02-004237 Capital City Hotels, Inc. vs. City Of Tallahassee And Atg Hotels, Llc
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, January 22, 2003.


View Dockets  
Summary: Height deviation from zoning code approved where applicant submitted justification for deviating from code.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8CAPITAL CITY HOTELS, INC., )

13)

14Petitioner, )

16)

17vs. ) Case No. 02 - 4237

24)

25CITY OF TALLAHASSEE and AHG )

31HOTELS, LLC, )

34)

35Respondents. )

37________________________________)

38RECOMMENDED ORDER

40Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was he ld in this

51case on December 10, 2002, in Tallahassee, Florida, before

60Donald R. Alexander, the assigned Administrative Law Judge of

69the Division of Administrative Hearings.

74APPEARANCES

75For Petitioner: Charles R. Gardner, Esquire

81Gardner, Wadsworth, Duggar,

84Bist & Weiner, P.A.

881300 Thomaswood Drive

91Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - 7914

96For Respondent: Linda R. Hurst, Esquire

102(City) City Hall, Second Floor

107300 South Adams Street

111Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1731

116For Respondent: James Marshall Conrad, Esquire

122(AHG) Ausley & McMullen

126Post Office Box 391

130Tallahassee, Flori da 32302 - 0391

136STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

140The issue is whether AHG Hotels, LLC's application for a

150Type B site plan and deviation should be approved.

159PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

161This matter began on September 11, 2002, when the

170Development Review Committee of Res pondent, City of

178Tallahassee, approved a site plan filed by Respondent, AHG

187Hotels, LLC, which authorizes the construction of a 122 - room,

198five - story hotel on a 2.23 - acre parcel located just southeast

211of the intersection of Interstate 10 and Thomasville Roa d in

222Tallahassee, Florida. The Development Review Committee also

229approved a deviation from the development standards found in

238the Zoning Code and allowed the applicant to exceed a four -

250story height limitation.

253On October 10, 2002, Petitioner, Capital City Hotels,

261Inc., which owns a hotel near the site of the proposed

272construction, filed its Petition for Formal Proceedings with

280the Tallahassee - Leon County Planning Commission challenging

288the deviation decision. Pursuant to that entity's By - Laws,

298the matter was then referred to the Division of Administrative

308Hearings on October 24, 2002, with a request that an

318Administrative Law Judge be assigned to conduct a formal

327hearing.

328The matter was scheduled for a final hearing on

337December 10, 2002, in Tallahasse e, Florida. At the final

347hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Cochran A.

355Scott, Jr., its managing partner. Respondent, AHG Hotels,

363LLC, presented the testimony of Thomas C. O'Steen, a land

373planning consultant; Timothy C. Metzner, owner of the

381p roperty; and Royce J. Carter, a principal in AHG Hotels, LLC.

393Also, it offered Applicant's Exhibits 1 - 10, which were

403received in evidence. In addition, by agreement of counsel,

412Applicant's Exhibit 11 was received in evidence after the

421hearing had ended. Respondent, City of Tallahassee, presented

429the testimony of Dwight R. Arnold, Jr., environmental services

438administrator in the growth management department, and Wade L.

447Pitts, III, land use administrator in the growth management

456department. Also, it offe red City Exhibits 1 - 12, which were

468received in evidence.

471The Transcript of the hearing was filed on December 27,

4812002. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were

491filed by Respondents and Petitioner on January 13 and 14,

5012003, respectively, and they have been considered by the

510undersigned in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

518FINDINGS OF FACT

521Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation

530of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined:

539a. Background

5411. On Sept ember 11, 2002, the Development Review

550Committee (DRC) of Respondent, City of Tallahassee (City),

558approved a Type B site review application authorizing the

567construction of a Hampton Inn & Suites by Respondent, AHG

577Hotels, LLC (AHG). The DRC also granted A HG's request for a

589deviation from development standards contained in Section

59610.6RR of the City's Zoning Code by allowing AHG to exceed the

608four - story height limitation and to add a fifth floor to the

621structure. Two other deviation requests by AHG were

629de termined to be either inapplicable or exempt from Zoning

639Code requirements because of vesting, and thus they are not at

650issue here.

6522. On October 10, 2002, Petitioner, Capital City Hotels,

661Inc. (Petitioner), which owns and operates a Hilton Garden Inn

671nea r the proposed construction, timely filed a Petition for

681Formal Proceedings to contest the approval of the deviation

690request. On October 15, 2002, a determination of standing as

700to Petitioner was issued by the Tallahassee - Leon County

710Planning Commission ( Commission), which will issue a final

719order in this matter.

7233. As stipulated by the parties at hearing, the only

733issue is whether AHG failed to satisfy three of the seven

744criteria that must be met in order for the DRC to grant a

757deviation. Those dispute d criteria are found in paragraphs

766(iii) - (v) of Section 23.3 of the City's Code of Ordinances

778(Code) and provide as follows:

783(iii) The deviation requested is the

789minimum deviation that will make possible

795the reasonable use of the land, building,

802or struct ure; and

806(iv) The strict application of the

812requirements of this chapter will

817constitute a substantial hardship to the

823applicant, which hardship is not self -

830created or imposed; and

834(v) There are exceptional topographic,

839soil, or other environmental condi tions

845unique to the property;

849The parties agree that all other criteria for the site plan

860and deviation have been satisfied by AHG. In addition, a

870related request by AHG for a technical amendment to the

880boundaries of the parcel will be granted by the DRC , assuming

891that AHG obtains a favorable ruling in this case.

900b. History of the Property

9054. The property which is the subject of this case is

916identified as lot of record 454 and fronts on the west side of

929Lonnbladh Road, lies south of Raymond Diehl Road a nd several

940hundred feet east of Thomasville Road, and is just southeast

950of the major intersection of Interstate 10 and Thomasville

959Road in Tallahassee. The zoning for the property is

968Commercial Parkway (CP), a mixed - use zoning district which

978applies to ar eas exhibiting an existing development pattern of

988office, general commercial, community facilities, and

994intensive automotive commercial development abutting urban

1000area arterial roadways with high traffic volumes. Among the

1009numerous permitted uses in that land use category are hotels

1019and motels.

10215. The property is part of a 7.1 - acre site originally

1033owned by Kingswood Land Partners, Ltd. (Kingswood). In

1041January 1990, Kingswood obtained from the City a minor

1050subdivision approval, dividing the 7.1 acres in to three lots

1060of record, including lot of record 454. The three lots

1070consisted of a 2.44 - acre lot running along most of the western

1083portion of the property with the exception of a small area on

1095the southern end, a 1.68 - acre lot on the northeast portion of

1108the property, and a 2.98 - acre lot on the southeast portion of

1121the property (lot of record 454).

11276. In November 1990, Kingswood received from the City a

1137verification of vested status (vested rights certificate) for

1145the 7.1 - acre site. The vested rights c ertificate provided

1156that the 7.1 - acre site was exempt from the consistency and

1168concurrency provisions of the Tallahassee - Leon County

1176Comprehensive Plan (Plan) and was vested for an 89,887 gross

1187square foot commercial non - medical office building and a 135 -

1199unit hotel/motel.

12017. In 1991, Kingswood utilized the vesting for a 135 -

1212unit, five - story hotel and constructed what is now known as

1224the Cabot Lodge on the 2.44 - acre lot. It also constructed on

1237part of the southeastern 2.98 - acre lot a paved area with

1249park ing places.

12528. In 1992, Kingswood conveyed to Twin Action Hotels,

1261Inc. (Twin Action) the 2.44 - acre lot which included the Cabot

1273Lodge Hotel, but not the paved parking area on the 2.98 - acre

1286lot. The same year, Kingswood also conveyed to New Horizons

1296Unl imited, Ltd. (New Horizons) the remaining two lots, which

1306two lots were vested for a commercial non - medical office six -

1319story building of 89,887 gross square feet.

13279. At the time of the conveyances of the New Horizons

1338property and the Cabot Lodge propert y to New Horizons and Twin

1350Action, respectively, these parties entered into a Grants of

1359Reciprocal Easements dated June 23, 1992, recorded in Official

1368Records Book 1570, at page 1072 of the Public Records of Leon

1380County, Florida.

138210. Around 1994, the Flor ida Department of

1390Transportation acquired .333 acres of the northernmost lot

1398owned by New Horizons for a project which included realigning

1408and four - laning Raymond Diehl Road and relocating the

1418eastbound entrance ramp to Interstate 10, immediately in front

1427of the Cabot Lodge lot. This acquisition reduced the New

1437Horizons 1.68 - acre lot to 1.347 acres.

144511. On October 14, 1998, the City approved a vested

1455rights transfer request submitted by New Horizons, which

1463provided that the New Horizons property could b e used for a

1475107 - room, four - story business hotel and 59,162 gross square

1488feet of commercial non - medical offices, instead of the vested

149989,887 gross square feet of commercial non - medical offices.

151012. Since the acquisition by New Horizons of the two

1520remaini ng lots, that property has remained vacant and

1529unimproved with the exception of the westernmost portion

1537immediately south of the Cabot Lodge building, on which is

1547located pavement and parking spaces. The parking spaces are

1556not legally available to Cabot L odge for use.

156513. The property located immediately west of the Cabot

1574Lodge 2.44 - acre lot is property which is referred to as the

1587Thomasville Road Executive Park (Executive Park) property. On

1595an undisclosed date, this property was divided into three

1604separ ate lots by a minor subdivision approval consisting of

1614Parcel A on which was constructed the Unisys Building and

1624parking spaces, Parcel B which is now improved with a Hilton

1635Garden Inn owed by Petitioner, and Parcel C which remains

1645undeveloped.

164614. In 199 6, Petitioner filed its site plan application

1656to develop Parcel B. Included in the site plan application

1666was a request for a technical amendment to adjust the boundary

1677lines between Parcels A and B of the Executive Park property.

1688Like AHG has done here, Petitioner also requested a deviation

1698to the then height limitation of 45 feet, requesting that the

1709City allow it to build the building 50 feet high, rather than

1721the required 45 feet. Although the property on which the

1731Hilton Garden Inn is now located was vested for a three - story

1744commercial office building, subject to CP zoning, the City

1753agreed that the vesting could also be used for a hotel use

1765consisting of four stories rather than three stories.

177315. The City granted Petitioner's request to allow it to

1783build a four - story hotel on Parcel B. It also granted

1795Petitioner a height deviation so that the midpoint or peak of

1806the roof would be not higher than 50 feet. However, the top

1818of the roof is 59 feet, 6 inches. The facility has 99 rooms.

183116. No objecti on was made by Cabot Lodge, Unisys, or New

1843Horizons to Petitioner's application for approval of its site

1852plan, the technical amendment adjustment to boundary parcels,

1860the use of the property for a four - story hotel instead of a

1874three - story office building, or the granting of a height

1885deviation.

188617. In April 2002, AHG entered into a contract with New

1897Horizons for the purchase of 2.23 acres of the southeastern

1907property owned by New Horizons for approximately $1.5 million.

1916The 2.23 acres is part of the 2.98 - acre lot of record known as

1931lot 454.

1933c. The application

193618. On July 5, 2002, AHG filed with the DRC its site

1948plan application to construct a 122 - room, five - story hotel on

1961the 2.98 - acre lot. On the same day, it filed a Deviation from

1975Development Standard Request asking that it be allowed to

1984construct a five - story hotel on the parcel rather than being

1996limited to a four - story hotel, as required by the development

2008standards for the CP zoning district in which the property is

2019located.

202019. New Horizons has al so requested a technical

2029amendment to the boundaries of the 1.68 - acre lot and the 2.98 -

2043acre lot that would result in the 2.98 - acre lot on which the

2057hotel will be built being reduced to 2.23 acres. The DRC

2068intends to approve that request, assuming that AHG prevails in

2078this proceeding.

208020. AHG's site plan uses the largest footprint for

2089construction of the hotel building that is allowed under

2098current applicable Code restrictions relating to the amount of

2107impervious surface allowed to be constructed on a 2.23 - acre

2118lot, as well as the required amount of green space which must

2130be maintained.

213221. If current zoning rules and regulations are strictly

2141applied, AHG would be unable to have more than approximately

2151107 rooms in the hotel, utilizing the maximum foot print and

2162only four stories on the 2.23 acres. The only way to

2173accommodate the construction of 122 rooms is to obtain a

2183deviation from the current restriction of four floors and

2192allow a fifth floor to be built.

219922. The proposed height of construction of the five -

2209story hotel will be 53 feet, 10 inches, except for several

2220small areas of parapet walls which will be no higher than 58

2232feet, 4 inches.

223523. The subject site is relatively flat, with no

2244excessive slopes, and it has no remarkable features from an

2254environmental standpoint. It is unique in the sense that it

2264is flat, barren land. It does not have wetlands, pristine

2274water bodies, or other protected conditions. Also, it has no

2284endangered plant species requiring special protection, no

2291patriarch trees , no protected trees, and no native forests.

2300d. Should the Deviation be Approved ?

230624. A deviation under Section 23.3 is an amendment to a

"2317set requirement" in the Code, such as a setback or height

2328restriction. Between 60 and 75 percent of all applicat ions

2338filed with the DRC for a site plan approval are accompanied by

2350a request for a deviation from a development standard, which

2360are standards prescribed for each zoning district in the Code.

2370One such development standard for the CP District is a four -

2382sto ry height limitation on structures found in Section 10.6RR

2392of the Zoning Code.

239625. The DRC is a four - person committee comprised of

2407representatives from the City's Utility Department, Public

2414Works Department, Growth Management Department, and Planning

2421De partment; it is charged with the responsibility of deciding

2431whether to grant or deny a deviation request. For at least

2442the last six years, and probably much longer, the DRC has

2453consistently applied and interpreted the deviation standards

2460in Section 23.3 i n the same manner.

246826. Although Section 23.3 provides that "the granting of

2477deviations from the development standards in this chapter is

2486not favored," they are not discouraged since more than half of

2497all applicants cannot meet development standards due to site

2506characteristics or other factors. Rather, the intent of the

2515provision is to prevent wholesale deviations being submitted,

2523project after project. Requests for a deviation are always

2532approved, when justified, in order to give both the City and

2543the applicant more flexibility in the development process.

2551Here, AHG's application was treated the same as any other

2561applicant. This case represents the first occasion that an

2570approval of a deviation has been appealed.

257727. After an application for a deviati on is filed, it is

2589forwarded to all appropriate City departments as well as

2598members of the DRC. Each reviewing agency is requested to

2608provide information to the DRC members on whether or not the

2619request should be recommended for approval. In this case, n o

2630adverse comments or recommendations were made by any City

2639Department. After reviewing the Department comments, and the

2647justification submitted by AHG, the DRC approved the

2655deviation.

265628. Under Section 5.1 of the Code, the City's land use

2667administrato r, Mr. Pitts, has the specific responsibility to

2676interpret all zoning and development approval regulations,

2683including Section 23.3, which provides the criteria for

2691granting a deviation. That provision has an apparent

2699inconsistency between the first two se ntences: the first

2708sentence includes a phrase that all criteria set forth

2717thereafter must be met to approve a deviation while the second

2728sentence appears to provide that only the conditions necessary

2737to granting a particular deviation must be met.

274529. In resolving this apparent inconsistency, Mr. Pitts

2753does not construe the Section as requiring that all seven

2763criteria must be met in every case. Instead, even though all

2774criteria are reviewed by the DRC, only those that are

2784applicable must be satisfied. If this were not true, the DRC

"2795would grant very few deviations as part of [its] site plan or

2807subdivision regulation [process]," and the intent of the

2815Section would be undermined. For example, in order to justify

2825a deviation, the DRC does not require tha t an applicant show

2837that there are exceptional topographical soil features if, as

2846here, there are no exceptional environmental features on the

2855property. This interpretation has been consistently followed

2862over the years, is a reasonable and logical constr uction of

2873the language, and is hereby accepted.

287930. As a part of its application, AHG submitted a

2889narrative justifying the granting of a deviation under each of

2899the seven criteria. To satisfy the first disputed criterion,

2908AHG indicated in its application that "[t]his deviation is the

2918minimum allowed to make reasonable use of the property and to

2929compete with adjacent hotels who enjoy the same height

2938opportunity."

293931. AHG's use of the property is consistent with

2948adjoining developments, including the neig hboring Cabot Lodge,

2956which is five stories high and has 135 rooms, and the Hilton

2968Garden Inn, which was originally vested for an office

2977building, but was allowed by the DRC to construct a four - story

2990hotel.

299132. There is no other property available to AHG at this

3002site on which to construct a hotel. The evidence shows that

3013New Horizons initially offered to sell AHG only 2.05 acres;

3023when AHG advised that anything less than 2.23 acres would

3033render the project financially unfeasible, New Horizons "very

3041reluct antly" agreed to sell an additional .18 acres. Because

3051New Horizons intends to build a restaurant on its remaining

30612.097 acres, any further reduction in the acreage would reduce

3071its highest and best use of the property. Thus, AHG does not

3083have the option of purchasing more property to expand its

3093hotel laterally, as Petitioner suggests, rather than by adding

3102a fifth floor.

310533. In addition, AHG does not have the ability to reduce

3116the size of its hotel rooms in order to squeeze more rooms out

3129of a four - st ory structure. This is because Hampton Inn (the

3142franchisor) will not grant a franchise for a new hotel unless

3153the franchisee agrees to build a hotel with prototypical room

3163sizes. The present design of the hotel meets the minimum size

3174required.

317534. The re is no evidence that there is any other minimum

3187deviation that could be granted which would make possible the

3197use of the property for construction of 122 rooms under the

3208standards set forth by Hampton Inn, the franchisor. Thus, the

3218only practical adjust ment that can be made is to obtain a

3230height deviation. Accordingly, the criterion has been

3237satisfied.

323835. To satisfy the second disputed criterion, AHG stated

3247in its narrative that "[t]he strict application of this

3256requirement would place this property a nd proposed hotel at a

3267competitive disadvantage by a lower number of available

3275rooms."

327636. Through testimony of an AHG principal, it was

3285established that in order for AHG to make reasonable use of

3296its property, the addition of a fifth floor is necessary . The

3308evidence shows that as a general rule, a developer can only

3319afford to pay approximately $10,000.00 per room for land cost.

3330In this case, based on the 2.23 acres, at a purchase price of

3343$1,500,000.00 and a hotel with 122 rooms, the projected land

3355co st is $12,000.00 per room. This is the maximum that can be

3369paid for land and still make AHG's project economically

3378feasible. The strict application of the Zoning Code will make

3388the project financially unfeasible, which will create a

3396substantial hardship to AHG. The hardship is not self - created

3407or imposed.

340937. At hearing, Petitioner's representative contended

3415that "there are some companies who would find it financially

3425feasible" to construct a four - story hotel with fewer rooms on

3437the same site. Howeve r, the more persuasive evidence on this

3448issue was presented by the AHG principal and shows the

3458contrary to be true.

346238. The evidence further shows that the granting of the

3472deviation will result in an almost equal efficiency factor of

3482the total square fo otage of building versus the total square

3493footage of the site when comparing AHG's proposed project to

3503the neighboring Cabot Lodge. On the other hand, strict

3512application of the Zoning Code could result in a substantially

3522less and disproportionate efficien cy factor of AHG's property

3531as compared to the adjoining Cabot Lodge. This is because the

3542highest point of the proposed Hampton Inn and Suites is 58

3553feet, 6 inches, with the majority of the hotel being 51 feet

3565high. The adjoining five - story, 135 - room Cab ot Lodge has its

3579highest point at 55 feet, 6 inches, with the majority of the

3591building at 46 feet high. The Hilton Garden Inn has the

3602highest roof with its maximum height at 59 feet, 6 inches,

3613which runs across the entire peak of the roofline.

362240. To s atisfy the final disputed criterion, AHG

3631indicated in its application that "[t]he absence of any

3640environmental features on this property, or any adjacent

3648environmental features that might be impacted[,] help support

3657the deviation."

365942. As noted above, t he property in question is unique

3670in the sense that it is flat, treeless, and has no remarkable

3682environmental features. If a site is devoid of environmental

3691features, as it is here, the DRC has consistently interpreted

3701this provision as having no applicat ion in the deviation

3711process. This is the same interpretation used by the DRC when

3722it approved Petitioner's application for a height deviation in

37311996 to construct the Hilton Garden Inn. Like AHG's property,

3741Petitioner's property was also devoid of envir onmental

3749features. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.

375643. Even assuming arguendo that this provision applies,

3764the addition of a fifth story to a four - story building has no

3778impact whatsoever on the environmental characteristics of the

3786site.

378744. Finally, there is no evidence that the deviation

3796request is inconsistent with the Plan, or that the deviation

3806will have any adverse impact to the general health, safety,

3816and welfare of the public. Indeed, as to any Plan

3826implications that might arise throu gh the construction of a

3836hotel, the evidence shows that the project is wholly

3845consistent with the purpose and intent of the CP land use

3856category, which is to promote higher intensity and density in

3866CP - zoned land and to discourage urban sprawl.

3875CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

387845. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

3885jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto

3894pursuant to Article XXIV, Sections 24.1 et. seq. , Tallahassee

3903Code of Ordinances.

390646. Section 24.3.C. provides in part that a decision of

3916t he DRC

3919become[s] final fifteen (15) calendar days

3925after [it is] rendered unless a party files

3933a notice of intent to file a petition for

3942formal proceedings in accordance with the

3948bylaws and completes the application by

3954filing a petition for formal proceedi ngs

3961within thirty (30) calendar days after the

3968decision is rendered.

397147. Here, a Petition for Formal Proceedings was timely

3980filed by Petitioner. Once a standing determination is made,

3989as it was here, Section 24.3.C. provides that the Commission

3999shall "conduct [ de novo ] quasi - judicial proceedings in

4010accordance with section 24.6 below." Therefore, a decision on

4019whether the application should be approved should not be based

4029solely on the evidence considered by the DRC on September 11,

40402002, as Petitioner implicitly suggests, but rather it must be

4050based on all evidence presented at the de novo hearing.

406048. Among other things, Section 24.6.B. authorizes the

4068Commission to "contract with the Division of Administrative

4076Hearings for [administrative law judge s] to conduct hearings

4085on petitions for formal proceedings filed pursuant to

4093subsection 24.3.C. above." In this case, the Commission has

4102opted to refer the matter to the Division of Administrative

4112Hearings.

411349. While Section 24.6. fails to address the bu rden of

4124proof in a Commission site plan proceeding, Section 23.3 does

4134provide that the "applicant shall have the burden of

4143demonstrating through a preponderance of the evidence that all

4152conditions necessary to granting the deviation have been met."

4161This i s consistent with the general rule that the party

4172seeking the affirmative of the issue should logically bear the

4182burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it

4193is entitled to the requested relief. See , e.g. , Durward

4202Neighborhood Assoc., Inc. et al. v. City of Tallahassee et

4212al. , DOAH Case No. 98 - 4234 (City of Tall. - Leon Cty Plan.

4226Comm., October 5, 1999). Thus, AHG is required to present a

4237prima facie case of entitlement to a deviation, taking into

4247account the objections raised by Petitioner.

425350. Article XXIII of the Code (Sections 23.1, 23.2, and

426323.3) governs the process for obtaining a deviation to

4272development standards. Relevant to this controversy are the

4280following provisions of Section 23.3 of the Code:

4288The granting of deviations from the

4294development standards in this chapter is

4300not favored and such requests may only be

4308granted upon a showing that all criteria

4315set forth below have been met. The

4322applicant shall have the burden of

4328demonstrating through a preponderance of

4333the evidence tha t all conditions necessary

4340to granting the deviation have been met.

4347The entity with the authority to approve,

4354approve with conditions, or deny a

4360subdivision or site plan shall grant a

4367deviation under this section only upon

4373demonstration that:

4375* * *

4378(iii) The deviation requested is the

4384minimum deviation that will make possible

4390the reasonable use of the land, building,

4397or structure; and

4400(iv) The strict application of the

4406requirements of this chapter will

4411constitute a substantial hardship to the

4417ap plicant, which hardship is not self -

4425created or imposed, and

4429(v) There are exceptional topographic,

4434soil, or other environmental conditions

4439unique to the property;

4443* * *

444651. In addition, Section 23.1 provides in part that a

4456deviation "shall be g ranted only upon demonstration and a

4466finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and no

4475adverse impact to the general health, safety, and welfare of

4485the public."

448752. The preponderance of the evidence supports a

4495conclusion that AHG has satisfied all criteria for a

4504deviation, and that the deviation is consistent with the

4513Comprehensive Plan and will not adversely impact the general

4522health, safety, and welfare of the public. This being so,

4532AHG's applications for a Type B site plan and a height

4543devia tion should be approved.

4548RECOMMENDATION

4549Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

4558of Law, it is

4562RECOMMENDED that the Tallahassee - Leon County Planning

4570Commission enter a final order granting AHG's Type B site plan

4581review application and its application for a deviation from

4590the height restriction for the CP land use category.

4599DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2003, in

4609Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

4613___________________________________

4614DONALD R. ALEXANDER

4617Administrative Law Judge

4620Division of Administrative Hearings

4624The DeSoto Building

46271230 Apalachee Parkway

4630Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

4635(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

4643Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

4649www.doah.state.fl.us

4650Filed with the Clerk of the

4656Division of Administrative Hearings

4660this 22nd day of January, 2003.

4666COPIES FURNISHED:

4668Charles R. Gardner, Esquire

4672Gardner, Wadsworth, Shelfer,

4675Duggar & Bist, P.A.

46791300 Thomaswood Drive

4682Tallaha ssee, Florida 32308 - 7914

4688Linda R. Hurst, Esquire

4692City Hall, Second Floor

4696300 South Adams Street

4700Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1731

4705John Marshall Conrad, Esquire

4709Ausley & McMullen

4712Post Office Box 391

4716Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0391

4721Jean Gregory, Clerk

4724Tallahassee - Leon County Planning Commission

4730City Hall

4732300 South Adams Street

4736Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1731

4741NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

4747All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

475710 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any

4767exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the

4777agency that will issue the final order in this matter.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 10/21/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/14/2003
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 01/30/2003
Proceedings: Respondents` Notice of No Exceptions (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2003
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2003
Proceedings: Recommended Order issued (hearing held December 10, 2002) CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2003
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
PDF:
Date: 01/14/2003
Proceedings: (Proposed) Recommended Order filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2003
Proceedings: Joint Proposed Recommended Order by City of Tallahassee and AHG Hotels, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/02/2003
Proceedings: Order issued. (the parties agreed motion to set day certain for filing proposed recommended order is granted, and the parties shall have until January 13, 2003, in which to make their filings)
PDF:
Date: 12/30/2002
Proceedings: Motion to Set Day Certain For Filing Proposed Recommended Order filed by J. Conrad.
Date: 12/27/2002
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
Date: 12/10/2002
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames.
PDF:
Date: 12/06/2002
Proceedings: (Joint) Prehearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/22/2002
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
PDF:
Date: 11/22/2002
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing issued (hearing set for December 10, 2002; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2002
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from J. Conrad requesting rescheduling of hearing date filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2002
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for December 4, 2002; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 11/12/2002
Proceedings: Joint Response to Scheduling Order (filed by Respondent via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 11/04/2002
Proceedings: Order issued. (the parties shall confer and advise the undersigned within 7 days from the date of this order whether they wish to have the hearing conducted no later than December 10, 2002, of whether they will "stipulate in writing to later hearing date")
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2002
Proceedings: Motion for Entry of a Procedural Order filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2002
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by J. Conrad).
PDF:
Date: 10/24/2002
Proceedings: Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission Determination of Standing filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/24/2002
Proceedings: Petition for Formal Proceedings filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/24/2002
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
D. R. ALEXANDER
Date Filed:
10/24/2002
Date Assignment:
10/31/2002
Last Docket Entry:
10/21/2019
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels