02-004237
Capital City Hotels, Inc. vs.
City Of Tallahassee And Atg Hotels, Llc
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, January 22, 2003.
Recommended Order on Wednesday, January 22, 2003.
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
629determined to be either inapplicable or exempt from Zoning
638Code requirements because of vesting, and thus they are not at
649issue here.
6512. On October 10, 2002, Petitioner, Capital City Hotels,
660Inc. (Petitioner), which owns and operates a Hilton Garden Inn
670nea r the proposed construction, timely filed a Petition for
680Formal Proceedings to contest the approval of the deviation
689request. On October 15, 2002, a determination of standing as
699to Petitioner was issued by the Tallahassee - Leon County
709Planning Commission ( Commission), which will issue a final
718order in this matter.
7223. As stipulated by the parties at hearing, the only
732issue is whether AHG failed to satisfy three of the seven
743criteria that must be met in order for the DRC to grant a
756deviation. Those dispute d criteria are found in paragraphs
765(iii) - (v) of Section 23.3 of the City's Code of Ordinances
777(Code) and provide as follows:
782(iii) The deviation requested is the
788minimum deviation that will make possible
794the reasonable use of the land, building,
801or struct ure; and
805(iv) The strict application of the
811requirements of this chapter will
816constitute a substantial hardship to the
822applicant, which hardship is not self -
829created or imposed; and
833(v) There are exceptional topographic,
838soil, or other environmental condi tions
844unique to the property;
848The parties agree that all other criteria for the site plan
859and deviation have been satisfied by AHG. In addition, a
869related request by AHG for a technical amendment to the
879boundaries of the parcel will be granted by the DRC , assuming
890that AHG obtains a favorable ruling in this case.
899b. History of the Property
9044. The property which is the subject of this case is
915identified as lot of record 454 and fronts on the west side of
928Lonnbladh Road, lies south of Raymond Diehl Road a nd several
939hundred feet east of Thomasville Road, and is just southeast
949of the major intersection of Interstate 10 and Thomasville
958Road in Tallahassee. The zoning for the property is
967Commercial Parkway (CP), a mixed - use zoning district which
977applies to ar eas exhibiting an existing development pattern of
987office, general commercial, community facilities, and
993intensive automotive commercial development abutting urban
999area arterial roadways with high traffic volumes. Among the
1008numerous permitted uses in that land use category are hotels
1018and motels.
10205. The property is part of a 7.1 - acre site originally
1032owned by Kingswood Land Partners, Ltd. (Kingswood). In
1040January 1990, Kingswood obtained from the City a minor
1049subdivision approval, dividing the 7.1 acres in to three lots
1059of record, including lot of record 454. The three lots
1069consisted of a 2.44 - acre lot running along most of the western
1082portion of the property with the exception of a small area on
1094the southern end, a 1.68 - acre lot on the northeast portion of
1107the property, and a 2.98 - acre lot on the southeast portion of
1120the property (lot of record 454).
11266. In November 1990, Kingswood received from the City a
1136verification of vested status (vested rights certificate) for
1144the 7.1 - acre site. The vested rights c ertificate provided
1155that the 7.1 - acre site was exempt from the consistency and
1167concurrency provisions of the Tallahassee - Leon County
1175Comprehensive Plan (Plan) and was vested for an 89,887 gross
1186square foot commercial non - medical office building and a 135 -
1198unit hotel/motel.
12007. In 1991, Kingswood utilized the vesting for a 135 -
1211unit, five - story hotel and constructed what is now known as
1223the Cabot Lodge on the 2.44 - acre lot. It also constructed on
1236part of the southeastern 2.98 - acre lot a paved area with
1248park ing places.
12518. In 1992, Kingswood conveyed to Twin Action Hotels,
1260Inc. (Twin Action) the 2.44 - acre lot which included the Cabot
1272Lodge Hotel, but not the paved parking area on the 2.98 - acre
1285lot. The same year, Kingswood also conveyed to New Horizons
1295Unl imited, Ltd. (New Horizons) the remaining two lots, which
1305two lots were vested for a commercial non - medical office six -
1318story building of 89,887 gross square feet.
13269. At the time of the conveyances of the New Horizons
1337property and the Cabot Lodge propert y to New Horizons and Twin
1349Action, respectively, these parties entered into a Grants of
1358Reciprocal Easements dated June 23, 1992, recorded in Official
1367Records Book 1570, at page 1072 of the Public Records of Leon
1379County, Florida.
138110. Around 1994, the Flor ida Department of
1389Transportation acquired .333 acres of the northernmost lot
1397owned by New Horizons for a project which included realigning
1407and four - laning Raymond Diehl Road and relocating the
1417eastbound entrance ramp to Interstate 10, immediately in front
1426of the Cabot Lodge lot. This acquisition reduced the New
1436Horizons 1.68 - acre lot to 1.347 acres.
144411. On October 14, 1998, the City approved a vested
1454rights transfer request submitted by New Horizons, which
1462provided that the New Horizons property could b e used for a
1474107 - room, four - story business hotel and 59,162 gross square
1487feet of commercial non - medical offices, instead of the vested
149889,887 gross square feet of commercial non - medical offices.
150912. Since the acquisition by New Horizons of the two
1519remaini ng lots, that property has remained vacant and
1528unimproved with the exception of the westernmost portion
1536immediately south of the Cabot Lodge building, on which is
1546located pavement and parking spaces. The parking spaces are
1555not legally available to Cabot L odge for use.
156413. The property located immediately west of the Cabot
1573Lodge 2.44 - acre lot is property which is referred to as the
1586Thomasville Road Executive Park (Executive Park) property. On
1594an undisclosed date, this property was divided into three
1603separ ate lots by a minor subdivision approval consisting of
1613Parcel A on which was constructed the Unisys Building and
1623parking spaces, Parcel B which is now improved with a Hilton
1634Garden Inn owed by Petitioner, and Parcel C which remains
1644undeveloped.
164514. In 199 6, Petitioner filed its site plan application
1655to develop Parcel B. Included in the site plan application
1665was a request for a technical amendment to adjust the boundary
1676lines between Parcels A and B of the Executive Park property.
1687Like AHG has done here, Petitioner also requested a deviation
1697to the then height limitation of 45 feet, requesting that the
1708City allow it to build the building 50 feet high, rather than
1720the required 45 feet. Although the property on which the
1730Hilton Garden Inn is now located was vested for a three - story
1743commercial office building, subject to CP zoning, the City
1752agreed that the vesting could also be used for a hotel use
1764consisting of four stories rather than three stories.
177215. The City granted Petitioner's request to allow it to
1782build a four - story hotel on Parcel B. It also granted
1794Petitioner a height deviation so that the midpoint or peak of
1805the roof would be not higher than 50 feet. However, the top
1817of the roof is 59 feet, 6 inches. The facility has 99 rooms.
183016. No objecti on was made by Cabot Lodge, Unisys, or New
1842Horizons to Petitioner's application for approval of its site
1851plan, the technical amendment adjustment to boundary parcels,
1859the use of the property for a four - story hotel instead of a
1873three - story office building, or the granting of a height
1884deviation.
188517. In April 2002, AHG entered into a contract with New
1896Horizons for the purchase of 2.23 acres of the southeastern
1906property owned by New Horizons for approximately $1.5 million.
1915The 2.23 acres is part of the 2.98 - acre lot of record known as
1930lot 454.
1932c. The application
193518. On July 5, 2002, AHG filed with the DRC its site
1947plan application to construct a 122 - room, five - story hotel on
1960the 2.98 - acre lot. On the same day, it filed a Deviation from
1974Development Standard Request asking that it be allowed to
1983construct a five - story hotel on the parcel rather than being
1995limited to a four - story hotel, as required by the development
2007standards for the CP zoning district in which the property is
2018located.
201919. New Horizons has al so requested a technical
2028amendment to the boundaries of the 1.68 - acre lot and the 2.98 -
2042acre lot that would result in the 2.98 - acre lot on which the
2056hotel will be built being reduced to 2.23 acres. The DRC
2067intends to approve that request, assuming that AHG prevails in
2077this proceeding.
207920. AHG's site plan uses the largest footprint for
2088construction of the hotel building that is allowed under
2097current applicable Code restrictions relating to the amount of
2106impervious surface allowed to be constructed on a 2.23 - acre
2117lot, as well as the required amount of green space which must
2129be maintained.
213121. If current zoning rules and regulations are strictly
2140applied, AHG would be unable to have more than approximately
2150107 rooms in the hotel, utilizing the maximum foot print and
2161only four stories on the 2.23 acres. The only way to
2172accommodate the construction of 122 rooms is to obtain a
2182deviation from the current restriction of four floors and
2191allow a fifth floor to be built.
219822. The proposed height of construction of the five -
2208story hotel will be 53 feet, 10 inches, except for several
2219small areas of parapet walls which will be no higher than 58
2231feet, 4 inches.
223423. The subject site is relatively flat, with no
2243excessive slopes, and it has no remarkable features from an
2253environmental standpoint. It is unique in the sense that it
2263is flat, barren land. It does not have wetlands, pristine
2273water bodies, or other protected conditions. Also, it has no
2283endangered plant species requiring special protection, no
2290patriarch trees , no protected trees, and no native forests.
2299d. Should the Deviation be Approved ?
230524. A deviation under Section 23.3 is an amendment to a
"2316set requirement" in the Code, such as a setback or height
2327restriction. Between 60 and 75 percent of all applicat ions
2337filed with the DRC for a site plan approval are accompanied by
2349a request for a deviation from a development standard, which
2359are standards prescribed for each zoning district in the Code.
2369One such development standard for the CP District is a four -
2381sto ry height limitation on structures found in Section 10.6RR
2391of the Zoning Code.
239525. The DRC is a four - person committee comprised of
2406representatives from the City's Utility Department, Public
2413Works Department, Growth Management Department, and Planning
2420De partment; it is charged with the responsibility of deciding
2430whether to grant or deny a deviation request. For at least
2441the last six years, and probably much longer, the DRC has
2452consistently applied and interpreted the deviation standards
2459in Section 23.3 i n the same manner.
246726. Although Section 23.3 provides that "the granting of
2476deviations from the development standards in this chapter is
2485not favored," they are not discouraged since more than half of
2496all applicants cannot meet development standards due to site
2505characteristics or other factors. Rather, the intent of the
2514provision is to prevent wholesale deviations being submitted,
2522project after project. Requests for a deviation are always
2531approved, when justified, in order to give both the City and
2542the applicant more flexibility in the development process.
2550Here, AHG's application was treated the same as any other
2560applicant. This case represents the first occasion that an
2569approval of a deviation has been appealed.
257627. After an application for a deviati on is filed, it is
2588forwarded to all appropriate City departments as well as
2597members of the DRC. Each reviewing agency is requested to
2607provide information to the DRC members on whether or not the
2618request should be recommended for approval. In this case, n o
2629adverse comments or recommendations were made by any City
2638Department. After reviewing the Department comments, and the
2646justification submitted by AHG, the DRC approved the
2654deviation.
265528. Under Section 5.1 of the Code, the City's land use
2666administrato r, Mr. Pitts, has the specific responsibility to
2675interpret all zoning and development approval regulations,
2682including Section 23.3, which provides the criteria for
2690granting a deviation. That provision has an apparent
2698inconsistency between the first two se ntences: the first
2707sentence includes a phrase that all criteria set forth
2716thereafter must be met to approve a deviation while the second
2727sentence appears to provide that only the conditions necessary
2736to granting a particular deviation must be met.
274429. In resolving this apparent inconsistency, Mr. Pitts
2752does not construe the Section as requiring that all seven
2762criteria must be met in every case. Instead, even though all
2773criteria are reviewed by the DRC, only those that are
2783applicable must be satisfied. If this were not true, the DRC
"2794would grant very few deviations as part of [its] site plan or
2806subdivision regulation [process]," and the intent of the
2814Section would be undermined. For example, in order to justify
2824a deviation, the DRC does not require tha t an applicant show
2836that there are exceptional topographical soil features if, as
2845here, there are no exceptional environmental features on the
2854property. This interpretation has been consistently followed
2861over the years, is a reasonable and logical constr uction of
2872the language, and is hereby accepted.
287830. As a part of its application, AHG submitted a
2888narrative justifying the granting of a deviation under each of
2898the seven criteria. To satisfy the first disputed criterion,
2907AHG indicated in its application that "[t]his deviation is the
2917minimum allowed to make reasonable use of the property and to
2928compete with adjacent hotels who enjoy the same height
2937opportunity."
293831. AHG's use of the property is consistent with
2947adjoining developments, including the neig hboring Cabot Lodge,
2955which is five stories high and has 135 rooms, and the Hilton
2967Garden Inn, which was originally vested for an office
2976building, but was allowed by the DRC to construct a four - story
2989hotel.
299032. There is no other property available to AHG at this
3001site on which to construct a hotel. The evidence shows that
3012New Horizons initially offered to sell AHG only 2.05 acres;
3022when AHG advised that anything less than 2.23 acres would
3032render the project financially unfeasible, New Horizons "very
3040reluct antly" agreed to sell an additional .18 acres. Because
3050New Horizons intends to build a restaurant on its remaining
30602.097 acres, any further reduction in the acreage would reduce
3070its highest and best use of the property. Thus, AHG does not
3082have the option of purchasing more property to expand its
3092hotel laterally, as Petitioner suggests, rather than by adding
3101a fifth floor.
310433. In addition, AHG does not have the ability to reduce
3115the size of its hotel rooms in order to squeeze more rooms out
3128of a four - st ory structure. This is because Hampton Inn (the
3141franchisor) will not grant a franchise for a new hotel unless
3152the franchisee agrees to build a hotel with prototypical room
3162sizes. The present design of the hotel meets the minimum size
3173required.
317434. The re is no evidence that there is any other minimum
3186deviation that could be granted which would make possible the
3196use of the property for construction of 122 rooms under the
3207standards set forth by Hampton Inn, the franchisor. Thus, the
3217only practical adjust ment that can be made is to obtain a
3229height deviation. Accordingly, the criterion has been
3236satisfied.
323735. To satisfy the second disputed criterion, AHG stated
3246in its narrative that "[t]he strict application of this
3255requirement would place this property a nd proposed hotel at a
3266competitive disadvantage by a lower number of available
3274rooms."
327536. Through testimony of an AHG principal, it was
3284established that in order for AHG to make reasonable use of
3295its property, the addition of a fifth floor is necessary . The
3307evidence shows that as a general rule, a developer can only
3318afford to pay approximately $10,000.00 per room for land cost.
3329In this case, based on the 2.23 acres, at a purchase price of
3342$1,500,000.00 and a hotel with 122 rooms, the projected land
3354co st is $12,000.00 per room. This is the maximum that can be
3368paid for land and still make AHG's project economically
3377feasible. The strict application of the Zoning Code will make
3387the project financially unfeasible, which will create a
3395substantial hardship to AHG. The hardship is not self - created
3406or imposed.
340837. At hearing, Petitioner's representative contended
3414that "there are some companies who would find it financially
3424feasible" to construct a four - story hotel with fewer rooms on
3436the same site. Howeve r, the more persuasive evidence on this
3447issue was presented by the AHG principal and shows the
3457contrary to be true.
346138. The evidence further shows that the granting of the
3471deviation will result in an almost equal efficiency factor of
3481the total square fo otage of building versus the total square
3492footage of the site when comparing AHG's proposed project to
3502the neighboring Cabot Lodge. On the other hand, strict
3511application of the Zoning Code could result in a substantially
3521less and disproportionate efficien cy factor of AHG's property
3530as compared to the adjoining Cabot Lodge. This is because the
3541highest point of the proposed Hampton Inn and Suites is 58
3552feet, 6 inches, with the majority of the hotel being 51 feet
3564high. The adjoining five - story, 135 - room Cab ot Lodge has its
3578highest point at 55 feet, 6 inches, with the majority of the
3590building at 46 feet high. The Hilton Garden Inn has the
3601highest roof with its maximum height at 59 feet, 6 inches,
3612which runs across the entire peak of the roofline.
362140. To s atisfy the final disputed criterion, AHG
3630indicated in its application that "[t]he absence of any
3639environmental features on this property, or any adjacent
3647environmental features that might be impacted[,] help support
3656the deviation."
365842. As noted above, t he property in question is unique
3669in the sense that it is flat, treeless, and has no remarkable
3681environmental features. If a site is devoid of environmental
3690features, as it is here, the DRC has consistently interpreted
3700this provision as having no applicat ion in the deviation
3710process. This is the same interpretation used by the DRC when
3721it approved Petitioner's application for a height deviation in
37301996 to construct the Hilton Garden Inn. Like AHG's property,
3740Petitioner's property was also devoid of envir onmental
3748features. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
375543. Even assuming arguendo that this provision applies,
3763the addition of a fifth story to a four - story building has no
3777impact whatsoever on the environmental characteristics of the
3785site.
378644. Finally, there is no evidence that the deviation
3795request is inconsistent with the Plan, or that the deviation
3805will have any adverse impact to the general health, safety,
3815and welfare of the public. Indeed, as to any Plan
3825implications that might arise throu gh the construction of a
3835hotel, the evidence shows that the project is wholly
3844consistent with the purpose and intent of the CP land use
3855category, which is to promote higher intensity and density in
3865CP - zoned land and to discourage urban sprawl.
3874CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
387745. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
3884jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto
3893pursuant to Article XXIV, Sections 24.1 et. seq. , Tallahassee
3902Code of Ordinances.
390546. Section 24.3.C. provides in part that a decision of
3915t he DRC
3918become[s] final fifteen (15) calendar days
3924after [it is] rendered unless a party files
3932a notice of intent to file a petition for
3941formal proceedings in accordance with the
3947bylaws and completes the application by
3953filing a petition for formal proceedi ngs
3960within thirty (30) calendar days after the
3967decision is rendered.
397047. Here, a Petition for Formal Proceedings was timely
3979filed by Petitioner. Once a standing determination is made,
3988as it was here, Section 24.3.C. provides that the Commission
3998shall "conduct [ de novo ] quasi - judicial proceedings in
4009accordance with section 24.6 below." Therefore, a decision on
4018whether the application should be approved should not be based
4028solely on the evidence considered by the DRC on September 11,
40392002, as Petitioner implicitly suggests, but rather it must be
4049based on all evidence presented at the de novo hearing.
405948. Among other things, Section 24.6.B. authorizes the
4067Commission to "contract with the Division of Administrative
4075Hearings for [administrative law judge s] to conduct hearings
4084on petitions for formal proceedings filed pursuant to
4092subsection 24.3.C. above." In this case, the Commission has
4101opted to refer the matter to the Division of Administrative
4111Hearings.
411249. While Section 24.6. fails to address the bu rden of
4123proof in a Commission site plan proceeding, Section 23.3 does
4133provide that the "applicant shall have the burden of
4142demonstrating through a preponderance of the evidence that all
4151conditions necessary to granting the deviation have been met."
4160This i s consistent with the general rule that the party
4171seeking the affirmative of the issue should logically bear the
4181burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it
4192is entitled to the requested relief. See , e.g. , Durward
4201Neighborhood Assoc., Inc. et al. v. City of Tallahassee et
4211al. , DOAH Case No. 98 - 4234 (City of Tall. - Leon Cty Plan.
4225Comm., October 5, 1999). Thus, AHG is required to present a
4236prima facie case of entitlement to a deviation, taking into
4246account the objections raised by Petitioner.
425250. Article XXIII of the Code (Sections 23.1, 23.2, and
426223.3) governs the process for obtaining a deviation to
4271development standards. Relevant to this controversy are the
4279following provisions of Section 23.3 of the Code:
4287The granting of deviations from the
4293development standards in this chapter is
4299not favored and such requests may only be
4307granted upon a showing that all criteria
4314set forth below have been met. The
4321applicant shall have the burden of
4327demonstrating through a preponderance of
4332the evidence tha t all conditions necessary
4339to granting the deviation have been met.
4346The entity with the authority to approve,
4353approve with conditions, or deny a
4359subdivision or site plan shall grant a
4366deviation under this section only upon
4372demonstration that:
4374* * *
4377(iii) The deviation requested is the
4383minimum deviation that will make possible
4389the reasonable use of the land, building,
4396or structure; and
4399(iv) The strict application of the
4405requirements of this chapter will
4410constitute a substantial hardship to the
4416ap plicant, which hardship is not self -
4424created or imposed, and
4428(v) There are exceptional topographic,
4433soil, or other environmental conditions
4438unique to the property;
4442* * *
444551. In addition, Section 23.1 provides in part that a
4455deviation "shall be g ranted only upon demonstration and a
4465finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and no
4474adverse impact to the general health, safety, and welfare of
4484the public."
448652. The preponderance of the evidence supports a
4494conclusion that AHG has satisfied all criteria for a
4503deviation, and that the deviation is consistent with the
4512Comprehensive Plan and will not adversely impact the general
4521health, safety, and welfare of the public. This being so,
4531AHG's applications for a Type B site plan and a height
4542deviation should be approved.
4546RECOMMENDATION
4547Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
4556of Law, it is
4560RECOMMENDED that the Tallahassee - Leon County Planning
4568Commission enter a final order granting AHG's Type B site plan
4579review application and its application for a deviation from
4588the height restriction for the CP land use category.
4597DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2003, in
4607Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
4611___________________________________
4612DONALD R. ALEXANDER
4615Administrative Law Judge
4618Division of Administrative Hearings
4622The DeSoto Building
46251230 Apalachee Parkway
4628Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
4633(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675
4641Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
4647www.doah.state.fl.us
4648Filed with the Clerk of the
4654Division of Administrative Hearings
4658this 22nd day of January, 2003.
4664COPIES FURNISHED:
4666Charles R. Gardner, Esquire
4670Gardner, Wadsworth, Shelfer,
4673Duggar & Bist, P.A.
46771300 Thomaswood Drive
4680Tallaha ssee, Florida 32308 - 7914
4686Linda R. Hurst, Esquire
4690City Hall, Second Floor
4694300 South Adams Street
4698Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1731
4703John Marshall Conrad, Esquire
4707Ausley & McMullen
4710Post Office Box 391
4714Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0391
4719Jean Gregory, Clerk
4722Tallahassee - Leon County Planning Commission
4728City Hall
4730300 South Adams Street
4734Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1731
4739NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
4745All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
475510 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any
4765exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the
4775agency that will issue the final order in this matter.

- Date
- Proceedings
-
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: 01/13/2003
- 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: 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: 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")
Case Information
- Judge:
- D. R. ALEXANDER
- Date Filed:
- 10/24/2002
- Date Assignment:
- 10/31/2002
- Last Docket Entry:
- 01/30/2003
- Location:
- Tallahassee, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- Contract Hearings
Counsels
-
James Marshall Conrad, Esquire
Address of Record -
Charles R. Gardner, Esquire
Address of Record -
Linda R. Hudson, Esquire
Address of Record