). Respondent's vehicle parking policies begin on page 28 of the Handbook. Respondent's parking policies for a "Resident Parking Decal" provide, in relevant part, as follows: A "Resident" as set forth in these regulations is a person who has been registered at the Management Office and has been approved by the Association to live in the Unit whether it is an owner or a tenant. All vehicles of Residents parked in the Condominium Property must have a "Resident PARKING DECAL" [sic]. This permit consists of a decal containing a number that is placed on the outside top or bottom left- side corner of the rear glass of the vehicle. For your protection, this decal shall be applied to the glass by an Association Representative only. Only Residents actually living all year round in the Condominium Property and owning a valid driver's license will be issued a Resident Parking Decal. . . .. Only one vehicle is allowed per Resident with a valid driver's license and a Vehicle Registration to such vehicle issued in the Residents' name. There will be a $25.00 refundable deposit for every Resident Parking Decal issued. Failure to return the Decal to the Management Office upon selling and/or disposing of his/her vehicle (including total loss due to an automobile accident) or moving out of the Property, such $25.00 shall be forfeited. . . . If the Resident sells or in any other way disposes of a vehicle to which a Resident Parking Decal was previously issued, that Resident must remove and bring to the Management Office such Resident Parking Decal before a new Resident Parking Decal is issued for a new vehicle. Gary Mars, an attorney representing Respondent, advised Petitioner by letter dated September 10, 2009, that she was in violation of Respondent's vehicle parking policy and its occupancy policy. As to the parking policy, the letter provided, in relevant part, as follows: The Rules and Regulations state that "[o]nly Residents actually living all year round in the Condominium Property and owning a valid driver's license will be issued a Resident Parking Decal. Absentee owners who lease their units are not entitled to having a Resident Parking Decal. Only one vehicle is allowed per Resident with a valid driver's license and a Vehicle Registration to such vehicle issued in the Resident's name. " . . . This correspondence serves as . . . demand that any and all guests of your Unit cease and desist utilizing a resident parking decal immediately upon receipt of this communication and secure the appropriate parking decals from the Property Management Office. Mr. Mars wrote a second letter to Petitioner on November 9, 2009, containing the following demand: This letter is being provided in order to notify you as to a recently recognized violation of the Declaration of Condominium which requires your immediate attention. Specifically, the Association has recognized that the vehicle registered to your deceased husband continues to maintain a residents [sic] parking decal even though the vehicle is utilized by your daughter, Ms. Gloria Silva, who is not a resident of the Condominium. Therefore, this use of a decal is improper and in violation of the Association's controlling documents. The Rules and Regulations state that "[o]nly Residents actually living all year round in the Condominium Property and owning a valid driver's license will be issued a Resident Parking Decal. Absentee owners who lease their units are not entitled to having a Resident Parking Decal. Only one vehicle is allowed per Resident with a valid driver's license and a Vehicle Registration to such vehicle issued in the Resident's name. " Notice is hereby provided of this violation. Specifically, the Association is demanding that your guest permanently cease and desist utilizing a resident parking decal, and remove and return the decal within seventy-two hours of this communication to the Property Management Office. In the event you and your guests fail to comply with the request as set forth herein, the Association may have no alternative but to enforce the Rules and Regulations which may include the towing and removal of the vehicle . . . By letter dated December 31, 2009, Mr. Mars wrote to Petitioner a third and final letter, styled "Final Demand," repeating his notice that the vehicle would be towed if she did not comply with the resident parking policy. On the following dates Respondent had Petitioner's vehicle towed from the condominium property: January 19, January 22, and February 9, 2010. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was out-of-compliance with Respondent's resident parking policy. There was no evidence that Petitioner ever surrendered the Resident Parking Decal that remained on the vehicle after her husband died. There was no evidence that Petitioner filed an application reflecting the change of ownership of the vehicle following her husband's death or paid the application fee for a new decal.3 There was no evidence that Respondent knew or should have known that Petitioner was handicapped or disabled.4 There was no evidence that Respondent's enforcement of its parking policies was motivated by Petitioner's sex, national origin, or handicap.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2011.
The Issue Has Respondent's connection permit number C-16-095-93 (permit) expired under Section 335.185, Florida Statutes? Has Respondent timely complied with the requirements and conditions of the permit? If not, does Respondent's noncompliance cause safety or operational problems on State Road 555 (SR 555) which would require closing Respondent's connection to SR 555?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department was the state agency responsible for regulating vehicular access and connections to or from the State Highway System in accordance with Sections 335.18-335.188, Florida Statutes, known as the State Highway System Access Management Act. Respondent owns the property in issue which is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of SR 555 and SR 655 in Polk County, Florida. As a cure for the problem created by the eminent domain proceeding in FDOT v. Shaffer concerning the preexisting connections to SR 555 and SR 655, the Department agreed to provide connections to SR 555 and SR 655 for the property involved in the instant case. By letter dated September 27, 1993, the Department agreed to honor this agreement even though it was not included in the final order in FDOT v. Shaffer. In its letter, the Department agrees to issue a permit and construct the connections "on the condition that the remaining lands are reconstructed as shown in the attachment." The letter informs Respondent that the attachment was prepared by Reggie Mesimer for the Department and that "it appears that the settlement was based on that cure." The letter also informs Respondent that the "permit will contain limiting language to make clear that the permit has not been reviewed for compliance with DOT standards and that it is issued for replacement of preexisting access." Attached to the letter was a site plan showing: (a) the parking layout for the site which included two parallel parking spaces in front of the building, six perpendicular south to north parking spaces on the south end of the building and eight perpendicular north to south parking spaces on the south side of the south parking area; (b) a connection to SR 655 on the north side of the building; (c) a connection to SR 555 at the front of the building; and (d) a connection to First Avenue, a side street, on the south side of the building. The site plan shows a driveway commencing at the connection to SR 655 and continuing on in front of the building to First Avenue on the south side of the building. The site plan does not show any signings or pavement markings to indicate traffic flow in and out of the site. Sometime around June 1993, the agreement in FDOT v. Shaffer notwithstanding, the Department attempted to close the preexisting connections to SR 555 and SR 655. As a result, Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing and Department of Transportation vs First Mortgage Corporation, DOAH Case No. 93-9037 was filed with the Division. This case was later rendered moot by the issuance of the permit for the connections to SR 555 and SR 655 and the Department's agreement to construct the connections to SR 555 and SR 655. By letter dated December 15, 1993, with an addendum dated December 16, 1993, the Respondent agreed "to designating two parallel parking spaces in front of the building and have the striping done immediately." In return, the Department would "agree to have the driveway installed as shown on the drawing originally submitted." In the addendum, Respondent states that the two designated parallel parking spaces in front of the building were being striped on December 16, 1993, and that the Respondent was removing the chain link fence on the south side of the building to provide additional parking. The addendum also states that the Respondent will resurface the entire area of the drive and parking areas after the Department finishes the road construction. Additionally, the Respondent agreed to substantially comply with the driveway and parking area as shown on an attachment. The attachment was a copy of site plan referred to above in Finding of Fact 3. Respondent's Connection Application, number C-16-095-93, was approved by the Department on December 20, 1993, and the permit was issued. The application "requests permission for the construction of a connection(s) on Department of Transportation right-of-way. . . " The connections are described as: "REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING CONNECTION: ONE 24 FT INGRESS ON SR 655, ONE 30 FT INGRESS & EGRESS ON US 17 (SR 555) FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE AND RESTAURANT." Although the permit provides blank spaces where the mandatory beginning and completion of construction dates are to be filled in, these spaces were left blank on the permit. Likewise, there is no expiration date shown on the permit. A site plan was attached to the permit. The site plan is a copy of the site plan attached to the Department's September 27, 1993, letter referred to above with signings and pavement markings added to indicate the traffic flow in and out of the site. General Provision one of the permit provides: The permittee agrees and obligates himself to perform at his own expense the relocations, closure, alteration of the permitted connection, should the Department determine that the traffic patterns, points of connection, roadway geometrics or traffic control devices are causing an undue disruption of traffic or creating safety hazards at the exiting connections. Special Provisions one through five provide: This permit application has not been reviewed for compliance with DOT standards and is issued for replacement of preexisting access by the Florida Department of Transportation. The permit is subject to the limitations in Chapter 335, Florida Statutes, to the same extent as the preexisting access. The permittee shall place signing and pavement marking, as indicated on the attached site plan, so that the connection on SR 655 is operated as ingress only. Parking layout and traffic flow will be constructed and maintained in substantially the same manner as indicated in the attached site plan. The permittee acknowledges that the attached site plan was the cure in the settle- ment in DOT vs. EDWARD M. SHAFFER, case number GC-G-91-786, Parcel 105. The permittee acknowledges that with the issuance of this permit and the Florida Depart- ment of Transportation's agreement to construct the two connections referenced in this permit, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. FIRST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, case number 93-3037 has been rendered moot. Further- more, the permittee agrees to make the appropriate filing with the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings. (Emphasis supplied). The permit application was signed by Dennis G. Davis as president of First Mortgage Corporation. Dennis G. Davis also signed accepting the Special Provisions attached to the permit. As to signings and pavement markings the site plan shows: a designated driveway beginning at the SR 655 connection (north end of property) and proceeding around the front of the building (east side) to the south end of the building and commencing on to the First Avenue connection; large arrows within the designated driveway indicating ingress only from SR 655 and one-way traffic around the front of the building to a point on the south end of the building where stop signs are to be located; stop signs on each side of the one-way driveway where the one-way driveway intersects a designated two-way driveway; to the south of the stop signs, arrows indicating that the one-way traffic is to move into the south side parking lot or move into the south-bound lane of the two-way driveway that exits onto First Avenue; arrows indicating that incoming traffic from First Avenue is to move into the south side parking lot only; a No Right Turn sign on the east side of the one-way driveway just south of the stop signs where the one-way driveway intersects the two-way driveway; a No Left Turn sign on the southwest side of the south side parking lot where the south side parking lot intersects the outgoing lane of the two-way driveway that exits onto First Avenue; a stop sign just south of the southeast corner of the south side parking lot to the west of the outgoing lane of the two-way driveway just before First Avenue; and a No Exit sign on each side of the one-way driveway facing the opposite direction of the traffic flow in the one-way driveway at the northeast corner of the building. As to the parking layout, the site plan shows: two parallel parking spaces running north to south in front of the building along the west side of the one-way driveway; six perpendicular parking spaces running south to north abutting the south side of the building, and eight perpendicular parking spaces running north to south abutting the south side of the property west of the two-way driveway. The Department constructed the connection on SR 655 for ingress to the property from SR 655 and the connection on SR 555 for ingress to the property from SR 555 and egress to SR 555 from the property sometime in June 1993, which was before the expiration of one year after the date of issuance of the permit. Respondent started to comply with the signings and pavement markings of the site plan attached to the permit as early as December 16, 1993. Respondent has complied with the signings and pavement markings for traffic flow and parallel parking as shown on the site plan attached to the permit beginning at the connection to SR 655 and up to and including the two stop signs at the south end of the one-way driveway where it intersects the two-way driveway. The Respondent has maintained these signs and pavement markings during the construction on SR 555 by restriping the pavement and replacing signs that were torn down. However, due to the wear on the striping caused by construction traffic the pavement markings for the parallel spaces and traffic flow are dim and need painting. Due to a misunderstanding as to the Department's jurisdiction over First Avenue, Respondent has not completed the signings and pavement markings from the stop signs where the one-way driveway intersects the two-way driveway over to First Avenue or over to the parking lot. The Respondent has not completed the striping for the south to north perpendicular parking spaces abutting the south end of the building where there is pavement which would allow such striping. A segment of a chain link fence abuts the south end of the building preventing any further perpendicular parking abutting the south end of the building without going inside to the grassed area (green area) enclosed by the chain link fence. However, instead of parking perpendicular to the south end of the building, customers are parking east to west, perpendicular to the existing chain link fence. At the time the permit was issued, a chain link fence surrounded the green area on the south end of the property. Respondent removed the middle section of the chain link fence on the east side of the green area to provide additional parking inside the green area. Respondent has not placed signs or pavement markings around or at the entrance to the green area so that customers are made aware that the green area is available for parking. However, some customers are using the green area for parking. Although the parking layout of the site plan includes delineated parking spaces in the green area, nothing in the permit, including the site plan, specifically requires the green area to be paved. Although Respondent has indicated a willingness to stripe the designated parking spaces in the green area as shown on the site plan, striping the green area is neither feasible nor is it required under the permit. While all of the parking spaces have not been delineated by striping, there was no evidence that there were insufficient parking spaces on the site or that the lack of designated parking spaces was creating any safety or operational problem on SR 555. Although the site plan does not indicate by signings or pavement markings that the connection to SR 555 is an ingress and egress connection, the permit specifically provides for ingress and egress at the SR 555 connection and nothing on the site plan prohibits such access. On occasions customers park perpendicular to the front of the building ignoring the delineated parallel parking spaces in front of the building. Respondent has agreed to place a solid concrete curb along the building side (west side) of the parallel parking spaces and remove the yellow concrete stop blocks now in place that may be unintentionally inviting customers to park perpendicular to the building. The Department's expert, Michael Tako, testified that perpendicular parking in front of the building could result in vehicles on SR 555 having to slow down for vehicles that are backing out of those perpendicular parking spaces onto SR 555, creating a hazard on SR 555 known as stacking. However, there was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that stacking actually occurred or that there was any safety or operational problem being created on SR 555 by customers parking perpendicular to front of the building rather than parking in the two parallel parking spaces in front of the building. There was no engineering study presented that had been conducted subsequent to the issuance of the permit substantiating any safety or operational problem on SR 555 resulting from the failure of the Respondent to comply with signings and pavement markings of the site plan or any of the special provisions of the permit or from customers parking perpendicular to the building rather than in the parallel parking spaces. Construction on SR 555 had not been completed as of the date of the hearing. However, Respondent agreed that construction was at the stage where the driveway and parking area could now be resurfaced and restriped without substantial damage to the striping, pavement markings and signings due to construction activity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order requiring the Respondent to: comply with the placement of signs as shown on the site plan attached to the permit including those signs required for the First Avenue connection; (b) comply with the pavement markings for traffic flow as shown on the site plan attached to the permit, including those necessary for the First Avenue connection and direction for entrance to the green area; (c) pave any surface necessary to comply with the pavement markings provided for in (b) above, including that necessary for the First Avenue connection and to allow necessary pavement markings for traffic flow into the green area but not to include the green area; (d) restripe the parallel parking spaces in front of the building and place a solid curb on the immediate west side of the parallel parking to replace the curb stops now in place; (e) stripe the perpendicular parking spaces that abut the south end of the building where pavement presently exists; (f) place the necessary signs at the entrance to the green area so that customers will be aware of the additional parking inside the fenced green area and; (g) remove whatever portion of the chain link fence is necessary to allow reasonable entrance to and exit from the green area. It is further recommended that Respondent be allowed sufficient time to complete the above, not to exceed 60 days unless the Respondent wishes to resurface the entire driveway area including the First Avenue connection and any parking area that is presently paved. In that event, it is recommended that Respondent be allowed 90 days. It is further recommended that Respondent not be required to pave any area that is to be used for parking including the green area and that adjacent to the green area that does not already have existing pavement. RECOMMENDED this day 12th of October, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0673 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1-7, 10-13, 16-18, 20, and 21 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 21 of the Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 8 and 9 are covered in the Preliminary Statement. Proposed findings of fact 14, 22 and 24 are rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Proposed findings of fact 19 and 23 are rejected as being argument rather than findings of fact. Proposed finding of fact 15 goes to the weight to be given to Tako's testimony and is not a finding of fact per se. The Respondent Proposed Findings of Fact. The first two sentences of Respondent's introductory paragraph under "Findings Of Fact" are covered in the Preliminary Statement. The balance of the introductory paragraph and unnumbered paragraphs 2 - 6 are presented as restatements of Tako's and Davis' testimony and not as findings of fact. However, this testimony has been adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 - 21 of the Recommended Order and where it has not been so adopted it is rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Francine M. Fflokes, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Stephen W. Moran, Esquire Moran & Tileston 1738 East Edgewood Drive Lakeland, Florida 33803
