The Issue Whether Respondent Pierson should be granted variances to permit construction of a triplex on a lot 95 feet wide and 87 feet deep. To do so the three variances required are (1) of 5 feet in width, (2) of 13 feet in depth, and (3) 753 square feet in area (10,000 square feet required).
Findings Of Fact Don Curtis Pierson owns the north one-half of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3, Block 6, Revised Map of Clearwater Beach, and has owned this property for some 28 years. The property is zoned RM-20 and is high density residential developed. Pierson's lot is approximately 95 feet by 87 feet (approximately 82,500 square feet). The property is currently occupied by a duplex which was constructed according to Code, except for variances of zero setback from the coastal construction control zone and a 6 foot height variance to permit the construction of a building 31 feet in height. Appellant is the owner of a multifamily building adjacent to Pierson's property which was constructed before various code provisions became effective and was constructed to the lot lines without any setbacks. When Pierson applied for variances in 1983 to construct a triplex on his property, the Board of Adjustment Appeal granted setback variances of 10 feet in rear and front setback lines to permit the construction of a triplex on this property. Vasilaros appealed that grant, and on July 12, 1983 the undersigned heard that appeal. On August 31, 1983, an order was entered denying the setbacks, but approving the construction of a triplex on the lot less than 10,000 square feet in area. That approval was predicated upon then Section 131.020 of the Land Development Code which waived the area requirement for a lot of record. This Section was removed in the 1985 rewrite of the Land Development Code. Specific code provisions respecting the size of the lot on which a three family structure may be erected are in Section 135.044 which requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and minimum lot width and depth of 100 feet each. The applicant's only hardship upon which the requested variance can be granted is the uniqueness of the property becoming nonconforming solely by reason of zoning changes.
Findings Of Fact On May 20, 1986 the applicant submitted a reguest for four Variances to the City of Clearwater. These variances concern property he owns which is located at 304 and 306 Nimbus, Skycrest Subdivision, Unit 9, Block B, Lot 9 in the City of Clearwater This property is zoned RN-28 (multiple family residential) A duplex apartment is presently located on the subject property, and the applicant is seeking these variances to construct a third apartment on the property, thereby making it a triplex. He intends to live in the new apartment. At the present time he is renting out the two existing units and is renting an apartment elsewhere for himself. Therefore, the purpose of this variance request is not to create a third rental unit on the subject property, but to construct a unit in which the applicant himself will reside. However, there is no restriction on future use of the new unit, which could he used to enhance the overall value of the subject property. The applicant is specifically requesting variances in overall lot size, lot width, driveway width, and of the minimum parking requirements which are applicable to a triplex. The size of the lot is 9,360 square feet, rather than the required 10,000 square feet, and the lot is 75 feet wide, rather than the required 80 feet. The current driveway is 10 feet wide, rather than 20 feet, and there are 4 parking spaces, rather than the required 5 spaces. The construction of the new unit has already begun, and in fact has been substantially completed. Total value of the construction is approximately $8,000. This work was done without a proper building permit and without the variances sought herein. Prior to commencing construction, the applicant made no effort to find out for himself what permits would be required, or if he would have to seek any variances. The applicant contracted with Tom Pettit, a licensed contractor, for the construction of the footer and block walls for the new unit. Total cost to the applicant for this work was $1,634. Pettit applied for a permit for remodeling and repairs on April 8, 1985, and received permit number B-85040243 on April 10, 1985. This was the only permit applied for or obtained in connection with this construction. No general construction permit was ever applied for or obtained. After Pettit completed the footer and block walls, the applicant completed all interior work, with the exception of electrical, and also finished the exterior. A separate permit is required for electrical work, and when the applicant applied for an electrical permit, he was told he did not have a proper building permit for the work already completed, and further would need the variances sought in this case. On June 12, 1986 the Development Code Adjustment Board denied these variances and the applicant has timely sought this review. No evidence was presented by the applicant concerning conditions unique to this property or hardship that would support his request. There is also no evidence that these variances are the minimum necessary to construct a new unit on the subject property. Rather, these variances are sought due to construction which has already taken place without proper authorization.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security illegally rejected Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive.
Findings Of Fact Fred Boozer, Sr., (Boozer), the Petitioner, owns Boozer Properties, a family business which includes a building at 2235 South Babcock Street, Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The building is currently occupied by staff of the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security (LES) and other tenants. In south Brevard, LES staff also occupies another building in Palm Bay. Because of staff expansion and the need to co-locate its offices, LES issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Lease No. 540:0904 on January 28, 1992. The RFP had been previously advertised but was successfully challenged on issues unrelated to the issues in this proceeding. The January 1992 RFP sought approximately 11,474 to 11,818 square feet of office space. The RFP also specified that 95 off-street parking spaces be provided for the exclusive use of LES employees and clients. The spaces were to be suitably paved and lined, and under the control of the bidder. The RFP advertised a pre-proposal conference on February 4, 1992. No bidder attended, and no objections to the RFP were filed. Six responses were received on the February 28th deadline, one of which was immediately determined to be nonresponsive. The remaining bid proposals were evaluated, and Boozer's bid, offering his Babcock Street site, and 95 parking spaces, received the highest points from the evaluation committee. During a recent LES bidding process for office space in West Palm Beach, a problem arose with a bidder's ability to provide the required parking spaces. Cognizant of this, the LES leasing manager contacted the City of Melbourne to determine whether the apparent bid winner, Boozer, could meet his obligation to provide 95 spaces. The written response dated March 20, 1992, from Dominic Mauriello, a Melbourne city planner, provides his estimation that, for the various uses in the Babcock Street building, 207 parking spaces would be required. The memo states that a site plan on file at the city planning office reflects that there are 165 spaces. The site plan attached to Boozer's bid proposal submitted to LES indicates that 175 spaces are available. LES staff person, Lynne Mobley, telephoned Fred Boozer on March 24, 1992, informing him of the memorandum from the city. He responded with a request that he be allowed twenty-four hours to provide additional information. By March 27, 1992, the LES leasing office had not received further information from Boozer. The RFP had advertised a 30-day deadline for the bid award, which deadline fell on a weekend. The agency considered that it needed to make the award on Friday, the 27th. After contacting the City of Palm Bay to assure that the next highest rated response could deliver the requisite parking spaces, a letter was sent notifying Woodlake S.W. No. 1, Ltd., (Woodlake) of its award. In a letter dated March 27, 1992, LES notified Boozer that its bid was determined nonresponsive based on the outcome of investigation and consultation with the city regarding his inability to produce the required 95 exclusive spaces. In the meantime, Fred Boozer had contacted Peggy Bray, the City's Planning and Zoning Administrator, who provided an amended estimation stating that 190 spaces would be required for the Babcock Street site, and that the site currently includes 184 parking spaces. Ms. Bray's letter, dated March 27, 1992, states that in order to provide 95 spaces for the Department of Labor, 1800 square feet of office space would need to remain vacant. The Bray letter was immediately sent by facsimile transmission to LES, and was received the afternoon of March 27th, after the award and rejection notices were sent. Boozer's building is approximately 39,000 square feet. Several tenants are month to month lessees, and another tenant is expected to move prior to the beginning of the LES lease term. Boozer is willing to keep vacant the 1800 square feet and contemplated that necessity when he submitted his bid proposal. He did not include this agreement in his written bid response, but neither did LES specifically ask, either in the bid form or at the time of the committee's site walk-through prior to the bid award. Boozer contends that he responded on the bid proposal that he would provide 95 exclusive spaces and he remains willing to provide those spaces. At hearing, Boozer disclosed that 20 additional parking spaces are located adjacent to the subject property and are available for use by HRS' County Health Services, another tenant in the Babcock Street building. The spaces would reduce by 20 the spaces required by the city code, but their existence was not disclosed in the bid proposal as they are not part of the attached site plan. Boozer's onsite parking spaces range from one-half to one foot short of the eleven-feet width required by the city code. No evidence was presented with regard to any pending or contemplated enforcement action, and LES did not base its decision on this defect. LES did base its decision on a good-faith reliance on the communication by a member of the City of Melbourne planning staff. Even when that initial communication was corrected by the planning administrator, the number of spaces available were still less than needed for LES purposes and to comply with the City's code. LES did not anticipate, nor was it informed prior to bid award, of Boozer's ability and willingness to keep space vacant to comply with his commitment to provide 95 parking spaces to LES.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that a final order be entered dismissing Petitioner's protest of intended bid award. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 18th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-2372BID The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 9. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. The testimony of Ms. Mobley is that she did not receive the message. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraphs 8 and 9. Adopted in paragraphs 10 and 13. Rejected as unnecessary. 10-13. Adopted in paragraph 11. Rejected as unsubstantiated by competent evidence. Adopted by implication in paragraph 5. Rejected as irrelevant, except as to Intervenor's spaces, which is adopted in paragraph 8. 1718. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. 3. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4-5. Adopted in paragraph 4. 6-7. Adopted in paragraph 5. 8. Adopted in paragraph 6. 9. Adopted in paragraph 7. 10-11. Adopted in paragraph 8. 12. Adopted in paragraph 10. 13. Adopted in paragraph 12. 14. Adopted in paragraph 9. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Adopted in substance in paragraph 3. 3. Rejected as unnecessary. 4-5. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 9. 15-16. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Preliminary Statement. 19-28. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard M. Swerbilow, Esquire Post Office Box 541271 Merritt Island, FL 32954-1271 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, FL 32399-2189 Jack Spira, Esquire 5205 Babcock Street N.E. Palm Bay, FL 32905 Alan Taylor Elizabethan Development Corporation 245 Avenue O S.W. Winter Haven, FL 33880 Frank Scruggs, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn Chief Legal Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own the Sea Cloud Motel with 11 rooms located at 540 South Gulf View Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, in an area zoned CTF-28. CTF-28 is high density commercial-tourist and is dominated by motels, restaurants, and other businesses catering primarily to tourists. The Sea Cloud Motel has only ten parking spaces at present, with two of these spaces so located that with the space behind them occupied a car cannot get into or out of those spaces. Petitioners have leased five additional spaces from the Clearwater Point Deli on property adjacent to the Sea Cloud Motel (Exhibit 2). Adjacent to the Sea Cloud Motel is the Hibiscus Gift Shop owned and operated as part of the Red Carpet Resort Motel. Across the street from Petitioners' property is a convenience store with gas pumps and a car rental agency. Several realty offices are located in the general area of the Sea Cloud Motel in addition to restaurants and convenience stores. The principal objection to the special exception here requested came from adjacent property owners who fear the real estate office will aggravate the inadequate parking facilities presently existing on Clearwater Beach. The addition of the real estate office in a space less than 150 square feet will not require the addition of another parking space. The leasing of five additional parking spaces will more than adequately compensate for the additional traffic anticipated to be generated by a one-desk real estate office, particularly where the office is intended to concentrate on foreign visitors interested in real estate investments at Clearwater and will be operated by the co-owner of the motel, Kathleen M. Fuller, a registered real estate salesperson.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent Department acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in making a decision to award Central Florida Legal Services, Inc., the Intervenor, a bid concerning a proposed contract to enter into Lease No. 800:0045. Embodied within that general issue are questions involving whether the Petitioner, Robert Allan Weinberg's (Weinberg) response to the Department's Invitation to Bid (ITB) was responsive, was the lowest and best bid and whether the Intervenor's bid was responsive to the ITB and was the lowest and best bid. Finally, it must be determined whether the Department properly evaluated the bid proposals in accordance with legally-acceptable, competitive bidding principles, in an honest and non-arbitrary fashion.
Findings Of Fact This dispute arose upon the Department electing to seek office space for personnel of its District 12, in Daytona Beach, Florida. After considering the type and nature of the facilities it needed, the Department ultimately published a set of specifications for the desired facility in an ITB. The ITB included detailed instructions for preparation and submittal of bids and a relevant form. A pre-bid conference was conducted and thereafter, three vendors submitted bids. One proposal was determined by the Department to be non- responsive because the amount of space contained in the bid proposed by that vendor did not meet the Department's specifications contained in the ITB. That agency decision was not contested. The bid submitted by the Intervenor, as well as the Petitioner, were both determined to be responsive by the Department. After evaluating the proposals based upon criteria contained in the ITB, the Department ultimately determined that the lowest, best and most responsive bid was that submitted by the Intervenor. It notified the bidders of its decision to award the subject bid to the Intervenor, and the Petitioner filed a protest. A formal written protest was timely filed, initiating this proceeding. The issues raised by the parties, concerning the relative responsiveness of the two bids, revolve around the question of adequate parking, the status of existing tenants in the buildings, a consideration required by the terms of the ITB, the question of adequacy of "dry and measurable" space, the question of "location" (including building appearance, appearance of the property, the character of the neighborhood, security issues, design or layout of the proposed space, and provision for future expansion). Petitioner's Responsiveness The Petitioner's response to the ITB is deficient in terms of provisions for parking, as well as concerning the disclosure of the status of existing tenants in the Petitioner's building. The parking facilities offered by the Petitioner do not meet the requirements of the ITB. The ITB requires that 60 parking spaces be available for the exclusive use of the Department. Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Item 21 in evidence (the ITB) provides: For this facility, the Department has determined that a minimum of 60 parking spaces are required to meet its needs. Its parking is to be provided as part of a lease cost to the department. The lessor will grant to the lessee an exclusive right to use 60 parking spaces. Lessor shall submit with this bid submittal a letter certifying that the lessor agrees to the requested number of parking spaces on site, states the number of parking spaces per square foot of space as required by the local zoning jurisdiction and provides a site plan of the parking lot identifying the number of parking spaces assigned to specific other tenants. The purpose of this submittal is to assure parking spaces conform to local jurisdiction requirements of number and size, and that the number of parking spaces requested in this invitation can be achieved without infringing on or combining with the parking requirement of other tenants (emphasis contained in original document). The Petitioner's bid submittal does not show spaces assigned to specific other tenants, as required by the ITB, and does not state the number of parking spaces per square foot of space required by the local zoning jurisdiction, which is the City of Daytona Beach, Florida. The Petitioner proposes to house the Department in two sections of an existing building. Those sections are presently occupied by other tenants. Other space within the building is also presently occupied and will continue to be occupied, even if the Department decides to lease the Petitioner's space at issue. The Petitioner's site plan shows that it has 92 spaces available to serve tenants in that building located on the building site. In addition to those spaces, the Petitioner proposes to use eight (8) additional spaces located off-site. Certain space in the Petitioner's proposed building is presently leased to the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). That lease will remain in effect even if the Petitioner leases the space at issue to the Department. Under that HRS lease, 29 spaces are committed to HRS on an exclusive basis, with six (6) other spaces on a non-exclusive basis. There is additional office space in the building presently occupied by private businesses, which totals 4,470 square feet. Under the City of Daytona Beach Code, the parking requirement for 4,470 square feet of commercial office space, in a building the size of the Petitioner's is 16 spaces. The eight (8) parking spaces off the building site, proposed to be used by the Petitioner, are adjacent to and serve an existing building that also houses a private business. That building has 16 total parking spaces, including the eight (8) which the Petitioner is proposing to allocate to the agency, if the bid is awarded. The building contains 3,900 square feet. Under the City of Daytona Beach Code, it must have a minimum of 14 parking spaces for that square footage. If the Petitioner leased space to the Respondent, its total parking space requirement to serve all of its tenants, including the proposed office space, under the City of Daytona Beach Code, would be 125 spaces. Eighty-nine (89) of those spaces would be for the exclusive use of the Respondent and HRS. The Petitioner's site plan, however, reveals that only 108 spaces are available, including the spaces at the off-site location. Additionally, the existing parking spaces of the Petitioner, designed to serve handicapped persons, do not conform to the current City of Daytona Beach Code. Handicapped parking spaces are required by that Code to be 12 feet wide, with an additional five feet provided for access of handicapped persons. In order to meet this dimensional requirement, the Petitioner's need for parking spaces to accommodate all tenants, will increase by four (4) spaces. He will need a total of 129 spaces to accommodate all tenants, including the Department, should the bid be awarded. He has only 108 spaces available. Mr. Weinberg testified on behalf of the Petitioner, to the effect that the parking lot could be re-configured in order to gain 13 more spaces. This did not include the four additional spaces that would be needed to properly accommodate the handicapped parking spaces to the requirements of the City of Daytona Beach Code. The Petitioner's bid submittal plan, however, does not reflect any site plan involving re-configuration of the parking area. Moreover, it was not established that the reconfiguration proposed by the Petitioner can be accomplished under the mandates of the City of Daytona Beach Code. If it could, the Petitioner would still not have sufficient spaces to meet the requirements in the ITB, as well as the requirements of existing tenant leases and code requirements, concerning parking spaces for relevant amounts of building square footage allocated to the various tenants. The Petitioner's bid also does not meet the criteria of the ITB containing the status of existing tenants. The ITB requires that vendors provide information regarding the rights of existing tenants, including written documentation regarding their status, as that relates to the availability and the time of availability of the space proposed in the bid. The ITB provides, in pertinent part: Existing tenants: If the offered space or any portion thereof (including parking areas) is at present occupied or will be covered by an active lease(s) at the stated availability date, written documentation by the tenant indicating acknowledg- ment of the lessor's bid and ability to vacate premises by the proposed date or earlier to allow lessor's renovation work to be completed must be included with the bid submittal. If the existing tenants are on a month-to-month lease, the bidder must provide a letter of explanation of this condition. There are two existing tenants in the space which the Petitioner has proposed to lease to the Department. The Petitioner offered no written documentation from either tenant indicating acknowledgment of the bid and lessee's ability to vacate the premises. The only information which the Petitioner provided was for one of those tenants and that was not signed nor acknowledged by the tenant. No information was provided, as required by the ITB, as to the other tenant. Intervenor's Responsiveness The Petitioner maintains that the Intervenor's proposed office space was not "dry and measurable" at the time the bid was submitted by the Intervenor. The Petitioner also contends that the Intervenor's bid does not meet the parking facility requirements of the ITB. The criteria in the ITB require a definition of "dry and measurable" space available and also contain provisions allowing the vendor time to complete the facility through renovation, etc., subsequent to the bid submittal, but prior to the occupancy time specified in the ITB. The ITB provides, on page 2 in the second paragraph: Space to be made available: 07-01-95 or within 182 days after notification of bid award, whichever occurs last. Under the heading, "Handicap Standards and Alterations", at page 4 of the ITB, the ITB provides: Lessor agrees that the demised premises now conform, or that, prior to lessee's occupancy, said premises shall, at the lessor's expense, be brought into conformance with the require- ments of Section 553.48, F.S., providing requirements for the physical handicapped and the requirement of public law 101-336, July 26, 1990, known as the "American With Disabil- ities Act of 1990.". . . The proposed space must be in an existing building or a building which is to be complete by July 1, 1995, and is 50 percent complete on the bid deadline submission. To be considered as existing, the entire space must be dry, fully enclosed, and capable of being physically measured, to determine net rentable square footage, at the time of bid submittal. Reno- vations to bring the facility into compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local codes and regulations and/or to meet with desired arrangements are permitted, if carried out in accordance with prescribed procedures: Bids offering multi-story or multi-level buildings must have all stories serviced by an elevator which meets the requirements of DCA accessibility manual . . . (emphasis in original). The Intervenor's proposal meets these requirements. The facility proposed by the intervenor is in an existing building. "Dry and measurable" means that the facility has exterior walls and a roof and is at least enclosed enough as to not to become wet or to be wide open to the elements. The Intervenor's proposed building has exterior walls and a roof and is enclosed with windows and doors secured so that it would not get wet or be open. There is ample space within the Intervenor's existing building to determine the net rentable square footage and to ensure that the square footage being offered meets the bid specifications. In fact, measurement was undertaken by the Intervenor's representative, including its architect, and the space and site plans were made available to representatives of the Department, who were in a position to make the same measurements when they conducted a site visit of the premises. The only part of the facility that was not dry and measurable at the time of bid submission was a proposed new elevator, and entrance space related to the elevator, which the Petitioner has proposed to construct in order to meet the "Americans with Disabilities Act" requirements. The elevator and related space needed to accommodate entrances into the second floor of the building by the elevator were not dry and measurable at the time of bid submission and were not required to be by the terms of the ITB. The express provisions of the ITB allow vendors to renovate facilities in order to meet government regulations "prior to lessee's occupancy." The vendor is not required to have the space ready for occupancy until July 1, 1995, or 182 days after notice of award, whichever is later. The Intervenor has committed to complying with these requirements of the ITB and will be subject to a penalty if it does not, should the bid be awarded. Thus, if the vendor is offering a multi-story building, it is not required to have a handicapped accessible elevator already in place and operating at the time of bid submission. It simply must be installed prior to the lessee's occupancy. Therefore, under the terms of the ITB referenced above, the elevator-related space would not be required to be part of the dry and measurable space computation submitted with the bid. The Department agreed at the pre-bid conference that the 60 exclusive parking spaces it would require, as specified in the ITB, would meet the ITB criteria if within 1,000 feet of the building. In response to this criteria, the Intervenor offered most of the required spaces at the site of its building. It also offered to make spaces available at three other locations as alternatives. It offered to make 48 of the 50 spaces it has on its own building site exclusively available to the Department and also offered 21 parking spaces on "Lot B" or "Parcel B", as delineated in its bid. This lot is within 1,000 feet of the Intervenor's building, which was offered in the bid, and is approximately 350 feet away. It can accommodate the 21 parking spaces, but will necessitate a variance from zoning requirements, in order to place 21 spaces on Lot B. The ITB allows bidders 30 days from the date of any award to deal with such zoning issues and resolving any zoning problems. If this lot is used, the Intervenor will seek a variance in order to be able to put the 21 spaces on the lot. The Intervenor does not yet have the variance, but there is no evidence of record that would establish that it cannot be obtained from the City zoning authority. The Intervenor has an option to lease Lot B, where the 21 parking spaces would be located, and, therefore, has sufficient control of it. Another alternative offered by the Intervenor is designated as "Lot A" or "Parcel A" in its bid. This lot is across an existing municipal parking lot from the Intervenor's facility being offered. It includes 69 parking spaces and is within 1,000 feet of the Intervenor's building. The Intervenor has secured this facility through an option to purchase. The only remaining step in order to purchase the lot would be for the Intervenor's board, responsible for the operation of its programs, including the building, to execute the option it has already entered into. This also constitutes sufficient control over the property to comply with the terms of the ITB. This parking lot and the spaces thereon meet the requirements of the ITB. The third nearby lot, available to the Intervenor, is designated as "Parcel D" or "Lot D" on the Intervenor's bid documents. Additional spaces could be made available on this lot. It is 1,070 feet away from the Intervenor's building, however, and thus does not meet the 1,000-foot requirement set by the Department at the bidders' conference, in its interpretation of the specification concerning parking. The demonstrated availability of the other parking areas and spaces, however, establishes that the Intervenor has sufficient parking available, within the required distance, to meet the terms of the ITB. Moreover, the Intervenor's building will house the office of the Intervenor, as well as the office of the Respondent/Department. The Intervenor's building is located directly adjacent to a free municipal parking lot. This lot would be available to employees of the Intervenor, as well as Intervenor's visitors, and as well as to employees of the Department and the Department's visitors, who, for whatever reason, might not use the exclusive dedicated parking spaces. Because it is in a downtown development area, the Intervenor is not required, under the City of Daytona Beach Zoning Code, to provide any parking for its building. Bid Evaluations The Department received bid responses from the two parties and proceeded to evaluate them. The part of the evaluation based upon prices bid by the vendors was conducted by Department personnel in Tallahassee. The part of the evaluation based upon more subjective factors was conducted by three Department employees in Daytona Beach, who ultimately have to work in the facilities that the Department acquires through this procurement process. The price evaluation was undertaken with the assistance of a representative of the Department of Management Services, who is familiar with statutory and rule requirements for a proper evaluation of bids. Price was apportioned 40 of the total 100 points available in the bid evaluation process. The price evaluation resulted in the Petitioner receiving 40 points because it had the lowest price of the two subject bids. The Intervenor received 33 points for the price criterion. The three Department employees designated to evaluate the other aspects of the bid proposals conducted site visits at each of the vendors' facilities. During the site visits, the evaluators walked through the parking lots and counted the spaces, checked the exit door locations, inquired about heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning facilities and equipment, evaluated the condition of the buildings and how they were being maintained, checked security lighting and other security issues, checked on placement of the lobbies and how offices would be positioned, observed the availability of natural lighting and surveyed neighborhood conditions. Each evaluator then conducted evaluations based upon factors other than cost, without consulting each other. They used an evaluation form that relates to various criteria which come directly from the ITB. Upon completion of the evaluations, the completed forms were forwarded to the Tallahassee office of the Department. The evaluation criteria allow three categories of evaluation under the general heading of "location". Ten points are allowed as a maximum in the category of "availability and frequency of public transportation within the proximity of the space being offered." The evaluators gave the Petitioner five, six and five points, respectively, for its response to this category. They gave the Intervenor seven, six and five points. Both facilities have public bus stops near the building which provide good access to public transportation. The Intervenor's facility is located within a few blocks of the transit transfer station, which offers the advantage that bus passengers will be able to get to the Intervenor's facility without the need of a transfer which could save them considerable time. The Department of Juvenile Justice is the type of state agency which has a great deal of business with clients and their family members of a lower-income status, who might frequently have to rely on public transportation. Nine (9) points are allowed in the evaluation criteria for the category of "appearance of the building property and neighborhood of the property being offered," under the general heading of "location". The Petitioner was accorded three, five and four points, respectively, for its response to this category. The Intervenor was given nine, eight and seven points. This is admittedly a subjective criteria. The appearance of a facility and its surrounding area can make a difference in the morale and productivity of the working staff, as well as the attitude of visitors to the facility. The Intervenor's building is in a renovated, historic structure located in the historic preservation section of the downtown area of Daytona Beach. It has a great deal of aesthetic appeal and has been the subject of several newspaper articles noting the attractiveness and functionality of the renovation. The Petitioner's structure, on the other hand, although well-landscaped and maintained, is a metal, prefabricated building, not as aesthetically interesting or pleasing. It is also located adjacent to higher crime areas in the City. The evaluation criteria allow for four points for the category of "security issues posed by the building and surrounding area" under the category of "location". The evaluators scored the Petitioner's response at two, two and one points for this subject. They scored the Intervenor's bid three, three and two points for the same category. It is apparent that the Petitioner's facility is located in an area which is somewhat crime-prone. While the evidence does not reflect any criminal activity on the Petitioner's site itself, at least one evaluator was intimately and personally familiar with the neighborhood and the criminal problems occurring there. This familiarity was confirmed by Department personnel from police reports showing the area to be a high-crime area. Under the "facility" heading, the evaluation criteria and form allows points for four different categories. It allows 15 points for the category of "susceptibility of the design and space being offered to good utilization by differing segments of the Department." The evaluators gave the Petitioner seven, five and six points for their three evaluations of this response. They scored the Intervenor's submittal at 15, 12 and 10 points. The Intervenor's proposal offers a building that has windows on all four sides with abundant natural lighting, good visibility, and contiguous space. The Intervenor's facility can be very easily renovated into appropriate space for the different segments of the Department. The Petitioner's facility, on the other hand, has few windows, offers limited natural lighting and is not easily visible from the street. Additionally, the Petitioner offered divided space within its building so that some segments of the Department's work force would be physically separated from one another, with access between the two divided areas of office space being only obtainable by going outside the building and then in another door of another part of the building. The evaluation form also allows 10 points for the category of "susceptibility of the building parking area and property as a whole for future expansion." The Petitioner received a score of three, five and five points for this category by the evaluators. The Intervenor's response received seven, eight and three points for the same category. The Petitioner's facility offers no opportunity for expansion unless existing lessees leave the building. There is no room for additional parking for expansion purposes. The Intervenor's facility has space on the first floor not being leased at all at the present time and a portion of the third floor could be enclosed to provide additional space. Further, since the only other tenant is the lessor, there is a prospect that the lessor itself might move to other facilities in order to accommodate Department expansion. Lot A offers considerably more parking spaces than the Department or other tenants of the Intervenor's building need. Furthermore, the Intervenor's facility is located adjacent to a free, municipal parking lot which is only moderately used. Under the same general heading of "facility", the evaluation form and criteria allows ten points for the category of "having all the square footage in a single building will earn more points than square footage offered in more than one building." The Petitioner is offering space in a single building. However, the Petitioner's space would be divided so that the Department's office space would not all be contiguous, and personnel would have to go from one side of the building to the offices on the other side of the building only by going outside the building. This is functionally akin to space being in more than one building. Thus, the Petitioner's proposal would have some of the disadvantages of being like a proposal for more than one building. Workers would not be as readily able to assist one another in dealing with work loads or as easily undertaking many of the work activities requiring them to communicate with each other in each other's physical presence as easily as in a contiguous set of offices located in a single building. It is true that the Petitioner is proposing all of its space in one building. Thus, it meets the ITB criteria in this regard. It also can be argued as the Department evaluators found, that because the space functions akin to being in separate buildings, because of the separation of the offered office spaces, it should be evaluated as being somewhat analogous to space located in two separate buildings. Thus, although both bids were responsive to the ITB in terms of offering space physically and technically within a single building, it was not arbitrary for the evaluators to accord more weight to the Intervenor's response, since all of the office offered by the Intervenor is contiguous space in the same building. However, even if the evaluators had or should have ranked both bids equally under this "single building criteria", that alone would not alter the evaluators' result that the Intervenor's bid and facility was the best response to the agency's needs expressed in the ITB. The evaluation criteria and form also allows a maximum of two points to be accorded to the category of "if space is offered in more than one building, are the buildings connected by overhangs and sidewalks," under the heading of "facility". The space offered by both bidders, the Petitioner and the Intervenor, is clearly in a single building. All of the evaluators gave both parties an equal two points for this category which shows a lack of arbitrariness in the bid evaluation process. When the evaluation was complete, the Intervenor was accorded scores of 86, 82 and 72 points by the three evaluators. Two of the evaluators rated the Intervenor significantly higher, and the third favored the Petitioner's proposal by a single point. The total score given the Petitioner, taking into account its lower price, was 67, 71 and 73 points by the three evaluators. The total score accorded the parties by the three evaluators shows that the Intervenor's proposal was accorded a substantial advantage by two of the three evaluators. The evaluator scores were independently determined but were still generally consistent with each other. They were based upon logic and not merely upon a review of plans, figures, and written responses but also upon a detailed view of the two properties, parking spaces, and the like. Thus, it is determined that the scoring was consistent, logical, and not shown to be unreasonable under the circumstances. Based upon the scores by the evaluators, the Department determined that the Intervenor's bid was the lowest, best and most responsive and elected to award the lease to the Intervenor. There has been no preponderant proof offered to show that the decision or any of the evaluation decisions on individual categories, leading up to the ultimate score and decision to award, were fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal, or dishonest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Juvenile Justice dismissing the Petitioner's formal protest because the Petitioner lacks standing to initiate the subject proceeding and because the Petitioner has failed to establish that the determination to award a contract to the Intervenor was fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 15th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1736BID Respondent's and Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact The proposed findings of fact of these two parties are accepted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer. Certain proposed findings of fact accepted as true are immaterial to the resolution of the issues presented. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact A-F. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. J.(1-3) Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. K-L. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. M. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. N.(1-6- Subparts) Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Mr. Robert Allan Weinberg RW Custom Builders, Inc. 955 Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire APGAR, PELHAM, ET AL. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Bradford County Board of County Commissioners should approve or deny an application to rezone a 12.76-acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Highway 301 and County Road 18 in unincorporated Bradford County (“the Property”) from Residential, (Mixed) Single Family/Mobile Home (RSF/MH-1) to Commercial Intensive (CI).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Craig W. Patterson and Timothy Buffkin own the Property and are the applicants for the proposed re-zoning. Bradford County is the local government responsible for determining the land use designation and zoning classification for the Property and has adopted a comprehensive plan and LDRs which it amends from time to time. The Property The Property is a 12.76-acre parcel located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 301 (US 301) and County Road 18 (CR 18) in unincorporated Bradford County. US 301 is a four-lane divided principal arterial roadway, and CR 18 is a two-lane major collector roadway. The intersection has a traffic light and left turn lanes on US 301. This is the only intersection of a principal arterial road and a major collector road in unincorporated Bradford County. The Property is roughly rectangular, with approximately 1,240 linear feet fronting on US 301 (eastern boundary of the Property) and approximately 450 feet fronting on County Road 18 (northern boundary). The Property is not located within a flood-prone area and has little or no wetlands. Approximately a half mile to the east of the Property is Hampton Lake. The Property is relatively flat. The soils on the property are poorly drained soils, but not indicative of wetlands. The soils and topography of the property do not preclude its development with a system to control stormwater and drainage. Currently, the Property contains one single-family dwelling unit. The Property is bounded on the north by a commercial land use and single-family residences, on the east by vacant and commercial land use, on the south by vacant land, and on the west by vacant land and single-family residences. Current Zoning and Land Use Designations Before October 2004, the Property was designated on the County’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as “Residential Low Density,” which authorizes residential development at a density of less than or equal to two dwelling units per acre. On October 21, 2004, the County amended the FLUM to re-designate the Property as “Commercial.” However, the zoning for the Property remained “Residential, (Mixed) Single Family / Mobile Home (RSF/MH-1). The current zoning does not allow the types of uses appropriate under its Commercial land use designation. The Property is also located within an Urban Development Area which is defined in the Future Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan as an “area to which higher density agricultural, residential (single family, multi-family and mobile homes) and commercial and industrial uses are to be directed.” Within Urban Development Areas, lands classified as “Commercial” are to be used for the “sale, rental and distribution of products or performance of services, as well as public, charter and private elementary, middle and high schools.” Certain other uses may also be approved as special exceptions or special permits. Surrounding Land Uses A portion of the land to the north of the Property and all of the land immediately east are within the municipal boundaries of the City of Hampton. The City of Hampton has zoned property at the US 301/CR 18 intersection as “CG”, a commercial designation which includes all of the uses authorized under Bradford County’s CI zoning district. Within the past several years, a truck repair and auto parts facility was located and is still operating east of the Property, across US 301. Farther east, but bordering those commercial lands, a residential subdivision (Fox Hollow) is under development. The Requested Re-zoning The Applicants seek to re-zone the Property to Commercial Intensive (CI). Permitted principal uses and structures allowed within the CI zoning district are consistent with the types of commercial uses listed in the comprehensive plan for the Commercial land use designation, namely retail outlets for the sale of food, home furnishings, vehicles, etc.; service establishments such as barber shops, shoe repair shops, repair and service garages; medical or dental offices; and wholesaling. The CI zoning district is described as “intended for intensive, highly automotive-oriented uses that require a conspicuous and accessible location convenient to streets carrying large volumes of traffic and shall be located within commercial land use classifications on the [FLUM].” The Property meets the description of a conspicuous and accessible location that is convenient to streets carrying large volumes of traffic. Concurrency Management Assessment The requested re-zoning is a “straight” re-zoning request, meaning that the re-zoning is not associated with any particular proposed use. Future development of the site will be subject to development plan review and approval, pursuant to Article Fourteen of the County LDRs. A concurrency reservation is not available until final site plan approval. However, at the County’s request, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (NCFRPC) performed concurrency management assessments of the re-zoning in 2006 and again in 2008. In 2006, the NCFRPC provided the County with nonbinding concurrency determination that the applicable service levels would be met or exceeded for potable water (to be supplied by potable water wells); sanitary sewer (to be served by on-site septic tanks); solid waste; drainage; recreation; affordable housing; and historic resources. As to transportation facilities, the 2006 concurrency management assessment determined that the maximum potential development of the Property would generate 389 trips on US 301 at “PM peak hour.” When added to the then-existing PM peak hour trips, based on Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic count data, US 301 would continue to operate within the adopted level of service (LOS). Between 2006 and 2008, the adopted LOS standard for US 301 was raised from “C” to “B,” meaning that the governmental objective was changed to maintain a freer flow of traffic during evening peak traffic. Therefore, despite the reduction of “background” trips on US 301, the 2008 concurrency management assessment determined that maximum development of the Property would cause the new LOS “B” standard to be exceeded. Petitioners presented a traffic analysis based upon more recent FDOT traffic count data than was used by the NCFRPC for its 2008 concurrency management assessment. The newer data showed a further decline in background trips on US 301, so that adding the maximum potential trips from the Property would no longer result in total PM peak hour trips that would exceed the adopted LOS standard. Petitioners’ more recent data and analysis is professionally acceptable and should be used. At the time of site plan review for any future development of the Property, an updated concurrency assessment will be required and will be based on the number of trips generated by the actual proposed use, rather than the trips that would be generated by the maximum development potential of the Property. The assessment will also use the most current FDOT traffic count data. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses The County’s Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the application for re-zoning at its July 10, 2006, meeting. It recommended denial of the re-zoning based upon the impact of the proposed change upon living conditions in the neighborhood. As factual support for the recommended denial, the Planning and Zoning Board’s report cites “all comments received during the said public hearing and the Concurrency Management Assessment concerning said application.” At the August 19, 2008, public hearing held before the Administrative Law Judge, members of the public expressed concern that the CI zoning would be incompatible with the existing residential development to the west, in the Hampton Lake area. Some members of the public also expressed concern about possible future uses of the Property, such as a truck stop or bar. Package stores for the sale of alcoholic beverages, bars, taverns, cocktail lounges, truck stops and automotive service stations can only be approved as special exception uses in the CI zoning district. Special exception uses require approval of the County’s Board of Adjustment after a public hearing, upon a finding that granting the special exception use would promote the “public health, safety, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, propriety or the general welfare.” The Board of Adjustment must also determine that the special exception use would be compatible with adjacent properties. A favorable decision here on the requested re-zoning to CI is not a determination that a bar or truck stop on the Property would be compatible with the adjacent residential area. The LDRs impose site use and design criteria for commercial uses that adjoin residential districts. Site plan approval for commercial developments in CI zoning districts requires the consideration of landscape buffers, height restrictions, off-street parking requirements, lot coverage and yard standards. These development conditions are designed to minimize impacts to adjacent residential areas. Stormwater Some of the speakers at the public hearing expressed concern about stormwater runoff from the Property. One speaker, Michael Davis, testified that stormwater from the Property currently flows across his property. Another expressed concern that runoff from the Property would flow directly to Hampton Lake. On-site stormwater retention facilities would be required for the Property in conjunction with its development. The LDRs require that post-development runoff rates not exceed pre-development conditions. The objective of the required stormwater runoff controls is to approximate the rate, volume, quality, and timing of stormwater runoff that occurred under the site’s unimproved or existing state. There is no basis, at this stage of analysis, to determine that the County’s stormwater regulations are not adequate to prevent adverse stormwater impacts to adjacent residences or to Hampton Lake. Traffic on CR 18 Several speakers expressed concerns regarding increased traffic on CR 18. Petitioners conducted a site-specific traffic count for CR 18 east of US 301 and determined that the peak hour trips are now 131. The capacity for CR 18 is approximately 600. Based upon the total of 389 additional trips generated by the maximum potential development of the Property (on either US 301 or CR 18), the adopted LOS standard for CR 18 would not be exceeded. Petitioners demonstrated that the proposed re-zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the LDRs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Bradford County Board of County Commissioners approve the requested re-zoning. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 18th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Norman, Clerk of the Board Bradford County Board of County Commissioners 945 North Temple Avenue Starke, Florida 32091 Marcia Parker Tjoflat, Esquire Charles L. Gibbs, Esquire Pappas Metcalf Jenks & Miller, P.A. 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William E. Sexton, Esquire Brown & Broling 486 N. Temple Avenue Starke, Florida 32091
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns Lot 70, Gates Knoll 1st Addition, which abuts a medical office complex of eighteen offices west of Lot 70. Off-street paved parking for the medical offices presently abuts Lot 70, but additional parking is needed. Lot 70 fronts on Barry Street, which is the only east-west through street in the immediate vicinity and is heavily travelled. Zoning for Lot 70 is "RS 50," which is single family residential. West of Lot 70 to Highland Avenue is zoned "PS," which would allow multiple family dwellings or business and professional services such as those for which the property is presently used. South of the area zoned "PS" the property adjacent to Gates Knoll 1st Addition is zoned "RM 28," which provides for high density multi-family use and just west of "RM 28" between that zoning and Highland Avenue the property is zoned "CS" for General Commercial use. A bowling alley is located in this area a short distance south of Barry Avenue. Lot 70 is currently fenced and the southern and western part of this lot is used for parking a few automobiles during business hours. The north side of Lot 70 is part of a drainage easement or ditch which occupies approximately 35 feet of this property. Lot 70 is 100 feet wide on Barry Street and 105 feet deep. The north 35 feet of this lot is unusable for construction due to the drainage easement. Adjoining property owners across Barry Street from Lot 70 oppose the special exception primarily because they want the lot to remain vacant to serve as a buffer zone between their property and the commercial development. Others oppose the application because they fear use of the property for anything except a single family residence will reduce their property values, increase the traffic in the neighborhood, and increase the noise and pollution from automobiles. Mr. Huff, the adjoining property owner whose home is immediately east of Lot 70 on Lot 71, is concerned about the proximity of the parked vehicles to his home. The existing fence is some ten feet from Huff's home.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the Appellants have standing to bring this appeal, and (2) whether the development plan application met the applicable criteria for approval under Section 30-3.46 of the City's LDC in light of the standard of review outlined in Section 30-3.57 of the City's LDC.
Findings Of Fact The Property The property consists of approximately 0.50 acres located at 422 Northwest Third Avenue, Gainesville, Florida (the Property). The Property currently has a Residential Low- Density (RL) future land use (FLU) category under the City's Comprehensive Plan. The RL FLU category includes five implementing zoning districts, and the Property is in the Residential Conservation (RC) zoning district. The Property is not located within the boundaries of the Pleasant Street Historic District. Blackwater owns the Property and submitted a minor development plan application, identified as AD-17-00143, for three buildings with six dwelling units and associated parking, stormwater facilities, and utility improvements. The three buildings have two dwelling units each, which is a use allowed by right in the RC zoning district. The use is described in Section 30-4.16 of the City's LDC as "Multi-family, small scale (2-4 units per building)." The Property was conveyed to Blackwater by a warranty deed recorded January 15, 2014. The warranty deed describes parcel 14518-002-000 as the east one-half of lot 7 and all of lots 8 and 9 in the south half of block 27 of "Brush's Addition to Gainesville," according to the Plat recorded in "Plat Book 'A,' Page 88 of the Public Records of Alachua County, Florida." Issues on Appeal The Appellants raised and argued four issues in this appeal. Whether the Property is a parcel or lot that can be developed under the City's LDC. The Appellants argue that the Property is not a "parcel" and also not a "lot" under the City's LDC. The LDC definitions are found in Section 30-2.1 of the City's LDC, which states: Parcel means a unit of land within legally established property lines. Legally established property lines means those lines created by a recorded plat, minor plat or lot split, those units of land recognized as lots formed prior to 1961 as recorded on a map kept by the building division, and those lots recognized by the county code enforcement department at the time of any annexation. Lot means a parcel of land contained within property lines of a specific area, including land within easements and building setback lines of the area, but excluding any land within street right-of-way. The Appellants contend that the Plat of Brush's Addition to Gainesville (the Plat) legally established property lines. The Appellants further contend the definitions mean that only the lots created by the Plat are parcels. In other words, the "unit of land within legally established lines" cannot consist of more than one of the originally platted lots. This is not the City's interpretation of its own LDC. The Property, as described by the warranty deed, is a parcel within the property lines first established on the Plat. As argued by the City and Blackwater during oral argument, the Appellants' interpretation is not reasonable and "could stop all multifamily development in the [C]ity." The City's interpretation of its own LDC is not clearly erroneous and has foundation in reason. Also, approval of the development plan was not an ultra vires act since the City was required to make a decision on the development plan application in accordance with the provisions of its LDC. Whether the Property meets minimum lot width standards under the City's LDC. The Appellants' second argument is that the development plan fails to meet the required minimum lot width standard under Section 30-4.17 of the City's LDC. The Appellants argue that since Lots 8 and 9 on the Plat are each 50 feet wide, then the permitted use should be "single-family," which has a minimum lot width of 35 feet. Based on the above finding, the Property is a parcel or lot that may be developed under the City's LDC. The Property's lot width is 125 feet, which meets the minimum width standard for the proposed "multi-family, small scale (2-4 units per building)" use. Whether the requirements for a masonry wall and Type B landscape buffer apply to the Property and the development plan. Section 30-4.8.D.2.e of the City's LDC provides: A decorative masonry wall (or equivalent material in noise attenuation and visual screening) with a minimum height of six feet and a maximum height of eight feet plus a Type B landscape buffer shall separate multi- family residential development from properties designated single-family residential. The Appellants argue that the development plan should be required to meet this buffer standard because the RC zoning district is residential, and the Property abuts single-family dwellings. Under the LDC provision, the buffer is required to separate multi-family developments from properties "designated single-family residential." The City argues that designations refer to a property's FLU category as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Appellants argue that "designated single-family residential" simply refers to a single-family dwelling. Policy 4.1.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan describes certain FLU categories such as Single-Family (SF). Policy 4.1.4 of the City's Comprehensive Plan provides that the City can amend land use "designations" under certain circumstances. Policy 4.2.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan provides that the City shall adopt regulations that separate uses with performance measures, such as "buffering of adjacent uses by landscape." Based on the language of the City's Comprehensive Plan, it is a reasonable interpretation that use of the term "designated" refers to the FLU category. The Property and the abutting single-family dwellings have the same FLU category designation of RL. Thus, the masonry wall and Type B buffer requirements of Section 30-4.8 of the City's LDC do not apply to this development plan. Whether the Property's development plan meets applicable parking standards under the City's LDC. The Appellants argue that the development plan must provide 13 parking spaces, and it only provides nine parking spaces, which does not meet the parking standards of Sections 30- 7.2 and 30-7.5 of the City's LDC. In addition, the Appellants argue that the parking must be paved because the City's LDC only allows gravel parking areas with ten or fewer parking spaces. Under Section 30-7.5 of the City's LDC, the development plan must provide 13 parking spaces. The development plan provides nine parking spaces on the Property and four on-street spaces approved by the City, for a total of 13 parking spaces. The nine parking spaces on the Property satisfy the requirement of allowing gravel parking areas with ten or fewer parking spaces. Standing Appellants Vanessa Burt and Suzi Rumsey are the only residents who own property within 400 feet of the Property. Appellants Jason Atkins-Tuffs and Lauren Atkins are recent new home buyers in the Pleasant Street Neighborhood. Mr. Atkins-Tuffs is concerned that the development plan would not be a "good fit for our growing historic downtown family neighborhood." Appellant Dotty Faibisy is an almost 20-year resident and is concerned that the development plan "is a poor fit for the Historic Pleasant Street Neighborhood." Appellants John Rehfuss and Caroline Rehfuss are residents since 2013 in the Pleasant Street Historic District and are concerned that the development plan "is going to be a poor fit, both aesthetically and functionally, for our neighborhood." Appellant Tan Silva is a 23-year resident, who lives outside of but "on the edge" of the Pleasant Street Historic District and feels that compatible development should be maintained. Appellant Furman Wallace is an 84-year resident of the Pleasant Street Neighborhood. He is concerned with the character and type of buildings in the Pleasant Street Neighborhood. Appellant Thomas Hawkins was a 12-year resident of the Pleasant Street Neighborhood and is currently building a new home in the neighborhood. Mr. Hawkins is concerned that the development plan does "not compliment the neighborhood's historic architecture" and is not consistent with the City's LDC requirements.
The Issue The issues presented by this case concern the entitlement of the Intervenors, Mr. and Mrs. Mayer, to be granted zoning variances, in keeping with the provisions of Section 131.016(e), City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations, to vary from the conditions set forth in Section 131.044, City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations, dealing with the area and dimension regulations for RS-50, Single-Family Residents. In particular, the Intervenors would request that the front setback line be reduced from 25 feet to roughly feet and that a variance concerning the area covered by the dwelling be increased from 25 percent to 33.7 percent. 1/
Findings Of Fact On November 12, 1980, the Intervenors requested that they be granted the variances set out in the Issues Statement of this order. The terms and details of that variance application may be found as part of the City's Composite Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. A public hearing was conducted on this request and that hearing was held on January 15, 1981. The taped transcript of that hearing may be found as the City's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Following that hearing, a decision was made by the Board of Adjustment and Appeal for the City of Clearwater, Florida, to grant the variance requests. The Petitioners in this cause were opposed to that grant of variance and requested a hearing. The matter was forwarded from the City of Clearwater to the Division of Administrative Hearings and on March 25, 1981, a hearing de novo was conducted to consider this dispute. At the time of the hearing, the Petitioner, Barbara Beakes, was presented as a witness and identified the claim of the Petitioners as being one of opposition to the project in question which requested variances, for reason that it obscured her view of the water; caused a decrease in the value of her property and in addition to her attorney, expressed opposition to the area of coverage to be involved with the proposed building project of the Intervenors and to the front setback line at issue. The Intervenors, Ray and Christine Mayer, who reside at 940 El Dorado Avenue, Clearwater Beach, Florida, through their project, would desire to construct a garage which would be approximately 15.4 feet from the front property line as opposed to the 25 foot front setback line required of the City of Clearwater. The construction in question would not advance the building line in the direction of the street. Moreover, the distance from the street to the front of the building had originally been 13.1 feet when present front setback lines were not in effect. The Intervenors have also requested what they deemed to be a variance from the requirement of maximum lot coverage by their residence, varying it from 25 percent to the 33.7 percent proposed by their construction. As stated in a preceding footnote, it was determined at the hearing that the new requirement for maximum lot coverage is 42 percent and it having been agreed by the parties that the area coverage in question is only 33.7 percent, the necessity for variance on that issue no longer exists. Intervenors' Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, are photographs depicting the nature of the structure in question in various stages of construction and modification. Notwithstanding the Petitioner Beakes' complaint that her view was obstructed by the construction, there was no specific proof related to the clear space requirement of Section 131.200, City of Clearwater Building and Zoning Requirements, and in fact her view is already obstructed by a fence which now exists on the Mayers' property and the constriction proposed by the Mayers would not materially change that circumstance. The proof on the issue of decreased property value offered by Petitioner Beakes does not seem to be a specific criterion addressed by the variance ordinance.
Findings Of Fact In January, 1985, Petitioner acquired an existing retail florist business located at 416 Indiantown Road, Jupiter, Florida. Petitioner's business occupied one-half of the building located at that address. The remainder of the building housed La Casa Mexican Restaurant and a Metro Cellular Phone business. At the time that Petitioner acquired the business, the parking lot for the building consisted of 15 spaces and was shared by all three businesses. Six of those spaces were located behind the building and were accessible from an alley. Nine of those spaces, including the handicapped space, were located in front of the building and were accessible from Indiantown Road. The parking lot for the building constituted a legal non-conforming use, that is, it was permitted to exist without meeting current code requirements of the local government. The business lease entered into by the Petitioner on January 21, 1985, for a term of thirty months was essentially a "standard form" lease. However, Petitioner as Lessee and Petitioner's Lessor specifically added to the standard lease language a twenty-fourth clause which provided as follows: Twenty-Fourth: In the event Indiantown Road is widened during the term of this lease and the widening project results in a loss of more than two of the present ten [sic] parking spaces in front of the building, then the rental payments under this lease can be renegotiated by the parties, and if such renegotiations do not result in terms satisfactory to the tenant, the tenant will have the right to cancel this lease with thirty days notice to the landlord. Accordingly, Petitioner specifically retained the right to either stay or vacate the leased premises if the road-widening project resulted in a loss of more than two of the parking spaces in front of the building. The Department subsequently commenced its road-widening project which resulted in the Department's "taking" of two of the parking spaces in front of the building. The Department paid Petitioner's claim for business damages as a result of the loss of two parking spaces in the condemnation proceeding involving Petitioner and the property owner. After the loss of the two parking spaces, the front parking lot was re- designed so as to more closely comply with local code requirements. That re- design of the parking spaces reduced the number of spaces in front of the building by an additional two, resulting in a total reduction of parking spaces in front of the building by four. The re-design left a total of five spaces in front of the building, including a handicapped space. Although a local government can require a legal non-conforming use to be made conforming under certain circumstances, there is no evidence that the local government required the owner of the property leased by Petitioner to re- design the front parking lot according to code requirements. Accordingly, there is no showing that the deletion of the two additional parking spaces was a direct result of the road-widening project. On approximately July 1, 1991, Petitioner moved its retail florist business to 323 West Indiantown Road, Jupiter, Florida. Petitioner relocated its business at that time because Petitioner's president believed that business "...was at a point where it was just going to be falling off." (R. 37). The relocation of Petitioner's business was caused by Petitioner's decision to conduct its business from a different location. Petitioner did not move its business as a direct result of the Department's acquisition of two parking spaces. Accordingly, Petitioner is not eligible for relocation benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for relocation benefits. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 3rd day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7265 The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 5-8 and 10 have been adopted in substance in this Recommended Order. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 2 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues involved herein. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 4, and 9 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 James R. Clodfelter Authorized Representative Acquisition Consultant Enterprises, Inc. Boca Bank Corporate Center 7000 West Palmetto Road, Suite 503 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Charles Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station #58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
