21-002835 Kali Blount, Nkwanda Jah, And Carrie Johnson vs. Tramell Webb Partners, Inc., And City Of Gainesville Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Friday, January 14, 2022.

Summary: The City of Gainesville's administrative approval of the application for the Seminary Lane Building B2 development plan (DB-21-00067) submitted by Trammell Webb Partners, LLC, was affirmed with modifications.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

K ALI B LOUNT , N KWANDA J AH , A ND

C ARRIE J OHNSON ,

Appellants , Case No. 21 - 2835

vs.

T RAMELL W EBB P ARTNERS , I NC ., A ND

C ITY OF G AINESVILLE ,

Appellees .

/

F INAL O RDER

Appellants Kali Blount, NKwanda Jah, and Carrie Johnson (Appellants),

appeal a development plan application for Seminary Lane Building B2 filed

by Appellee Tramell Webb Partners, Inc. (TWP), and administratively

approved by Appellee City of Gainesville (City) on August 12, 2021. Pursuant

to section 30 - 3.57 of the CityÔs Land Development Code (2020) , and a contract

with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) , Administrative Law

Judge Hetal Desai conducted a hearing on October 25 and December 3, 2021,

to accept and supplement the Record on Appeal . 1 The hearing was conducted

via Zoom and open to the public.

A PPEARANCES

For Appellants : Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire

Ralf Brookes Attorney

1217 East Cape Co ral Parkway , Suite #107

Cape Coral, Florida 33904

1 All references to ÑsectionsÒ are to the 2020 version of the CityÔs Land Development Code

(LDC) in effect at the time of the original application for the Building B2 development

submitted as part of the Seminary Lane Decision.

For Appellee City of Gainesville :

Sean M. McDermott, Esquire

City of Gainesville

Office of the City Attorney

200 East University Avenue, Suite 425

Gainesville, Florida 32601

For Appellee Tramell Webb Partners, Inc.

David A. Theriaque, Esquire

S. Brent Spain, Esquire

Theriaque and Spain

433 North Magnolia Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - 5083

I SSUES O N A PPEAL 2

The ultimate issue is whether to affirm, reverse, or modify t he City Ô s

administrative approval of DB - 21 - 0 0 067 Major Development Plan - EZ -

Seminary Lane Building B2 on August 12, 2021 (Development Decision) , as

part of a master planned residential development known as ÑSeminary Lane

Development . Ò Specifically, t he issu es to be determined in this appeal are as

follows:

(1) W hether the Development Decision meets the

LDCÔs requir ement that a multi - family building

within 100 feet of a designated historic district

contain no more than six dwelling units.

(2) Whether the De velopment Decision satisfies the

LDCÔs frontage requirements.

(3) Whether the Development Decision satisfies the

LDCÔs building placement requirements.

(4) Whether the Development Decision satisfies the

LDCÔs entrance requirements.

2 The part ies stipulated to AppellantsÔ standing to bring this appeal.

(5) Whether the Devel opment Decision satisfies the

LDCÔs configuration requirements.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT (P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY )

On March 27, 2020, the City administratively approved TWP Ô s

Ñ Preliminary/Final Development Plans for Phase A: Seminary Lane

Development Ò (Seminary L ane Decision). That decision was appealed o n

April 24, 2020, by various individuals including the Appellants in this appeal.

The City referred the appeal of the Seminary Lane Decision to DOAH. A

Final Order in that case was issued on December 29, 2021. Se e Blount , et. al.

v. Tramell Webb Partners, Inc., and City of Gainesville, C ase No. 20 - 2135

( Fla. DOAH December 29, 2021) (Seminary Lane Final Order). 3

The Seminary Lane Final Order upheld the CityÔs Seminary Lane

Decision with the following exception and instruction relevant to the current

proceedings:

C. The approval for Building B2 is reversed without

prejudice. Tramell Webb Partners, Inc., may

submit amended plans for Building B2 to the City

of Gainesville for review for compliance with the

Gainesville Land Development Code,

Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable

regulations.

Id. at 40.

TWP amended its plans for the Building B2 development and submitted

them to the City in a separate application , Petition DB 21 - 00067 , on April 1,

2021. The City admi nistratively approved Petition DB 21 - 00067 in the

Development Decision on August 12, 2021. On September 10, 2021,

Appellants filed a notice of appeal of the Development Decision with the City.

3 The Seminary Lane Final Order can be found in the Record on Appeal, p .p . 1527 - 1568.

The City forwarded the appeal to DOAH pursuant to section 30 - 3.57 of the

LDC. The matter was originally assigned to Administrative Law Judge

E. Gary Early, who held a scheduling conference on September 21, 2021.

Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the undersigned who set the

matter for hearing and issued an Order of Pre - hearing Instructions.

On September 28 and 29, 2021, the City electronically filed the Record on

Appeal with DOAH in 16 parts. The portions most relevant to the

Development Decision can be found in Part 16, pages 1569 through 1647.

Additiona lly, TWPÔs expert utilized a drawing during the final hearing on

December 3, 2021, which was made part of the Record on Appeal and is

included in this O rder as Graphic 4 .

On October 13, 2021, Appellants filed their Initial Brief. Appellees jointly

filed an Answer Brief on October 20, 2021. All parties filed Motions to

Supplement the Record, which were granted. 4 The affidavits of

Andrew Persons, Brittany McMullen, Kali Blount, NKwanda Jah, Carrie

Johnson, Thomas Hawkins, Kim Tanzer, John ÑChipÒ Webb, and G erry

Dedenbach were made part of the Record on Appeal.

The final hearing to supplement the Record on Appeal was held on

October 25 and December 3, 2021, during which the parties were allowed to

present witness testimony to supplement the Record on Appeal . Appellants

presented the testimony of Kim Tanzer (expert witness Ð architecture and

land use planning); and William Hawkins (expert witness Ð land use

planning). The City presented the testimony of Andrew Persons (City's

Director of the Department of Sustain able Development). TWP presented the

4 Appellant s objected to the CityÔs Motion to Supplement the Record as being untimely. This

objection was o verruled because the City had just cause and Appellants could not show how

they were prejudiced by the delay.

testimony of John ÑChipÒ Webb (TWP President); and Gerry Dedenbach

(expert witness - land use planning).

The Transcript of the final hearing was electronically filed and available

to the undersigned on December 10, 2021 . Appellants filed a Motion for

Extension of Time for Proposed Final Orders (PFOs), which was granted. The

parties timely filed their PFOs which have been duly considered. To the

extent necessary, the undersigned also takes official recognition of the

Semi nary Lane Final Order, and the Record on Appeal in DOAH Case No.

20 - 2135.

S TANDARD O F R EVIEW

Pursuant to section 30 - 3.57.D., the standard of review for this appeal is as

follows:

Appeal criteria . T he Hearing Officer shall give

deference to the administrat ive official Ô s final

decision, order, requirement, interpretation ,

determination, or action, and may only reverse or

modify such when the Hearing Officer finds that

the administrative official Ô s final decision, order,

requirement, interpretation, determina tion, or

action:

1. Was clearly erroneous or patently unreasonable

and will result in a miscarriage of justice;

2. Has no foundation in reason, meaning the

absence of a situation where reasonable minds

could disagree, and is a mere arbitrary or irrationa l

exercise of power having no substantial relation to

the public health, morals, safety, or welfare; or

3. Was an ultra vires act, meaning the

administrative official clearly lacked the authority

to take the action under statute or the City of

Gainesville Charter Laws or Code of Ordinances.

G ENERAL F INDINGS O F F ACT B ASED O N T HE R ECORD

T HE P ARTIES AND D EVELOPMENT

1 . The Seminary Lane Development consists of multiple parcels totaling

6.33 acres of property that straddle Northwest 5th Avenue and Northwest

1 2th Street in Gainesville, Florida. 5 The area around the Seminary Lane

Development is known as the Fifth Avenue Neighborhood (Neighborhood).

2 . The Seminary Lane Development (shown below in Graphic 1) consists

of numerous buildings in different areas desig nated as Areas A, B, and C.

Area B is subdivided into development labeled B1 and B2.

Graphic 1

3 . Th is appeal challenges the Development Decision on Petition DB 21 -

00067 for the Building B2 development (or proposed development) in Area B

of the Seminary Lane Development. As explained below, the Petition DB -

2100067 p roposes development consisting of three buildings with a total of 27

residential dwelling units.

4 . Appellant Kali Blount is a resident of Gainesville who has worked

continuously to improve th e Neighborhood since 1987. Mr. Blount has served

multiple terms on the Gainesville Fifth Avenue Community Redevelopment

5 Northwest 5th Avenue in Gainesville, Florida , is also known as Ñ Seminary Lane. Ò

and Pleasant Street Advisory Board, a board of citizens appointed by the

Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to advise the CRA on

development in the area including and surrounding the Seminary Lane

Development .

5 . Appellant NKwanda Jah is a resident of Gainesville and is the founder

and executive director of the Cultural Arts Coalition, which is housed in the

Wilhelmina Johns on Center (Center) located in the Neighborhood at 321

Northwest 10th Street. The Center is about 5 00 feet from the area at issue in

this appeal .

6 . Appellant Carrie Johnson resides in the Neighborhood at

705 Northwest 10th Street. Ms. Johnson has lived i n her home for the last

35 years. Her home is about 9 00 feet from the area of the proposed

development.

7 . Appellee TWP is the Florida limited liability company overseeing the

Seminary Lane Development , including the proposed development . TWP

submitted Petition DB - 2100067 to the City , which resulted in the

Development Decision.

8 . Appellee City is a Florida municipality. The City enacted the LDC and

authorized its staff to administratively issue the Development Decision

approving Petition DB - 2100067 and the revised plans for the proposed

development.

T HE D EVELOPMENT D ECISION

9 . On April 1, 2021, TWP submitted the Building B2 Development Plan

Application , Petition DB - 2100067 , to the City. Petition DB - 2100067 consists

of revised plans for the proposed deve lopment in accordance with the Final

Order for the Seminary Plan Appeal . O n August 12, 2021, the City Staff

administratively approved Petition DB - 2100067 , rendering the Development

Decision.

10 . The proposed development is located on the west side of Area B in the

Seminary Lane Development shown below in Graphic 2. The parcel making

up Area B is a backwards Ñ L Ò shape on the interior portion of a block

bordered by N .W. 5 th Street to the north . The Building B1 development

(shown in light green in Graphic 2) i s located on the east portion of the

Area B parcel , and will be made up of multi - family residential units and a

multi - story parking garage. Area B abuts the rear of several single - family

homes.

11 . Buildings B 1 and the proposed development are separated b y a

driveway (shown in gray in Graphic 2). Th is provides access from

N . W . 5th Avenue (a public street) to the buildings in Area B.

Graphic 2 6

12 . T he proposed development will contain 27 multi - family residential

units , but no parking spaces with the Bu ilding B2 footprint . Building B1 Ô s

parking garage (shown in dark green in Graphic 2) will serve the units in the

proposed development .

6 Graphic 2 was an attach ment to Gerry DedenbachÔs Affidavit . Mr. Dedenbach imposed the

text and coloring onto an existing plan in TWPÔs Building B2 Application.

13 . The p roposed devel o pment abuts the rear of several single - family

homes on the south . These existing homes are in th e University Heights

Historic District (UHHD), which the City has designated as a historic

district. Portions of Area B are within 100 feet from the UHHD district (the

100 - foot distance is indicated by the orange line in Graphic 2) .

S PECIFIC F INDINGS OF F ACTS AND A NALYSIS

I SSUE I - W HETHER THE D EVELOPMENT D ECISION M EETS THE LDCÔ S

R EQUIREMENT T HAT A M ULTI - F AMILY B UILDING W ITHIN 100 F EET OF A

D ESIGNATED H ISTORIC D ISTRICT C ONTAIN N O M ORE T HAN S IX D WELLING

U NITS .

14 . Appellants argue that the Development Deci sion should be reversed

because it will be a multi - family development that has more than six

dwelling units and, therefore, fails to comply with section 30 - 4.8.D. 1. , which

states:

1. Generally. Multi - family development shall

contain no more than six dwelli ng units per

building and shall be in the form of single - family

dwellings, attached dwellings, or small - scale

multi - family when located within 100 feet of any

property that is in a single - family zoning district ,

the U1 district, or a designated historic di strict .

(emphasis added).

15 . There is no dispute the property south of Area B is located with in a

designated historic district, the UHHD , and , therefore, the six - unit cap is

triggered. The issue is: what part of the proposed development is subject to

the cap? Appellants argue this provision applies to the entire Building B2

development, which they argue should be considered to be one building. TWP

argues the proposed development is actually three buildings Ð B2, B3,

and B4. It asserts that only Buildings B 3 and B4 are subject to the six - unit

limit because they are the two buildings within 100 feet of the UHHD. The

City argues it is irrelevant whether Building B2 is one or three buildings

because the six - unit limit only applies to the portion of Building B2 within

100 feet of the UHHD.

16 . T he CityÔs interpretation that the six - unit cap only applies to the

portion of Building B2 within the 100 - foot area from the UHHD is supported

by the record, but its reasoning that it does not matter whether the proposed

d e velopment involves one building or three buildings is clearly erroneous.

17 . W hether the cap in section 30 - 4.8.D.1. appl ies to the entire Building

B2 development , or only th ose portion s that are built in Area B that are

within the 100 feet of the historic district is the initial issue . The City has

interpreted section 30 - 4.8.D.1. as establishing a definite prescriptive

compatibility standard that applies specifically to a land area that is

measured as 100 feet within certain protected areas (i.e., single - f amily zoning

district or designated historic district). A ccording to the City, section 30 -

4.8.D.1. does not apply to the entire proposed development , no matter how

large, just because a portion may be within 100 feet of a described area. In

other words, th e portion of the proposed development that is not within 100

feet of the UHHD is not subject to the six - unit limit.

18 . As an example, Appellees point to Figure 2 in section 30 - 4.8, which

depicts an example of allowable transition ing between property in a

designated protected area and a portion of a multi - family building that lies

within 100 feet of th at protected area .

§ 30 - 4.8 , Fig. 2, LDC.

19 . The City has a pplied this provision to allow development within the

applicable 100 - foot area where each bui lding, or portion thereof, contains no

more than six dwelling units in the form of single - family dwellings, attached

dwellings, or small - scale multi - family dwellings . This achieves the City Ô s goal

to provide a transition between property designated as a pr otected area (such

as the UHHD) and property proposed for larger - scale development (such as

the Seminary Lane Development ) . This concept was utilized in the Seminary

Lane Decision for the development of Area A and affirmed in the Seminary

Lane Final Order. See Seminary Lane Final Order, ¶ ¶ 71 - 73.

20 . Applying the six - unit limit to only the portion of the proposed

development that is within 100 feet of the UHHD , however, does not negate

the requirement that there be Ñ no more than six dwelling units per build ing Ò

in section 3 - 4.8.D.1 (emphasis added). The Development Decision approves

12 units within 100 feet of the UHHD . This is six more than allowed for one

building but allowable if there are two buildings. Thus, contrary to the CityÔs

reasoning , it does mat ter how many buildings are planned for development.

21 . T he issue then becomes whether Ñthere is no foundation in reason,

meaning the absence of a situation where reasonable minds could disagree Ò

regarding the existence of three buildings that make up the Building B2

development, as asserted by TWP. § 30 - 5.57.D.2., LDC.

22 . Appellants point to multiple citations in the Record on Appeal where

the Appellees refer to the proposed development as simply ÑBuilding B2.Ò

This reference to Ñ Building B2 Ò instead of the ÑBuildings B2 through B4Ò or

Ñ B2 developmentÒ is confusing . I t is reasonable to believe the Development

Decision involves one building. But a closer review of the Record on Appeal

establish es that Ñreasonable minds could disagreeÒ as to whether there a re

one or three buildings in the proposed development .

23 . First, the General Notes and plans submitted by TWP and approved

by the City specifically state, ÑThe building will be segmented into three

different buildings.Ò The General Note s go on to explain that parking for

Buildings B2 through B4 will be provided through the parking garages as

part of Buildings A, B1, and C.

24 . Second, t he approved pl ans for the proposed development contain a

sheet titled ÑBuilding B2 Floor Level 1Ò or Sheet Ñ A1 - 15B . Ò Thi s sheet labels

the proposed development as separate buildings: t he northern five - story

building with three units per floor is identified as ÑBLDG B2Ò; the

southeastern three - story building with two units per floor is identified as

ÑBLDG B3Ò; and the southw estern three - story building with two units per

floor is identified as ÑBLDG B4.Ò

25 . Finally, the LDC defines a building as:

Building means any structure, either temporary or

permanent, except a fence or as otherwise provided

in this definition, used or built for the enclosure or

shelter of persons, vehicles, goods, merchandise,

equipment, materials or property generally. This

definition shall include tents, dining cars, trailers,

mobile homes, sheds, garages, carports, animal

kennels, storerooms, jails, barns or vehicles serving

in any way the function of a building as described

herein. This definition shall not include individual

doll houses, play houses, and animal or bird

houses.

§ 30 - 2.1. , LDC.

26 . Technically, Buildings B2, B3, and B4 each satisfy the LDCÔs

definition of ÑbuildingÒ in that each will be built for the enclosure or shelter of

persons. Although seemingly connected from the outside, the plans show fire

walls between Buildings B2 and B3 , and between Buildings B2 and B4 . There

is a courtya rd and Building B2 between Buildings B3 and B4. This supports

the conclusion that the proposed development is actually three buildings.

Moreover, this interpretation is consistent with the CityÔs position in the

Seminary Lane Decision that Building A was a ctually multiple buildings,

l ater affirmed in the Seminary Lane Final Order. See Seminary Lane Final

Order, ¶ 74.

27 . It cannot be said that treating the proposed development as three

buildings Ð B2, B3, and B4 Ð is clearly erroneous, patently unreasonable,

w ithout foundation in reason, merely arbitrary or irrational, or that

reasonable minds could not disagree. As such, the Record on Appeal

establishes that the proposed development consists of three buildings.

28 . Of these three buildings , Buildings B3 and B 4 are located within 100

feet of property of the UHHD . Each of these two multi - family building s is

subject to the limitations that they be no more than t hree stories with a

maximum of six units per building. T hese buildings are three sto ries with

two units per story, and have a maximum of six units per building . T here fore,

Buildings B3 and B4 meet the requirements of s ection 30 - 4.8.D.1., as

interpreted by the City , and the Development Decision complies with the

LDC.

I SSUE II Ï D OES THE D EVELOPMENT D ECISI ON S ATISFY THE LDCÔ S F RONTAGE

R EQUIREMENTS ?

29 . Because the Development Decision approves construction of three

separate buildings, each building must comply with the requirements of the

LDC. Appellants contend that the buildings which make up the propose d

development do not comply with the LDCÔs frontage requirements in s ection

30 - 4.13 , Building Form Standard s . Specifically, Appellants argue that the

Development Decision violates the frontage requirements in s ection 30 -

4.13. D. and Table V - 2, Row D.

30 . Ap pellants argue the plans for Building B2 violate section 30 - 4.13 . D.,

which they claim requires every building to incorporate one of several

specified design elements (a storefront, gallery, arcade, courtyard, stoop, or

porch) into the building façade. Sec tion 30 - 4.13.D. states:

D. Building frontage zone requirements.

All development shall provide a minimum 5 - foot wide

building frontage zone behind the public sidewalk, and

buildings shall have at least one type of building frontage

incorporated into its des ign. Table V - 3 contains the

dimensional requirements for the various types of

building frontages allowed. The intent of the building

frontage zone is to provide a transition between the public

street/sidewalk and the building . The type of activity

condu cted in the private frontage zone depends on the

nature of the proposed use (Figure V - 8). For a

commercial building, the intent of the private frontage

zone is to attract customers into the business. For a

residential site, the intent of the private fron tage zone is

to provide for a private outdoor space and establish a

separation from the public sidewalk for the ground floor

rooms. ( e mphasis adde d).

31 . Table V - 2, ÑBuilding Form Standards within Transects,Ò Row D also

applies to building frontage and re quires every building that has frontage

occupy a minimum percentage of the propertyÔs frontage.

32. Before analyzing whether the Development Decision complies with

these subsections, it is helpful to review the definition of Ñb uilding frontageÒ

in the LDC :

Building frontage means the total length in linear

feet of a building façade(s) within a development

that fronts directly on a required street or urban

walkway. Building frontage is regulated as a

required percentage of the total length of the

developme nt frontage along the street or urban

walkway.

§ 30 - 2.1. , LDC ( e mphasis added ).

33. Furthermore, the LDC defines Ñ s treetÒ as:

Street means any publicly dedicated accessway

such as a street, road, highway, boulevard,

parkway, circle, court or cul - de - sac, and shall

include all of the land lying between any right - of -

way lines as delineated on a plat showing such

streets, whether improved or unimproved, except

those accessways such as easements and rights - of -

way intended solely for utilities and similar

faci lities and easements of ingress and egress.

Id. ( e mphasis adde d).

34 . As depicted in Graphic 3, t he block which contains Area B is bordered

to the north by N.W. 5th Avenue, to the west by N.W. 1 0th Street, to the

south by N.W. 4th Avenue, and to the wes t by N.W. 1 2th Street. Building s

B2 , B3, and B4 do not front directly on any of these streets. Rather they abut

property owned by other entities to the west, north and south; and they abut

the driveway that will separate them from the Area B parking garage and

Building B1 to the east.

Graphic 3

35 . Appellants argue the driveway separating the proposed development

from the Building B1 development is a street or public access way. The LDC

defines ÑdrivewayÒ as Ñ t he improved area between a public street and private

property intended to provide ingress and/or egress of vehicular traffic from

the public or private street to a definite area of private property.Ò § 30.2.1,

LDC. The record reflects that driveways like the one approved for Area B in

the Seminary La ne Decision are used in multi - family developments with

several buildings . These developments may include certain buildings that are

not directly fronting a publicly dedicated street or a publicly dedicated

accessway . The driveway adjacent to Buildings B2 a nd B3 is not a street or

publicly dedicated accessway.

36 . Consequently, there is no building frontage or applicable building

frontage form requirement for Buildings B2, B3, and B4. In other words , the

frontage requirements of s ection 30 - 4.13 are not ap plicable to the proposed

development because Buildings B2, B3, and B4 do not front a street as

defined in the LDC. As such, the Development Decision cannot be said to

violate s ection s 30 - 4.13. , Table V - 2, Row D or 30 - 4.13.D.

I SSUE I I I Ï D OES T HE D EVELOP MENT D ECISION S ATISFY THE LDCÔ S B UILDING

P LACEMENT R EQUIREMENTS ?

37 . Appellants also argue the Development Decision does not comply with

section 30 - 4.13, Table V - 2, Row E , Building Placement . This section requires

a minimum landscaping, sidewalk and build ing frontage placement on

certain types of streets including a ÑStorefront S treet,Ò ÑPrincipal Street,Ò

ÑThoroughfare Street,Ò and ÑLocal Street.Ò

38 . As explained above, Buildings B2, B3, and B4 are not located on any

kind of street. Therefore, the buildi ng placement requirements do not apply ,

and the Development Decision cannot be said to violate Table V - 2, Row E of

section 30 - 4.13.

I SSUE I V Ï D O ES THE D EVELOPMENT D ECISION S ATISFY THE LDCÔ S E NTRANCE

R EQUIREMENTS ?

39 . Appellants also argue the Develop ment Decision violates the entrance

requirements found in section 30 - 4.14 . D., which states:

D. Building entrances.

1. Each building shall provide a primary public

entrance oriented toward the public right - of - way,

and may be located at the building corner facing

the intersection of two streets. Additional entrances

may be provided on other sides of the building.

2. Primary public entrances shall be operable,

clearly - defined and highly - visible. In order to

e mphasize entrances they shall be accented by a

ch ange in materials around the door, recessed into

the fa c ade (alcove), or accented by an overhang,

awning, canopy, or marquee.

3. Building frontages along the street shall have

functional entrances at least every 150 feet.

(emphasis added).

40 . The record establishes only one entrance for Buildings B2, B3, and B4

from the driveway side. This entrance is located at the northeastern corner of

Building B3, where it connects with Building B2 (driveway entrance) There is

no access for Building B2 without going through Buildings B3 or B4. Building

B3 can be accessed through the driveway entrance or through doors located

on the north west end of the courtyard. Building B4 can be accessed through

the driveway entrance and a door on the northwest end of the courtyard , or

by walking around Building B3 and using doors located on the northeast end

of the courtyard .

Graphic 4 (Plan of first - floor of proposed development ; green arrows in

original; labels in red added for clarification).

41 . As reflected in Graphic 4 t o access units in Building B3 (containing

two units on each of three floors), a person would walk through the driveway

entrance and then take a left turn into one of the ground floor Building 3

units. To access units on the second or third floor of Building B3, a person

must walk through Building B2 by going through the driveway entrance into

a hallway in Building B3, tak ing a right into Building B2, tak ing a left into

either the staircase or elevators located in Building B2, tak ing the stairs or

elevator to the second and third floors, exit ing the stairs or elevator into

Building B2, tak ing a right into a hallway back into Building B3, and then to

the individual units in Building B3 on that floor.

42 . To access Building B2 (containing three units on each of five floors), a

person would have to walk through the driveway entrance into Building B3,

walk through a hallway located in Building B3, and take a right into an

internal hallway in Building B2 accessing the first - floor units in Building B2.

To access a un it on floors two t hrough five of Building B2, a person would

take the same process as accessing a first - floor unit in Building B2, but take

a staircase or elevator in Building B2 to the second through fifth floors for

Building B2, and then access the indiv idual units through an internal

hallway on that floor.

43 . To access Building B4 (containing two units on each of three floors), a

person could walk through the driveway entrance, walk through a hallway

located in Building B3, exit into the courtyard, wal k across the courtyard to a

door into Building B4, and enter into a hallway that provides access to the

first - floor units of Building B4. To access the units on the higher floors of

Building B4, a person must go through Building B2 by going through the

sam e process of going t o the stairs or elevator in Building B2 to the

appropriate floor , and then take a left to walk into Building B4 to a hallway

accessing one of the two units on that floor.

44 . As discussed above, section 30.4 - 14.D.3 . , applies only to bui lding

frontages. None of the buildings front a street. Buildings B2 and B3 front the

driveway; Building B4 fronts a courtyard. Therefore, the 150 - foot

requirement for entrances in section 30 - 4 . 14.D.3 does not apply.

45 . Appellees argue that the primary pu blic entrance requirement in

s ection 30 - 4.14.D.1. and 2. also do not apply because Buildings B2, B3, and

B4 do not front a public right - of - way. A plain reading of these subsections

require s all building s to have a public entrance that Ñorient towardÒ a pub lic

right - of - way, not Ñ front Ò a public right - of - way .

46 . Unlike the sections previously discussed, the requirements in

subsections D.1. and D.2 of 30 - 4.14 are not contingent on having building

frontage. Rather, these subsections apply to each building an d require

Ñprimary public entrances.Ò B ecause Building B2, B3, and B4 are separate

structures or Ñbuildings , Ò they must each satisfy these two subsections of

section 30 - 4.14. They do not.

47 . The plans for Building B2 do not provide Ñ a primary public entr ance

oriented toward the public right - of - way Ò as required by section 30 - 4.14.D.1.

Because this failure to designate an entrance is in violation of the LDC and

clearly erroneous, the Building B2 Development Decision must be modified to

require such an entra nce for Building B2 . Because there are public right - of -

ways in the form of public streets, any such entrance could be located on the

driveway side, courtyard, east side or north side of Building B2.

48 . Additionally, assuming that the door from the courty ard is the

primary entrance to Building B4, there is nothing in the record that

establishes that this entrance is Ñ operable, clearly - defined and highly - visible

È accented by a change in materials around the door, recessed into the

fa c ade (alcove), or accen ted by an overhang, awning, canopy, or marquee. Ò

Because th e plans fail to designate the courtyard entrance as the primary

public entrance for Building B4 , it violat es section 30.4.14.D.2., and is clearly

erroneous . As a result, th e Dev elopment Decision mu st be modified to bring

the courtyard entrance for Building B4 into compliance with this section .

I SSUE V Ï D O ES THE D EVELOPMENT D ECISION S ATISFY THE LDCÔ S

C ONFIGURATION R EQUIREMENTS ?

49 . Appellants argue the Development Decision fails to meet the

requirements of s ection 30 - 4.13.C.5. and the configuration requirements

depicted in Figure V - 7 in s ection 30 - 4.13.

50. Section 30 - 4.13.C.5. states:

Where multiple buildings are proposed within a

development , the placement of buildings at the rear

of a sit e is allowed as long as one or more buildings

are placed along the front of the site meeting the

building placement and setback and building

frontage requirements of this division. Figure V - 7

depicts the required configuration of multiple

buildings on a s ite, such as within a shopping

center. Streets or access drives shall be

incorporated into the site to break it down into

smaller lots/blocks (platting will not be required).

The primary access drive shall be centered on the

anchor building and shall be l ined with buildings,

which shall meet the required frontage standards

along the street and access drive.

5 1 . Figure V - 7 in Section 30 - 4.13 , Multiple Buildings on a Site , provides

the following graphic depiction regarding how to apply s ection 30 - 4.13.C.5. :

Figure V - 7: Multiple Buildings on a Site

§ 30 - 4.13. , Figure V - 7 , LDC.

5 2 . Again, reviewing the definitions in s ection 30 - 2.1 is helpful in

determining whether and how this section is applicable. Ñ D evelopmentÒ is

defined as:

Development or development a ctivity means any of

the following activities:

A. Construction, clearing, filling, excavating,

grading, paving, dredging, mining, drilling or

otherwise significantly disturbing the soil or

vegetation of a site.

B. Building, installing, enlarging, replaci ng or

substantially restoring a structure, impervious

surface or water management system, and

including the long - term storage of materials.

C. The erection, placement, alteration, remodeling

or reconstruction of any building on any land or the

authorizati on of any improvements on any land to

facilitate the use of such land.

5 3 . Section 30 - 2.1. also defines ÑprojectÒ as follows:

Project means a single development as designated

by the applicant, but two or more purportedly

separate developments s hall be co nsidered one

project if the City Manager or designee determines

that three or more of the following criteria exist:

A. T he purportedly separate developments are

located within 250 feet of each other;

B. The same person has an ownership interest or

an opt ion to obtain an ownership interest of more

than 50% of the legal title to each purportedly

separate development;

C. There is a unified development plan for the

purportedly separate developments;

D. The purportedly separate developments

voluntarily do o r shall share private infrastructure;

or

E. There is or will be a common management or

advertising scheme for the purportedly separate

developments.

5 4 . As explained previously, the application for the proposed development

was resubmitted after the large r Seminary Lane Development was approved

and affirmed, except for the Building B2 development . I t is reasonable to

conclude based on the configuration shown in Figure 7 above, and t he plain

language of s ection 30 - 4.13.C.5. , that any placement requirements apply to

the entire Seminary Lane Development , including Areas A, B , and C , and not

to just a portion of the development.

5 5 . Moreover, t he placement of Buildings B2, B3, and B4 in Area B is

consistent with the intent of s ection 30 - 4.13.C.5. that a build ing on a large

development project site be placed in such a way that includes streets and

access drives in order to ensure compliance with the rest of the requirements

provided in Section 30 - 4.13. For example, the Area B driveway breaks the

L - shaped site into smaller blocks on each side.

5 6 . Moreover, the Seminary Lane Decision and Seminary Lane Final

Order establish the development of Area B fulfills the requirements of s ection

30 - 4.13.C.5. b y locat ing Building B1 at the front of Area B and meeting the

a pplicable building placement , setback , and frontage requirements.

5 7 . Finally, given the L - shaped figure of the site, it cannot be said that the

configuration of Area B or the placement of Building s B2, B3 and B4 are

clearly erroneous, patently unreasonab le, or have no foundation in reason.

Accordingly, the Development Decision is consistent with the configuration

requirements of section 30 - 4.13.C.5. and depicted in Figure V - 7 .

C ONCLUSION OF L AW

5 8 . The parties do not dispute, and the record supports, s tanding to appeal

for all Appellants.

5 9 . Appellants challenging the administrative decision are tasked with

the burden of proving that the City approved a development plan application

in violation of the applicable administrative review criteria in sectio n 30 - 3.46

of the LDC.

60 . Section 30 - 3.46 of the City Ô s LDC provides that an application may be

approved if the Ñ proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive

Plan and complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development

Code, and other applicable regulations. Ò

6 1 . Based on the above Findings of Fact, TWPÔs plans for the proposed

development are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan , and c omplies with

the Comprehensive Plan, the LDC , and other applicable regulations , except

with regard s to the entrances to Building s B2 and B4.

6 2 . Except as indicated above regarding sections 30 - 4.14.D.1. and 2. ,

Appellants did not carry their burden to show that the Development Decision

is in violation of the LDC.

D ETERMINATION

Based on the foregoing Fin dings of Fact , the Development Decision for

Major Development Plan - EZ - Seminary Lane Building B2 (Petition DB 21 -

00067) is approved, with the modification and partial reversal that Tramell

Webb Partners, Inc. update the architectural sheet and resubmit it t o the

City of Gainesville for approval so that it reflects that Buildings B2 and B4

each depict an entrance in compliance with the Gainesville Land

Development Code.

D ONE A ND O RDERED this 14th day of January , 2022 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

H ETAL D ESAI

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 14th day of January , 2022 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Sean M. McDermott, Esquire Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire

City of Gainesville Ralf Brookes Attorney

Office of the City Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway , Suite 107

200 East University Avenue , Suite 425 Cape Coral, Florida 33904

Gainesville, Florida 32601

David A. Theriaque, Esquire

Andrew W. Persons Theriaque and Sp ain

Station 11 433 North Magnolia Drive

Post Office Box 490 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 - 5083

Gainesville, Florida 32627 - 0490

S. B rent Spain, Esquire

Theriaque and Spain

433 North Magnolia Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

N OTICE O F R IGHT T O J UDICIAL R EVIEW

Pursuant to section 30 - 3.57 of the City of Gainesville Land Development

Code, this decision shall be final, and may be subject to judicial review as

provi ded by ordinance.