The Issue Should the Department of Transportation (Department) grant Petitioner Ronnie Forrest's connection application number C-13-021-93 for a permit to construct a driveway and acceleration/deceleration lanes, to provide access to U S 19 (S R 45 and 55) for Petitioner's proposed development of parcel identified in plans as Site B? Should the Department grant Petitioner's connection application number C-13.022-93 for a permit to construct two driveways to provide separate ingress and egress to U S 19 (S R 45 and 55) and U S 41 (S R 55) for Petitioner's proposed development of parcel identified in the plans as Site A?
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 through 335.188, Florida Statutes, known as the State Highway System Access Management Act. Petitioner proposes to develop two parcels of land located in the functional area of the interchange of S R 45 and 55 (U S 19/41/301) in Manatee County, Florida. The parcels of land are designated on the site plans as Site A and Site B. The functional area of the interchange is the area within which a driver is expected to react to and make decisions concerning traffic. Site A comprises approximately seven acres. Petitioner proposes to construct a four thousand square foot convenience store, restaurant with gas pumps, truck diesel pumps, a car wash and accompanying parking for cars and trucks. Petitioner's Connection Application for permit number C-13-022-93 seeks authorization from the Department to construct two driveways for Site A which are to serve as separate ingress and egress points for vehicles entering and leaving Petitioner's proposed development. The ingress to Site A is proposed to be located on the east side of the parcel where northbound U S 19 diverges from northbound U S 41. The egress from Site A is proposed to be located on the west side of the parcel where southbound U S 19 and U S 41 merge. Site B comprises approximately four acres. Petitioner proposes to construct a six thousand square foot convenience store, restaurant, gas station, truck fuel pumps, car wash and accompanying parking for cars and trucks. Petitioner's Connection Application for permit number C-13-021-93 seeks authorization from the Department to construct one driveway and acceleration/deceleration lanes for ingress/egress for Site B. The proposed driveway location is at southbound U S 19 approximately across from 43rd Street Boulevard, West. There is at least one motel within close proximity of the proposed developments for Site A and B which presently offers room accommodations and parking for truckers. The proposed developments for Site A and B are neither as large as, nor offer as many amenities as, the traditional truck stop. However, the proposed developments for Sites A and B provide amenities such as restaurants, truck diesel fueling and truck parking areas. Therefore, due to the available amenities, the traffic composition - which includes large truck traffic - on U S 19, 41 and 301 and the motel accommodations, large trucks will be attracted to, and will use, the facilities proposed for Sites A and B. The proposed location of Site A's ingress or entrance driveway is limited by: (a) the existence of a limited access right of way line south of the existing driveway; (b) the existence of separate property to the north; and (c) grade separation of approximately 20 feet which occurs to the north at the departure of U S 41 into U S 19 overpass. The proposed location of Site A's egress or exiting driveway is limited by: (a) the existence of limited access right of way line approximately 30 feet to the south; (b) wetlands encroachment to the north; and (c) less available sight distance further north of the proposed egress location. The reason for less available sight distance at this location is due to: (a) the curvature of Site A; (a) the speed limit; and (c) the merger of U S 41 and U S 19 southbound traffic. Given the current configuration and traffic geometry, the proposed ingress and egress to parcel A are located in the most desirable positions possible from a traffic operational standpoint. The proposed location of Site B's ingress/egress is a driveway approximately across from 43rd Street Boulevard, West, on southbound U S 19 before it merges with southbound U S 41. A left in, left out driveway is proposed at this location. The operation of the two sites as proposed, individually or combined, will result in the generation of increased automobile traffic and large heavy truck traffic. The increased automobile and large heavy truck traffic entering and exiting the sites will create traffic hazards within the functional area of the interchange. Through traffic in the travel lanes within the functional area of the interchange travels at speeds of 55 to 60 miles per hour. Automobile and truck traffic accelerating and decelerating to enter or exit the sites will create significant speed differentials within the functional area of the interchange. For example, large heavy trucks will not have sufficient acceleration lane distance as they exit Site A or Site B to achieve the same speed as the through traffic which will create high speed differentials within the functional area of the interchange. The speed differentials in the functional area of the interchange will increase the accident rate within the functional area of the interchange, particularly truck/through traffic accidents. Traffic will be required to enter and exit the sites at points along the roadways within the functional area of the interchange where traffic is already required to execute a significant amount of weaving. As proposed, the sites will increase the area and number of conflicts within the functional area of the interchange. This in turn, will increase traffic weaving. Increase in the conflict points within the functional area of the interchange degrade the safe operation of the interchange. The sites as proposed, will increase U-turn volume at the median opening south of Site A. Large heavy trucks attempting this U-turn maneuver will encroach into the northbound travel lanes of U S 41. Additionally, since this U-turn maneuver requires a significant gap in through traffic, trucks will delay btheir U-turn maneuver causing queuing in the southbound left turn lane south of Site A. This U-turn maneuver will significantly reduce the available weave/merge/acceleration/deceleration distance between Site A and the U-turn location increasing the potential for truck/through traffic accidents. Operation of Site B as proposed has the potential to increase U-turns at the first median opening north of Site B on northbound US 19. Since the median width at this location is insufficient to accommodate large trucks, queuing will occur in the left turn lane at this location and present a potential safety and operational problem on the roadway. Sight distance at the Site A proposed egress is insufficient. Without sufficient sight distance, a driver's expectancy on the roadway is adversely affected in that there is insufficient time for the driver to react to another driver's intentions. The existing geometry of the interchange, the existing traffic flow, traffic volume and vehicle classifications on the roadways comprising the interchange, require certain levels of driver expectancy regarding operation of the functional area of the interchange. Since the safety hazards and operational problems described above occur within the functional area of the interchange, driver expectancy will be violated in the interchange by operation of the sites as proposed, adversely impacting the safety and operational characteristics of the roadways that comprise the interchange. The access connections for the sites as proposed would jeopardize the safety of the public, and would have a negative impact upon the operational characteristics of the highways comprising this interchange. There was insufficient evidence to show that there were other reasonable access connections available for the sites as proposed that would not jeopardize the safety of the public or would not have a negative impact upon the operational characteristics of the highways comprising this interchange.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's Connection Application for permit numbers C-13-021-93 and C-13-022- 93. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1996, 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 16th day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4356 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. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 1 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 25. Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed finding of fact 1 through 21 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Johnson, Esquire Blalock, Landers, Walters, and Vogler, P.A. Post Office Box 469 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by James H. Peterson, III, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to the Parties’ Settlement Stipulation and Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Filed May 24, 2013 12:32 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED this at day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Pudon.. Baker, Chief Biireau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Florida. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this ay day of May, 2013. Nalini Vinayak, Dealer Kicense Adisiet-= NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jdc Copies furnished: Richard M. Nye Nyes Auto Sales Post Office Box 217 Callahan, Florida 32011 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety 2900 Apalachee Parkway, MS61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 James H. Peterson, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
Findings Of Fact On or about August 11, 1987, Respondent owned a sign advertising the business which was located on the DOT right-of-way along U.S. 41 in Pasco County. When Respondent moved into its present location it placed some of its castings on display on the right-of-way alongside its business. The co-owner was told by the Deputy Sheriff that the castings had to be removed from the right-of-way but it was all right to leave the sign on the DOT right-of-way. Accordingly, until the sign was cited for the violation, Respondent thought its sign was legally erected.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an , Order Closing File by Barbara J. Staros, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is moss / DONE AND ORDERED this “7, day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, } Florida. CARL A. FORD, Directo: Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 May 20 2010 10:06 08/20/2010 08:55 Fax Boog /o05 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motor Vehicles this day of May, 2010. Nalini Gneek: Dealer Administrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies furnished: Phillip Orenstein, President RV Having Fun Yet, Inc. 614-1 Pecan Park Road Jacksonville, Florida 32218 James K. Fisher, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A308 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara J. Staros Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Florida Administrative Law Reports Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602
Findings Of Fact Two signs are located 0.8 mile west of State Road, 79 on Interstate 10, and 0.8 mile east of State Road 79 on Interstate 10. Both signs do not have permits attached to them. Both signs bear messages which are visible from the traveled way of Interstate 10. Neither sign is located within an incorporated municipality or town. Both signs advertise in part Simbo's Restaurant. Mr. Jim Williams, Outdoor Advertising Inspector for the Department of Transportation, testified that he had spoken with Mr. Simms on June 28, 1978. Williams stated that he asked Simms if Simms would remove the signs; however, Williams did not identify the signs to which he was referring. According to Williams, when Simms was asked if he would take the signs down, Simms stated he would leave them up and go to court. There was no substantial and competent evidence introduced that Simms was referring to the signs in question in this case. Both signs were measured by Charles Averitt, a surveyor with the Department of Transportation, and the sign 0.8 mile west of State Road 79 on Interstate 10 was determined to be 16 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of Interstate 10. The sign 0.8 mile east of State Road 79 on Interstate 10 was determined to be 16.5 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of Interstate 10. Gene Simms testified that he was the owner and operator of Simbo's Truck Stop and Restaurant. Simms testified the signs in question were the property of Simms' Enterprises, Inc., and had been at all times pertaining to this complaint. Simms stated that he owned 50 percent of the stock in Simms Enterprises, Inc., and the remainder was owned by his brother, Jimmy Simms. The notice of violation in this cause names Gene Simms as the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation take no action regarding the subject DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip S. Bennet, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Richard C. Hurst, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Gene Simms Simbo's Auto-Truck Stop and Restaurant Route 1, Box 186 Bonifay, Florida 32425
The Issue The issues are (1) whether a driveway connection on Respondent's property in Auburndale, Florida, is subject to closure because it poses safety concerns, and (2) whether a second driveway connection on Respondent's property should be modified because it fails to meet current access management standards.
Findings Of Fact A. Background The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating access between state roads and private property abutting those roads. See §§ 335.18 through 335.188, Fla. Stat. State Road 544 is a part of the state highway system. Since 1998, Respondent has owned a small, irregularly shaped parcel of property located at 502 Havendale Boulevard (State Road 544), Auburndale. The 0.46-acre parcel lies on the southeast corner of the intersection of State Road 544 and 42nd Street Northwest. Commercial establishments are located on the other three corners. In December 1998, Respondent leased the property to a tenant who operates Townsend Motors, a used car lot. The business has operated continuously at that location since that time. Aerial photographs reflect the lot has a capacity of around 30 or so vehicles. Most vehicles are displayed where the triangle-shaped lot comes to a point at the intersection and along the side of the lot facing State Road 544. Other vehicles are parked throughout the middle or rear of the lot. They are rearranged from time to time to enhance sales. To replace cars that are sold, the tenant typically buys a few cars at a time, which are delivered by a tow truck. Auto carriers and large trucks with trailers are not used to deliver vehicles. On the "rare" occasion in the past when a "big transport" made deliveries, the truck used the parking lot in a nearby Publix store to the east. State Road 544 is classified as a class 7 road. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-97.003(1), Table 2. That classification is assigned to roads where adjacent land is developed to the maximum feasible intensity and roadway widening is limited. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-97.003(2). The regulation provides that a driveway connection on a class 7 road must be at least 125 feet from an intersection and at least the same distance from other connections. This amount of spacing reduces driver confusion and the potential for rear-end collisions. Respondent's parcel has two driveway connections, less than 125 feet apart, facing State Road 544. The first connection is approximately 60 feet east of the intersection and is known as the western connection. The second connection lies further east and is known as the eastern connection. A third driveway connection is located on the western side of the parcel facing 42nd Street Northwest. Driveway connections on state roads must be permitted or grandfathered. See § 335.1825, Fla. Stat.; Fla Admin. Code 14-96.011(3)(a). Neither connection on State Road 544 is permitted. A driveway is grandfathered if it was in existence prior to July 1, 1988, when access permits were first required. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.011(3)(a). Because the driveway connections were in place before 1988, they qualify for that status. To retain that status, however, a driveway must be consistently used by the owner. If use is discontinued for a period of one year or more, the use is considered abandoned. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.005(2)(c). If a driveway loses its grandfathered status through abandonment, the owner must apply for an access permit; otherwise, the driveway is subject to closure. A connection that retains its grandfathered status may still be modified if safety or operational issues exist. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14- 96.011(4)(b)(the Department may modify a grandfathered connection "if such modification is determined to be necessary because the connection would jeopardize the safety of the public or have a negative impact on the operational characteristics of the state highway"). The parties agree the eastern driveway is grandfathered and has been consistently used by the tenant since 1998. There is a dispute over the status of the western driveway. The Department must allow owners of private properties adjoining a state road to have "reasonable access" to and from their property. See § 335.18(2)(a), Fla. Stat. As a general rule, limiting the number of driveway connections promotes better traffic movement and an increased level of safety and mobility for the system as a whole. To determine the number of connections necessary to establish reasonable access, the Department considers the projected connection and roadway traffic volumes, the type and intensity of the land use, the access management classification of the state road, and the standards for that classification. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.002(25). The Intersection Project The genesis of this dispute is a safety project (Project) at the intersection of State Road 544 and 42nd Street Northwest adjacent to Respondent's property. The Project was initiated after the Department received pedestrian complaints concerning safe travel across the intersection to access retail and food stores and a lack of crosswalks that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Project is only 0.038 miles in length and is limited to improvements at the intersection and the installation of sidewalks adjacent to Respondent's parcel and the three other corner commercial properties. There will be minimal impact to current vehicular patterns, and no increase in capacity is expected. Part of the design effort for the Project included an evaluation of existing driveway connections for potential modifications that will improve traffic safety or traffic operations on the roadway. This evaluation was limited to driveways on State Road 544, as the Department has no jurisdiction over driveways on 42nd Street Northwest, a local road. During the planning process, the Department noted that the western driveway is less than 125 feet from the intersection, violates spacing requirements, and raises safety concerns. Accordingly, the Department proposes to remove it, "saw it over," and install type F curb and gutter along the roadway. To comply with access management standards for class 7 roads, the Department also proposes to narrow the width of the eastern driveway from around 60 feet to 36 feet and "widen the wings somewhat" to allow larger vehicles to swing into and out of the car lot. (Wings are the sides of the driveway that slope down from the top of the curb to the street level.) No changes to the driveway facing 42nd Street Northwest are proposed, and no other driveways on State Road 544 near the intersection will be modified. The Department determined that no other practical alternatives to this action exist. Based on its evaluation of the property, the Department concluded that one direct connection on State Road 544 and an indirect connection on 42nd Street Northwest, a local road, provide reasonable access to the property. The Department intends to install new pedestrian signal poles and increase access to a nearby bus stop. The Project includes connected sidewalks for the four commercial properties on the corners of the intersection and enhanced special emphasis crosswalks that are designed to comply with the ADA and connect to the existing Publix sidewalk to the east. The high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian signalization improvements, and removal of the western driveway will improve traffic movement through the intersection and enhance motorist, bicycle, and pedestrian safety. A Department Safety Office Benefit Cost Analysis revealed there were a total of 60 rear-end or angle crashes at the intersection during the five-year period 2010 through 2014 and that some could have been prevented with better signage and signals. The study projects 11 crashes will be avoided over the upcoming five-year period once the Project is completed. Besides reducing angle and rear-end crashes at the intersection, the proposed modifications will improve safety and operational conditions for pedestrians and motorists who will have greater connectivity to adjacent commercial properties. Respondent's Objections Respondent raises a number of objections to the Department's proposed action. She contends the western driveway is not abandoned, and even though it fails to meet current spacing requirements, it should not be closed; the proposed modification to the eastern driveway is not warranted by safety or operational concerns; the Department violated a number of statutory provisions during the process leading up to the issuance of the Notice; the proposed action will deny her and the tenant reasonable access to the property; and the changes will reduce the value of the property. The Western Connection To comply with insurance requirements, in 1998 the tenant erected bollards (short vertical posts embedded in the driveway) around most of the parcel to restrict access to the premises. Among other locations, bollards were placed along the entire back side of the western connection, blocking off vehicle access through that driveway. Bollards were also placed on roughly half of the back side of the eastern connection, leaving less than 30 feet open to allow vehicles to enter and exit the premises. Even though the bollards remained in place for almost 20 years, Respondent considers them nothing more than temporary fixtures, as they could be removed at any time by sawing them off at ground level or pulling them out of the concrete. The bollards remained in place until shortly after the Notice was received by Respondent in early January 2017. They were then removed by the tenant from the western driveway (and other areas). The tenant denies the Notice triggered their removal and maintains they were removed to provide "extra room for the FedEx and stuff like that to get in." He added that his current insurance company no longer requires bollards for security purposes. The Department contends the western driveway connection was abandoned because bollards blocked vehicle access through the driveway from December 1998 until January 2017. The tenant's testimony confirms this assertion. The tenant admits he has "not frequently [been] using the westernmost driveway," but maintains the connection was never abandoned, as Fedex trucks and the mail carrier regularly parked on the driveway apron, which lies between the roadway and the bollards. Emergency responders also use the apron when responding to accidents at the intersection, and disabled vehicles traveling eastbound on State Road 544 are pushed onto the apron. The bottom line is that even though the apron may have been used, the driveway itself was not, and the connection was basically used as a "pull-off." In fact, the tenant acknowledged that until January 2017, except for customers who used the parking lots of adjacent businesses located south of the parcel, all other customers used the eastern connection to access the property. The evidence supports a finding that, even if the car lot has remained in business continuously, and Respondent did not intend to abandon the driveway, for the reasons stated above, it was effectively abandoned for more than one year. Because the western driveway is only 60 feet from the intersection and violates spacing standards, it is subject to closure based on safety concerns. Without closure, additional traffic will enter and exit the car lot, there will be less driver reaction time for vehicles to stop, and it will increase the potential for more pedestrian injuries and vehicle crashes. The Eastern Connection The eastern driveway is 58 feet wide when measured at the back of the property line. Until January 2017, less than 30 feet were usable because bollards blocked the remainder of the connection. The maximum width for a class 7 driveway connection is determined by the number of vehicle trips per day that enter a property and whether the connection is in a rural or urban location. Under current design standards for urban locations, a 24-foot driveway connection is typically allowed. See Dep't Ex. 15. Assuming a large volume of traffic entering or exiting the driveway, a maximum of 36 feet may be permitted. Id. Although there is no evidence that a large volume of traffic enters or exits the premises, after speaking with the owner's representative, Mr. Combee, the Department agreed to increase the width from 24 feet to 36 feet and widen the sides (wings) to make the driveway more accessible by customers and vehicles making deliveries. By comparison, the nearby Publix store has a 24-foot connection to State Road 544, although it also has several indirect connections on the local streets. The modified connection is of sufficient length and size for vehicles to enter and exit the premises. Other Objections Notice Respondent contends the Department did not comply with section 335.199(1), Florida Statutes, before issuing the Notice. That subsection provides as follows: Whenever the Department of Transportation proposes any project on the State Highway System which will divide a state highway, erect median barriers modifying currently available vehicle turning movements, or have the effect of closing or modifying an existing access to an abutting property owner, the department shall notify all affected property owners, municipalities, and counties at least 180 days before the design of the project is finalized. The department's notice shall provide a written explanation regarding the need for the project and indicate that all affected parties will be given an opportunity to provide comments to the department regarding potential impacts of the change. Subsection (3) of the statute also requires at least one public hearing in the jurisdiction where the project is located. The Department has always construed this provision as applying only to large projects that involve an expenditure of "upward of a million dollars" and take out or block medians, remove turn lanes, or reconfigure intersections in conjunction with a modification or closure of a driveway connection. Because the Project entails the expenditure of $119,936.00, and only new curbs, sidewalks, striping, and pedestrian signals are contemplated, the Department considers it a "very limited scope" project and one that does not implicate the statute. For small projects such as this, the Department provides preliminary notification to the property owner and tenant, if any; a written notice setting forth the proposed agency action and the reason for the changes; an opportunity for the owner to meet with Department representatives to express concerns; notice to the affected local governments; and ultimately an administrative hearing, if one is requested. This process complies with section 335.1825(3), which only requires "reasonable notice" to the owner before closing an unpermitted connection. Before the Notice was issued, oral notice regarding the Project was given to the tenant by a Department representative. During the meeting, the tenant told the representative that he "didn't mind" if the western driveway was removed. Also, a Department representative spoke by telephone with Mr. Combee before the Notice was issued, but Mr. Combee says he was under the impression the Department was only seeking to close the connection on 42nd Street Northwest. An on-site meeting with Mr. Combee and his counsel was conducted in February 2017. Based on concerns expressed by Mr. Combee, the Department agreed to increase the width of the eastern driveway from 24 to 36 feet and widen the wings to provide greater accessibility into and out of the lot. Besides meeting with the tenant and Mr. Combee, the Department informed the City of Auburndale and Polk County about the intersection project and asked them whether any comments had been received from the public regarding the intersection. Assuming arguendo that section 335.199 applies to every project involving the closure or modification of a driveway connection, regardless of its size, there was no showing that Respondent was prejudiced by the Department's failure to comply with all requirements of the statute. Lack of an Engineering Study Respondent contends the Department violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-96.011(4)(b) by failing to conduct a formal engineering study to substantiate the safety and operational concerns for closing and modifying the connections. In lieu of a signed and sealed engineering study, the Department performed a Safety Cost Benefit Analysis documenting the five-year crash history at the intersection. The study also includes an engineer's estimate of the type and cost of specific improvements planned to improve the safety of motorists and pedestrians at the intersection. See Resp. Ex. 5. Nothing in rule 14-96.011(4) or (5) requires that a formal engineering study be conducted before closing an unpermitted connection or modifying a grandfathered connection. In fact, the rule cited by Respondent provides the "problem may be substantiated by an engineering study signed, sealed, and dated by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida." (emphasis added). Therefore, both driveways are subject to removal or modification without any type of formal study being conducted. Here, the Department relied on a study of the crash history at the intersection, access management standards for connections on class 7 roadways, and safety concerns expressed by members of the public. These measures are adequate to support the Department's proposed action. Reasonable Access Respondent contends the Department's proposed action leaves her without "reasonable access" to the property. To support this contention, her engineering expert opined that both driveways on State Road 544 are necessary in order for large trucks making deliveries to enter and exit the lot. The engineer assumed incorrectly, however, that semi-trucks and trailers now access the property to make deliveries, and a 36-foot driveway will be too small to accommodate that type of vehicle. He also opined that large trucks cannot access the property through the 42nd Street Northwest connection because a building is located in the middle of the parcel and prevents them from being driven across the lot and exiting through the eastern connection. The expert agrees a 36-foot driveway provides reasonable access for automobiles and small trucks. The evidence shows that replacement vehicles are normally delivered by a tow truck hauling no more than one or two at a time and large semi-trucks and trailers do not make deliveries at the property. Assuming that the mail carrier or FedEx wish to continue parking where the apron now sits while they deliver the mail or a package, they can do so by pulling over the six-inch curb and parking on the grass. The evidence supports a finding that one direct access point on State Road 544 and one indirect access point on 42nd Street Northwest provide reasonable access to the property and result in safer and more efficient access to the state highway system. Economic Concerns Respondent contends the value of her property will be diminished as a result of the closure of the western connection. However, economic injury is not a statutory consideration for closing or modifying connections, and redress for that type of injury, if any, lies in another forum. Management of Project The Department routinely allows construction project administrators who are not professional engineers to manage the day-to-day work on intersection projects such as this. While the project plans were signed and sealed by a professional engineer, who is the project engineer of record, a construction project administrator, Mr. Freeman, will take the plans and "make it a reality in the field." Respondent contends Mr. Freeman is violating section 471.003(1) by performing certain investigative, evaluating, planning, and designing activities without an engineering license. Assuming arguendo this is true, jurisdiction over that issue lies with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers and not the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the closure of Respondent's western driveway and modification of the eastern driveway, as part of the Department's State Road 544 Safety Project. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2017, 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 9th day of June, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Dew, Secretary Department of Transportation Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Richard E. Shine, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) David W. Holloway, Esquire David W. Holloway, P.A. 13100 Park Boulevard, Suite B Seminole, Florida 33776-3539 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Transportation ("Respondent"), has demonstrated that Petitioner, Frank C. Kunnen, Jr., d/b/a U.S. 19 Commerce Center's ("Petitioner"), right-out driveway to U.S. Highway 19 will present a safety and operational problem following Respondent's reconstruction of Highway 19. Whether Petitioner's access to the state highway system will be reasonable if Petitioner's existing right-out driveway is closed. Whether Respondent is legally entitled to administratively close Petitioner's driveway, pursuant to Rule 14-96.011, Florida Administrative Code, and applicable Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of real property located within the city limits of Clearwater, in Pinellas County, Florida, which property abuts U.S. Highway 19 (State Road 55). It has a right-in and right-out driveway connection to U.S. Highway 19. Petitioner's current right-in, right-out driveway does not create a safety or operational problem with the existing configuration of U.S. Highway 19. Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida created pursuant to Chapter 20, Florida Statutes. Respondent regulates access to the state highway system. Respondent initially cited Rule 14-96.011, Florida Administrative Code, in the Notice as authority for the intended agency action. This Rule pertains to closure or modification of permitted driveways. At hearing on March 20, it was discovered that Respondent had intended to cite Rule 14-96.012, Florida Administrative Code, which pertains to closure or modification of unpermitted driveways that had been in existence since before July 1, 1988, the effective date of the State Highway System Access Management Act. The Rule refers to these driveways as "grandfathered." As of March 20, Respondent was not aware that Petitioner's driveway might have been permitted. In order to provide Petitioner all due process to which he was entitled, Respondent requested that the hearing be continued. After reviewing its files, Respondent indicated to Petitioner on June 28, 2001, that Respondent would be requesting an additional continuance to conduct an engineering study pursuant to Rule 14- 96.011, Florida Administrative Code.¹ Petitioner agreed to both continuances. The study was dated August 20, 2001, and was delivered to Petitioner's counsel just after that date. This study was presented as Respondent's Exhibit 5 at the resumption of the hearing on September 20, 2001. The Study sets out the essential safety and operational bases for Respondent's agency action in this case and was signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. Prior to the reconvened hearing, Petitioner did not seek to depose the author of the engineering study nor did he request documents utilized in creating the study. Petitioner decided to wait until the hearing and make a series of objections to the study's admissibility. Prior to and after the study was admitted into evidence, Petitioner's counsel conducted extensive cross-examination of the engineer who signed and sealed the study, Vibert Griffith, P.E., and his assistant in the creation of the study, Julian Parsons. Petitioner did not present any evidence of prejudice resulting from the timing of the creation of the study. Any prejudice which may be presumed was cured by Respondent's requesting a continuance specifically to search its records for evidence of a permit; Respondent's requesting another continuance to create that study; Petitioner's agreeing to both continuances; and Respondent's producing the study approximately one month prior to hearing. This gave Petitioner time to conduct discovery regarding the study, not to mention sufficient time to prepare for the hearing itself. The Notice did not state whether mediation was available in this case. However, the lack of mention of mediation in the Notice was of no prejudice to Petitioner in light of the fact that that Petitioner proposed several alternative driveway designs to Respondent, and that these alternatives had been closely studied and considered. Petitioner did not present any evidence that he had asked whether mediation was available or was denied an opportunity to mediate this case. Accordingly, any error in the lack of information regarding mediation in the Notice was harmless, and any prejudice was cured. Petitioner elicited testimony with respect to a third procedural point in this case. Rule 14-96.011(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, states that if Respondent seeks to close a driveway, Respondent will offer to meet with the property owner or his representative on-site. As Petitioner's counsel stated during his opening remarks, however, there is a long history of litigation between Petitioner and Respondent, including two pervious mediations. Again, the unrebutted testimony at hearing was that over the last several years Respondent evaluated three alternative designs submitted by Petitioner for access to U.S. Highway 19. Petitioner did not present any evidence of prejudice in not being able to meet on-site with Respondent in this case. Any error in relation to this issue was harmless. U.S. Highway 19 runs north-south through Pinellas County, Florida and is a part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System. In the vicinity of Petitioner's property, U.S. Highway 19 has three lanes of traffic each for northbound and southbound traffic (total of six lanes). As part of the reconstruction of U.S. Highway 19, Respondent has plans to create "grade separated intersections" or "urban interchanges" at the cross street to the south and north of Petitioner's property. The cross street to the south is Drew Street, and the cross street to the north is Coachman Road. Also, just to the north of Petitioner's property, U.S. Highway 19 is elevated over railroad tracks, and will continue to be so elevated after reconstruction. In its reconstructed state, vehicles will reach mainline U.S. Highway 19 by a series of frontage roads and on and off ramps. Vehicles that stay on mainline U.S. Highway 19 will not have to stop for signals at intersections with cross streets because the mainline will travel over the cross streets. The effect of U.S. Highway reconstruction will be to create a more efficient transportation facility by improving safety and capacity. The overall improvements to U.S. Highway 19 are necessary. Although Respondent is closing Petitioner's right-out driveway to mainline U.S. Highway 19, Respondent is not acquiring any property from Petitioner. Accordingly, Respondent provided Petitioner with notice of the intended agency action and right to an administrative hearing (the "Notice"). Respondent's Proposal Respondent proposes, as part of its planned improvements to U.S. Highway 19, to provide Petitioner a right- in only entrance from a frontage road running adjacent to and parallel to U.S. Highway 19. Respondent also proposes to build a new two-way road, referred to as Access Road A, which runs north-south, parallel to U.S. Highway 19, intersects Drew Street, and from that point provides vehicles the option of traveling either north or south on mainline U.S. Highway 19, or east or west on Drew Street. Petitioner's northerly neighbor, a maintenance yard owned by Pinellas County, would also send all of its traffic, including large trucks and emergency vehicles, out Access Road A to Drew Street. Other properties, including several car dealerships, to the south of Petitioner's property would also have access to Access Road A. No other property owner, including Pinellas County, objected to Respondent's proposed access system. It is undisputed that Respondent has all of the right-of-way necessary to construct Access Road A to Petitioner's property line. During construction, the City of Clearwater will install a temporary traffic signal at the intersection of Access Road A and Drew Street. Based on a traffic study conducted by the Pinellas County MPO and endorsed by the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County, the traffic light will become permanent when construction is completed. Even if the temporary light is removed after construction, Access Road A will function properly for right turns onto Drew Street which will provide access to the northbound and southbound mainline lanes of U.S. Highway 19. This is true, even assuming that all of Petitioner's neighbors send all of their traffic out Access Road A. In addition, Petitioner's neighbors to the south have several alternate means of access to travel west on Drew Street and either north or south on U.S. Highway 19. Respondent is closing Petitioner's right-out driveway to U.S. Highway 19 because, post-construction, the driveway would be located on an on-ramp. The frontage road and on-ramp, as currently designed by Respondent, would prevent placement of a right-out driveway in such a location. It is Petitioner's position that Respondent could have designed the frontage road and on-ramp in front of Petitioner's property in such a way as to allow the safe operation of a right-out driveway in the approximate location of Petitioner's current right-out driveway. Petitioner's Proposal In support of his contention that Respondent could have designed a right-out driveway, Petitioner offered an aerial map and overlay (Petitioner's Exhibit 3), which purported to show that Respondent could have designed an on-ramp from Drew Street and an off-ramp to Coachman Road to the north in such a way as to allow Petitioner a right-out driveway. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 was a concept based upon what was referred to as the "Lochner Study" at hearing. The "Lochner Study" was a study performed by the engineering firm H. W. Lochner, and showed a right-in, right-out driveway from Petitioner's property onto a frontage road/on-ramp in approximately the same location as Petitioner's current driveway. In the past Petitioner had proposed other alternatives for access to U.S. Highway 19. Petitioner withdrew from consideration at this hearing all other alternative designs for a right-out driveway for Petitioner. The Lochner Study was undertaken with the specific purpose of determining whether needed improvements to U.S. Highway 19 could be safely constructed within right-of-way already owned by Respondent. The Lochner Study concluded that placing a driveway for Petitioner in the location shown in the study would provide "substandard operation and is very undesirable from a safety stand point." The primary reason for this conclusion was that the physical separation of northbound mainline U.S. Highway 19 and the frontage road ended south of the driveway's location. This lack of physical separation would allow vehicles on northbound mainline U.S. Highway 19 to cross over the frontage road and enter Petitioner's property, creating unsafe traffic movements. Petitioner's witnesses agreed that this lack of separation would be a safety problem. Petitioner's Exhibit 3, prepared and testified about by Reginald Mesimer, attempted to alleviate this admittedly unsafe aspect of the Lochner plan by extending the physical separator between northbound mainline U.S. Highway 19 and the frontage road/on-ramp to a point just beyond the location of where Petitioner's driveway would be. The area of physical separation is the "gore" area. In effect, this extension also would shift the beginning of the on-ramp to the point of Petitioner's driveway. Thus, the issue raised was whether the location of the on-ramp could be safely designed to co-exist with the location of the off-ramp for the next interchange at Coachman Road. The standards for determining whether this design is safe are set by the American Association for State Highway and Transportation Officials ("AASHTO"), who publish these standards in the "Green Book," known as the "Bible" of transportation engineers. In examining Petitioner's Exhibit 3, as well as the requirements of AASHTO submitted in this case, it is clear that the requirements for an on-ramp followed by an off-ramp are: (1) an acceleration area for the on-ramp; (2) a weaving area for vehicles going from the on-ramp to mainline, and for vehicles going from mainline to the off-ramp; (3) a deceleration area for the off-ramp, and (4) a queue area for vehicles at the terminus of the off-ramp. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 shows the start of the acceleration area for the on-ramp at the location of Petitioner's right-out driveway, which indicates that the on- ramp for vehicles leaving Petitioner's property would begin at his driveway. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 shows a 2,000-foot weave area, also beginning at the location of Petitioner's right-out driveway. Placing the start of the acceleration area and the weave area at the same point on an on-ramp is contrary to AASHTO design standards. The beginning of the weave area should be near the end of the acceleration area, which, on Petitioner's Exhibit 3, is supposed to be where vehicles on the on-ramp are traveling at the design speed of the highway they are attempting to enter. AASHTO places the beginning of the weaving area where the outside lane of the mainline and the inside lane of the on- ramp are separated by two feet. The weave area extends to a point where there is a twelve-foot separation of the mainline and off-ramp lanes at the next interchange. The design speed of U.S. Highway 19 is 55 miles per hour. It is uncontested that vehicles leaving Petitioner's property will be in a stopped condition prior to entering the on-ramp. Thus, looking at Petitioner's Exhibit 3, the beginning of the weave area should be placed approximately 965 feet to the north of the current location shown on Petitioner's Exhibit 3. In turn, this forces the deceleration area for the off-ramp to Coachman Road shown on Petitioner's Exhibit 3 to be shifted 965 feet to the north. Petitioner's expert testified that the off- ramp deceleration area at Coachman Road could be shifted between 300 and 400 feet to the north. Assuming this to be correct, this places the start of the off-ramp deceleration area approximately 965 feet to the north of its current location, which is 565 to 665 feet beyond the farthest point Petitioner's expert testified it could be moved. Respondent's experts also examined Petitioner's Exhibit 3 under the dictates of AASHTO. Unlike Petitioner, Respondent assumed a design speed of 50 miles per hour, and assumed that shorter distances for acceleration, weaving, and deceleration could be applied in this situation under AASHTO. Respondent's findings demonstrate that under the "Petitioner's best case scenario" the off-ramp at Coachman Road would still have to be moved approximately 600 feet to the north, which is at least 200 feet past the farthest possible shift testified to by Petitioner's expert. Moving the off-ramp would obviously require redesign and delay of the Coachman Road project to the north, already designed and funded for construction. Further, Petitioner's Exhibit 3 also did not take into account any need for increased acceleration distance on the on- ramp due to the grade of the road. For certain portions of the acceleration area of the on-ramp in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 the grade is steeper that 3 percent, and averages over 2 percent. AASHTO does not require an increase in acceleration distance where the grade is "less that two percent." AASHTO requires an increase when the grade is more than 3 percent. This is, according to Petitioner's witness, a "gray area" in AASHTO. In this situation, while AASHTO may not require a multiplier be applied to the entire acceleration distance, it would be safer for the traveling public to apply the multiplier at least to the portions above 3 percent and perhaps to the entire acceleration distance, and to acknowledge that the grade of the road militates against application of strict minimum AASHTO standard distances. Adjusting at all for grade would result in a longer on-ramp and require pushing the off-ramp at Coachman even further north, which makes Petitioner's Exhibit 3 alternative even less viable. Another factor that Petitioner's Exhibit 3 did not take into account was that a significant amount of traffic leaving the proposed right-out driveway would be fully-loaded heavy trucks both from Petitioner's property and the Pinellas County maintenance yard. The AASHTO acceleration distance of 965 feet shown in that Exhibit is for automobiles. Knowing that heavy, fully loaded trucks would be utilizing this driveway on a regular basis, the acceleration distance for such trucks reaching 55 or even 50 miles per hour would be longer than for a normal passenger vehicle. Petitioner's alternative proposal was fatally flawed in its misplacement of the weave area, and was defective in other respects such as not considering the slower heavy truck traffic or the grade of the road. Thus, it is apparent that under any interpretation of the AASHTO standards, Respondent could not safely design an on-ramp from the Drew Street area and an off-ramp to the Coachman Road interchange and provide Petitioner a right-out driveway in the approximate location of his existing right-out driveway. Based upon all the evidence presented at hearing, Respondent demonstrated that AASHTO standards preclude moving the on-ramp to the location proposed by Petitioner. Therefore, closing Petitioner's right-out driveway to reconstructed U.S. Highway 19 is mandated for safety and operational reasons. Access-Reasonableness Issues Following the reconstruction of U.S. Highway 19, the access proposed by Respondent for Petitioner's property is reasonable. An objective comparison of the alternative proposed by Petitioner and Respondent's proposal reveals that Respondent's design results in safer and more efficient access to the state highway system for Petitioner and direct access to east and west travel on Drew Street. One measurable point of comparison is the relative distance a vehicle would have to travel to reach the state highway system under Respondent's proposal versus Petitioner's. Prior to Petitioner's withdrawing from consideration all alternatives other than what was represented in Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Respondent presented testimony regarding two of Petitioner's earlier alternative concepts. These previous alternatives were referred to as Proposal One and Proposal Two. Proposal One was basically a right-out driveway in the form of an on-ramp that would have tied in to mainline U.S. Highway 19 prior to the railroad tracks. Proposal Two was a right-out driveway/on-ramp that tied into the off-ramp for Coachman Road. As far as comparing relative travel distances, both Proposals One and Two are similar to the alternative in Petitioner's Exhibit 3. For vehicles to travel north from Petitioner's property on U.S. Highway 19 in Respondent's design, vehicles travel south on Access Road A, west on Drew Street, and then south on the frontage road/on-ramp. This is a distance of .44 miles. To reach the same point using the access provided in Proposal One, Proposal Two, or Petitioner's Exhibit 3, a vehicle must travel north to the Coachman interchange, and double back south, a distance of approximately 1.45 miles. Thus, when added together, the distances for vehicles to travel north and south on U.S. Highway 19 in Respondent's design total 1.12 miles, or .33 miles less than the 1.45 miles to reach the same points using any of Petitioner's alternative driveway proposals. In addition, for vehicles that wish to travel east or west on Drew Street from Petitioner's property, Respondent's alternative is much shorter. It is .32 miles to reach Drew Street along Access Road A, and 1.6 miles to reach Drew Street from Proposal One, Proposal Two, or Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Another measurable point of comparison are conflict points, places such as intersections and merge areas where vehicles can be expected to change lanes. In Respondent's design, there are four or five conflict points to travel north on U.S. Highway 19, three or four to travel south on U.S. Highway 19, and one to travel east or west on Drew Street. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 shows two conflict points to travel north (right-out turn to on-ramp and merge to mainline), six or seven to travel south on U.S. Highway 19, and seven or eight to travel east or west on Drew Street (same as south on U.S. Highway 19 plus turn from off-ramp). For vehicles traveling north and south on U.S. Highway 19 from Petitioner's property, the number of conflict points in either Respondent's design or Petitioner's alternative are essentially even, but when travel on Drew Street is included in the comparison Respondent's design is clearly safer. A third point of comparison is that Petitioner's alternative provides one way in and one way out. Respondent's design provides two ways in and one way out. Respondent's design provides reasonable access to Petitioner's property. In comparison to Petitioner's alternative, Respondent's design provides for shorter combined travel distances. In regard to conflict points, Respondent's design is as safe as Petitioner's alternative, and safer if travel on Drew Street is included in the comparison. Finally, Respondent's design provides an additional point of ingress. Both witnesses called by Petitioner opined that the access proposed by Respondent was not reasonable, primarily because the access is not "direct." The basis of that opinion was limited to their belief that a "better" access plan, the alternative shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 3, was viable. Neither of Petitioner's witnesses knew the relative travel distances, nor did either witness testify about actual conflict points or any other possible objective points of comparison. Petitioner's witnesses' view are flawed because the alternative shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 is not viable. Assuming, arguendo, that Petitioner's Exhibit 3 reflected a safe design, and assuming that this access is reasonable, it would be contrary to logic to conclude that Respondent's design results in unreasonable access. The only "advantage" in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 versus Respondent's proposal is a right-out "direct" connection to U.S. Highway 19 via the on-ramp. However, comparing travel distances, conflict points, and points of ingress, Respondent's design is comparable if not superior, and thus, reasonable. Petitioner stressed that all other property owners along the U.S. Highway 19 corridor have right-in and right-out driveways on frontage roads, and that Petitioner is the only property owner required to use a facility like Access Road A for egress. Even if true, this circumstance does not in and of itself change Respondent's designed access for Petitioner's property into unreasonable access. Based upon objective criteria, Respondent's design is comparable or superior to Petitioner's alternative, and Respondent's design is comparable or superior to the access enjoyed by all other property owners in this vicinity. Engineering Study Pursuant to Rule 14-96.011, Florida Administrative Code, Respondent conducted an engineering study to examine the closure of Petitioner's right-out driveway. Normally, an engineering study is prepared prior to Respondent serving its Notice of Intent to close or alter a permitted driveway connection. The engineering study documents that there is a safety or operational problem with a particular driveway connection, and ensures that Respondent has an engineering basis to seek closure or alteration of the driveway. However, at the time this case came to hearing on March 20, 2001, Respondent was not aware that Petitioner's driveway may have been permitted. That is the reason the study was conducted during a continuance of this case and delivered to Petitioner on or around August 17, 2001. Petitioner agreed to the continuance for Respondent to conduct the study, and Petitioner had adequate time to conduct any further discovery in this case after receipt of the study. Thus, any procedural error in the timing of the study was waived by Petitioner and/or cured by Respondent. The Study does provide safety and operational bases for Respondent's agency action in this case. The study summarizes the history of the U.S. Highway 19 improvement project, discusses the current conditions, explains the proposed improvements, and reviews the safety and operational issues specific to Petitioner's right-out driveway in the post construction condition. The study also explains why two alternative right-out driveway configurations were not acceptable to Respondent. The study contains exhibits showing traffic patterns in the existing and possible future post construction conditions. The study was signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. The study did not discuss the Petitioner's alternative advocated at hearing. The reason the study did not address this concept was that at the time of its creation, Respondent did not have Petitioner's Exhibit 3. One other item not addressed was traffic accident data. Since the improvements of U.S. Highway 19 have not been constructed, there is no accident data for the right-out driveway in the post construction condition. Respondent stipulated that Petitioner's existing right-out driveway is safe, so any accident data relating to current conditions is not relevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the closure of Petitioner's right- out driveway as part of the future constructed improvements to Highway 19 and the construction of Access Road A. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 14th day of December, 2001.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File by William F. Quattlebaum, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, entered October 7, 2011. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Said Order Closing File was predicated upon Petitioner’s notice of dismissal without prejudice of the Amended Complaint contesting the intended denial of Respondent’s application for licensure. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s application for licensure as a DUI Program in the 13" Judicial Circuit is denied. — DONE AND ORDERED this | [ a day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Sou _-“ SANDRA C, LAMBERT, Direct Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this { pte day of October, 2011. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal! for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies furnished: Lilja Dandelake, Esquire Judson M. Chapman, Esquire Assistant General Counsels Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Donna Blanton, Esquire Bert Combs, Esquire Attorneys for Intervenor Radey Thomas Yon & Clark, P.A. 301 S. Bronough Street, Suite 200 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Rm. A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Scott Boardman, Esquire David Scott Boardman, P.A. Attorney for Petitioner 1710 E. Seventh Ave. Tampa, Florida 33605 Tallahassee, FL 32301 William F. Quattlebaum Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Dismissing Case and Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Petitioner’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED this ay day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Julie Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services Filed August 29, 2013 2:07 PM Division of Administrative Hearings this “ve of —_ 2013 Yea _ f fekses- ee ‘ficens NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies furnished: Jimmie Murphy, Manager Jimmie Shane Murphy, LLC 4601 Saufley Field Road Pensacola, Florida 32523 Damaris E. Reynolds Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Diane Cleavinger Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 i)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a company owned by Jack Williams that leases portable signs to businesses desiring to advertise. These signs are constructed to attach letters to spell out the advertised message on the sign and illuminate the sign at night if desired. The signs are sufficiently small and light that they can be readily moved as the lessee desires. On June 18, 1986, one of Respondent's signs leased to a car dealer was found to be in the DOT right-of-way along U.S. 19, 0.28 miles of Candlewood Drive and in front of the business advertised. The nearest edge of the sign to the highway was 46 feet from the easterly edge of the pavement. The eastern edge of the DOT right of way at this point is 50 feet from the edge of the paved surface of U.S. 19. U.S. 19 is a federal-aid primary highway. Respondent's lease agreement (Exhibit 8) is in the form of a statement billing the lessee of the sign for one month use of the sign. That statement provides it shall be the customer's responsibility to comply with state and local laws and regulations.
