[0:05] So the connection to this one really? Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. That I. Saw you at Saint

[0:32] John's this morning. You go to church there? Okay. You live close by. I live next door to

[0:36] the church. Every Tuesday morning, I have a 730 group. Oh, you're welcome to join. Okay.

[0:42] Good to know. Yeah. It's coffee. I saw you fixing up the yard. I think about 7 a.m. this morning.

[0:48] Yeah. Yeah. What you doing there? Right now? That's. Right. Good morning everybody. This

[1:54] meeting of the Escambia County Planning Board for September 1st is hereby called to order

[2:00] with six members present. We do have a quorum. Just a reminder to turn off all electronic

[2:05] devices or set your phones to silent. If you would, please stand and join me for the

[2:12] pledge. Pledge allegiance, pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the

[2:20] Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[2:27] justice for all. Alrighty. Do we have proof of publication? Yes, sir. The publication meet

[2:35] all legal requirements. Yes, sir. I'll entertain a motion to waive the reading of the legal

[2:39] advertisement. A motion. Motion. Second. Second. All those in favor, please signify by. Raise

[2:45] your right hand. All those opposed? Motion carries. The rezoning meeting minutes for

[2:49] the previous meeting, dated August the 4th, has been provided to the board. Are

[2:54] there any additions, deletions or corrections? If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve.

[3:00] Motion to approve. Second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand.

[3:06] Motion carries. The rezoning hearing package for September, the first with findings of fact,

[3:14] has been provided to the board. I'll entertain a motion to accept the rezoning hearing

[3:18] package with findings of fact and legal advertisement into evidence. Do we have a motion?

[3:22] Motion to accept second. Second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right

[3:26] hand. Right motion carries. Will the court reporter please swear in members of staff?

[3:32] Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony to be testimony that

[3:37] you give in this case will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. All right. And the

[3:41] board has previously qualified staff to offer expert testimony in the area of land use and

[3:46] planning. Does anyone have any questions regarding their qualifications or ability to

[3:50] offer that expert testimony? All right. At this hearing, the Planning Board is acting under

[3:57] its authority to hear and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. BCC on

[4:03] rezoning applications. These hearings are quasi judicial in nature. These hearings are like

[4:09] evidentiary hearings in a court of law. However less formal, all testimony will be given

[4:15] under oath, and anyone testifying before the Planning Board may be subject to

[4:20] cross-examination. All documents and exhibits that the Planning Board considers will

[4:23] be entered into evidence and made part of the record. Opinion testimony will be

[4:29] limited to experts. The closing arguments will be limited to the evidence in the record.

[4:35] Before making a decision, the Planning Board will consider the relevant testimony, the

[4:40] exhibits entered into evidence and the law. Each each individual who wishes to

[4:44] address the Planning Board must complete a speaker request form and submit it to the Planning

[4:49] Board. Clerk. These forms are on the table in the back of the room, and you won't be allowed

[4:56] to speak until we have a completed form. Please note that the only. Only those

[5:02] individuals who speak at today's meeting in the rezoning meeting will be allowed to

[5:07] speak at the subsequent hearing before the BCC. At that time, no new evidence can be

[5:12] presented at the BCC. Therefore, all testimony and evidence must be presented today. The

[5:19] Planning Board will provide a recommendation for each rezoning request to the BCC,

[5:23] which will review testimony, documents and exhibits, consider the closing arguments

[5:28] and make a final decision. All decisions by the BCC are final. Anyone who wishes to seek

[5:36] judicial review of the decision of the BCC must do so in a court of competent jurisdiction

[5:41] within 30 days of the date. The BCC approves or rejects the recommended order of the

[5:46] Planning Board. All written or oral communications. Outside of this hearing with the members

[5:52] of the Planning Board regarding matters under considered under consideration today are

[5:58] considered ex parte communications. Ex parte communications are presumed

[6:03] prejudicial under Florida law and must be disclosed as provided in BCC resolution

[6:09] number 96-13. As each case is heard, I'll ask that any board member who has been involved in

[6:16] ex parte communication please identify themselves and describe the communication as

[6:22] required by section 2-7.2 of the Escambia County Land Development Code. The Planning

[6:27] Board's recommendation to the BCC shall include consideration of the following approval

[6:33] conditions. The applicant has the burden of presenting competent, substantial evidence

[6:39] to reviewing board, establishing that the requested Zoning district would

[6:43] contribute to or result in a logical and orderly development pattern. The appropriate

[6:50] surrounding area within which uses and conditions must be considered, may vary with those

[6:55] uses and conditions, and is not necessarily the same area required for mailed

[7:00] notification. A logical and orderly pattern shall require demonstration of each of the

[7:06] following conditions. A consistent with comprehensive plan. The proposed zoning is

[7:12] consistent with the future land use or flu category as prescribed in LDC. Chapter

[7:17] three and with all other goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. If the

[7:24] rezoning is required. If rezoning is required to properly enact a proposed flu

[7:29] map. Amendment transmitted for state agency review. The proposed zoning is consistent

[7:34] with the proposed flu and conditional to its adoption. Be consistent with zoning district

[7:41] provisions. The proposed zoning is consistent with the purpose and intent and with any other

[7:47] zoning establishment provisions prescribed by the proposed district and chapter three C

[7:53] compatible with surroundings. All of the permitted uses of the proposed zoning, not just

[7:58] those anticipated by the rezoning applicant, are compatible as defined in

[8:02] chapter six, with the surrounding uses, the uses of any surrounding undeveloped

[8:08] land shall be considered the permitted uses of the applicable district.

[8:13] Compatibility is not considered with potential conditional uses or any nonconforming or

[8:18] unapproved uses. Also, in establishing the compatibility of a residential use, there is

[8:23] no additional burden to demonstrate the compatibility of specific residence or

[8:28] activities protected by fair housing law. D Appropriative spot zoning where the proposed

[8:34] zoning would establish or reinforce a condition of spot zoning as defined in chapter

[8:39] six, the isolated district would nevertheless be transitional in character

[8:43] between the adjoining districts, or the differences with those districts would be minor or

[8:48] sufficiently limited. The extent of these mitigating characteristics or conditions

[8:54] demonstrates an appropriate site specific balancing of interests between the isolated

[8:58] district and the adjoining lands. E appropriate with changed or changing conditions

[9:05] if the land uses or development conditions within the surrounding area of the

[9:10] property have changed, the changes are just such a degree in character that it is in the

[9:16] public interest to allow new uses, densities or intensities in the area through rezoning

[9:20] and the permitted uses of the proposed district are appropriate and not premature

[9:25] for the area, or likely to create or contribute to sprawl at the beginning of each case.

[9:31] As long as there's no objections from the applicant, we will allow staff to briefly

[9:36] present the location and zoning maps and photos for the property. We will then hear

[9:41] from the applicant and any witnesses that they may wish to call, and then we will hear

[9:46] from staff and any witnesses that they may wish to call. And finally, we'll hear from

[9:50] members of the public who have filled out a speaker request form today in the rezoning

[9:56] meeting, there is one case to be heard. The rezoning application for consideration

[10:02] is case number Z-2026-16, which request rezoning of 114 Linux Parkway from TMU. High density

[10:12] mixed use district 25 dwelling units per acre to commercial 25 dwelling units per acre, as

[10:18] requested by Meredith Bush, agent for Tami Bohanon, trustee of the Tami Bohanon Revocable

[10:24] Trust, dated November 8th, 2018. The owner members of the board. Has there been any ex parte

[10:31] communication between you and the applicant of the applicant's agents, attorneys

[10:35] or witnesses with fellow Planning Board members or anyone from the general public

[10:40] prior to this hearing? Have you visited the subject property and also disclose if you are a

[10:45] relative or business associate of the applicant or the applicant's agent? No to all.

[10:51] Not at all. No to all. No to all. No to all. But I'd like to seek some clarification. Ex

[10:57] parte communication. This is a question for the attorney, Mr. Chairman. Ex parte

[11:02] communication only starts from the time that the application has been submitted. So if

[11:06] someone had if I was previously communicated about a property, not particularly this one that

[11:12] wouldn't be considered ex parte communication prior to the actual application. Correct. So

[11:17] clarification on that. It's matters that foreseeably may come come before the board. So

[11:21] that would include when it's already scheduled. Matters Foreseeably before the board.

[11:29] You'd have to dig into that. And it's fact specific generally. No. Okay. Thank you.

[11:38] No tall. All right. Very good. All right. And. Staff was notified of the hearing sent to

[11:50] all interested parties. Yes, sir. Was notice of the hearing posted on the subject property?

[11:53] Yes, sir. Meredith, are you okay with the photographs? And before we get you up here. All

[11:59] right. Good morning. Board Caleb McCarty, ACP certified planner on behalf of the county.

[12:08] This is the location map showing the subject property along Lennox Parkway. The 500

[12:16] foot radius map. The majority of the property is high density, mixed use. The future land use

[12:24] designation of the subject property is mixed use. Urban. This is in the Palafox

[12:32] Community Redevelopment area. This is an aerial showing the existing building on the

[12:40] subject property. The existing building was was recently occupied by a place of worship.

[12:52] And next. This is our notice of Public hearing sign we placed in front of the property. This

[12:59] is looking onto the site at that building. This is looking east along Lennox Parkway. This

[13:08] is looking across Lennox Parkway and this is looking west along Lennox. That

[13:15] completes our maps and photos for this case. All right. Thank you so much. And Meredith, if

[13:21] you would go ahead and come on up, and then we'll just get you to state your name and address

[13:27] for the record. Meredith Bush, Aicp certified planner, board certified city, county and

[13:32] local government lawyer, 314 South Bailen Street, suite 108, Pensacola, Florida. All right.

[13:37] And did you receive a copy of the rezoning hearing package with the findings of fact? I

[13:42] did, and I understand that you have the burden of providing substantial, competent evidence

[13:46] that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan, furthers

[13:50] the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and is not in conflict

[13:54] with any portion of the county's Land Development Code I do. All right. Go ahead.

[13:58] Thank you, members of the board. And Mr. Chair, this is a case where we are seeking commercial

[14:05] from DMU. I've reviewed and received staff's findings. We are in agreement with their

[14:10] findings, and I will walk through each of the criteria. So criterion A consistent with

[14:17] the Comprehensive Plan requested. Commercial zoning is consistent with mixed use urban.

[14:23] That's outlined specifically in the code that. There is consistency. This property is

[14:29] also located within the Palafox Community Redevelopment area, the CRA, and I'll get to this

[14:35] in more detail later, has noted they have no concerns. The requested rezoning advances,

[14:41] the objectives of that CRA by allowing a productive reuse of the existing nonresidential

[14:49] building. So we've met criterion A as to criterion B, consistent with zoning district

[14:55] provisions, the commercial district is intended to accommodate general retail

[15:00] service, professional, civic, recreational and limited other activities. Future use of the

[15:06] property will remain subject to all district standards. Notable. Any specific new nonresidential

[15:13] use must also be compatible and undergo the locational criteria analysis. Here we. Our position

[15:21] is that the request is consistent with the purpose and zoning establishment provisions

[15:26] of the district. Notably, there are already commercial uses in the area. There's clear

[15:32] directly across the street, and I believe it's like a quarter of a mile from Palafox. As far

[15:39] as criterion C, compatible with surroundings, the property lies within an established urbanized

[15:47] area near mixed use development and in proximity to commercial and clear zoning. The urban

[15:55] setting existing development again, proximity to established commercial activity does

[16:02] further establish that this rezoning is compatible. Again. The Palafox Overlay District

[16:10] regulates structure, height, materials and detailing, facade setbacks, natural features,

[16:15] landscaping signs, lighting, parking, placement and screening. More intensive uses

[16:20] would be restricted by use specific standards and again, that development review process.

[16:25] There are also, you know, physical constraints, given that it's, you know, a little

[16:30] over an acre site. So the proposed zoning district is compatible with surrounding

[16:36] uses as two criterion D spot zoning. As you all know, spot zoning is not in and of itself

[16:43] prohibited. It must be shown, however, that it meets a higher review of either being

[16:49] transitional in character or the differences between the districts being minor. GMU

[16:54] already allows many of the same uses as commercial. So the, you know, retail services,

[17:01] professional, civic things of those nature. The differences are in perhaps square footage

[17:06] of the uses. Buildings such as that here. Those differences are both minor. And this is

[17:14] specifically more appropriately transitional in character. Again, you've got DMU nearby.

[17:20] You've also got Hcli, the heavy commercial light industrial across the street. This is

[17:25] directly in between those. The rezoning does not constitute arbitrary or impermissible spot

[17:31] zoning. It's located within an established urban area. It's already developed with

[17:36] substantial form of former institutional building, which was used as a church or a place

[17:41] of worship. It's historically accommodated nonresidential uses, again, clear zoning and

[17:48] nonresidential development are located directly across the street or a quarter of a mile,

[17:52] a little bit less than a quarter of a mile from the North Palafox Commercial

[17:56] Corridor. The district would serve a genuine transitional function, and commercial is

[18:02] less intensive than the CLR across the street, and commercial is also expressly

[18:08] and explicitly identified by the Land Development Code as an appropriate transitional zoning.

[18:14] The request facilitates adaptive reuse of the property and is directly related to the

[18:21] surrounding existing land use pattern as two criterion E appropriate with changed or

[18:26] changing conditions. The relevant conditions include the cessation of the property's

[18:31] institutional use, the availability resulting availability of an existing

[18:36] developed site for adaptive reuse. The changing conditions make this a commercially

[18:44] focused reuse and advance the Palafox redevelopment plans written objectives of

[18:50] encouraging reinvestment in vacant or underutilized buildings and supporting

[18:55] compatible commercial reinvestment. It is not a premature rezoning request, and

[19:01] nor is it characteristic of sprawl on this parcel. We also have to meet the locational

[19:08] criteria. This meets the criteria in two different ways. It is appropriate as infill

[19:15] development and there is documented compatibility. So as far as the infill development,

[19:22] again it's surrounded by some commercial and mixed use with some residential development.

[19:29] It is currently unutilized an empty it's got a building on it, but it's not currently being

[19:34] used. And filling in those holes and development is exactly what infill development

[19:39] means. As far as documented compatibility. Again, the property's already developed

[19:44] with a former institutional building. It's a quarter of a mile from North Palafox Street,

[19:50] closely connected with an established commercial and employment corridor, commercial

[19:55] and zoning, as well as non residential development, are located nearby toward North

[20:00] Palafox and Massachusetts Avenue. Commercial is less intensive than the CLI. The

[20:06] permitted uses within Com consists consists principally of retail, service, office,

[20:10] civic and recreational. Future development will remain subject to review of access,

[20:16] circulation, parking, loading. Buffering, landscaping, lighting, drainage, solid waste

[20:20] screening and outdoor activity and the requested rezoning promotes that private

[20:25] reinvestment within the CRA Land Development Code 3-2 ten E specifically requires that

[20:32] future nonresidential use itself must also establish locational criteria at the time

[20:38] of the development submittal. So, you know, we feel we've met the criteria. We've submitted

[20:45] our report and supporting backup county staff's findings, supports our request. Happy to

[20:50] take any questions or address any concerns, but we would ask that you approve this or

[20:54] recommend approval of the rezoning. Mr. chair, just real quick, Meredith, can I ask if

[21:00] the is this being done for marketability or for a specific use? A little bit of both. So

[21:07] it is overall marketability, but there is a specific use. I believe the property is under

[21:14] contract. The what's outlined in our submittal and what we've talked to the county about.

[21:20] It's a window and door business that would like to use the property. Thank you. Meredith.

[21:28] Since a portion of this is marketability, if this was not approved, would this affect the

[21:33] contract going forward? Possibly, or the marketability. So it would this is a material

[21:38] change in the value of the property based on based on this zoning classification. Correct.

[21:42] My understanding is yes. Again, I'm not a certified property appraiser, but the commercial

[21:48] is a higher you know, there there's a greater ability to do more things in commercial.

[21:53] Again, must remain compatible with the surrounding. You can't just, you know, throw something

[21:58] in there that even if it's a permitted and commercial, if it doesn't meet its own individual

[22:02] locational criteria as part of development review process, it wouldn't necessarily be allowed.

[22:07] But yes, I mean, part of many times when I'm here for what is considered by some to be an up

[22:13] zoning, it's because it's a greater value and broader range of uses. Thank you. And in this

[22:19] case, the density doesn't change. And you could already do 25 per per acre. So thank

[22:25] you. Anyone else have questions for the applicant? Okay. If we if we got some more questions

[22:36] we'll get you back up here. All right. Okay. All right staff, we'll go ahead and turn it over

[22:43] to you. Certainly. Thank you again, Caleb, with Escambia County. Just a reminder that

[22:48] this is a high density, mixed use zoned property. And the request is to the commercial

[22:54] district concerning criterion A, consistent with the comprehensive plan, we found

[23:02] that the proposed amendment to commercial is consistent with the future land use category.

[23:07] Mixed use urban mixed use. Urban future land use allows for an intense mix of

[23:12] residential and nonresidential uses, while promoting compatible infill and

[23:17] separation of urban and suburban land uses within the category. Per the Comprehensive

[23:24] plan, redevelopment of underutilized properties is encouraged to maximize

[23:28] densities and intensities in the mixed use urban future. Land use the Escambia County

[23:35] Comprehensive Plan and its implementing document, the Land Development Code. The county

[23:39] must consider the issue of compatibility with adjacent uses and determining the

[23:43] suitability of development projects. The Commercial district is an allowed zoning

[23:49] category for uses in densities within the mixed use urban future land use. However, the

[23:54] Comprehensive Plan prohibits incompatible development in section 3.04 incompatible

[24:01] incompatible development as defined as incompatible development as new development

[24:06] proposed to be constructed next to existing development, wherein the proximity of the

[24:11] two kinds of development would each diminish the usefulness of the other or would be

[24:17] detrimental to existing operations. The incompatibility can arise from either land use

[24:22] or structure, size and design. Compatible development is new development proposed to be

[24:28] constructed next to existing development, in which the proximity of the two kinds of

[24:32] development would each complement or enhance the usefulness of the other.

[24:37] Additionally, the intensity of the proposed rezoning request must be considered in relation

[24:41] to the low impact, low intensity residential development and the surrounding

[24:46] neighborhood, as well as the historic uses and commercially zoned property on the south

[24:50] side of Lenox Parkway. Infill development is defined as development of new housing or

[24:55] other land uses on vacant or underutilized land in existing developed areas, which focuses

[25:02] on the reuse and repositioning of obsolete or underutilized buildings and sites. Per the

[25:09] definitions of the comprehensive Plan, staff found that the rezoning request to

[25:13] commercial is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan through the site specific requirements

[25:17] of the Land Development Code. The intensity of the proposed rezoning request can be

[25:22] compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Land uses the implementation of buffering and

[25:28] screening of any commercial uses will be required by Land Development Code provisions to

[25:32] be integrated into site design, and will assist in offsetting in any unforeseen

[25:40] incompatibilities. Note that nonresidential uses in the vicinity are separated from the

[25:45] subject property by the right of way of Lenox Parkway, and we provided that in the zoning map

[25:50] criterion. Be consistent with the Land Development Code. We found that. The requested

[25:59] rezoning to commercial is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Commercial Zoning

[26:03] district. The commercial district establishes appropriate uses, appropriate

[26:09] areas, and land use regulations for general commercial activities, especially the

[26:13] retelling of commodities and services. The primary intent of the commercial district is to

[26:18] allow more diverse and intense commercial uses than the neighborhood commercial allowed

[26:23] in the mixed use districts. Additionally, to maintain compatibility with surrounding

[26:27] uses, all commercial operations are limited to the confines of buildings and are not allowed

[26:32] to produce undesirable effects on the surrounding properties. To retain adequate area for

[26:38] commercial activities. New and expanded residential development within that

[26:42] district is limited and consistent with the commercial future land use category and

[26:48] the Commercial Zoning District. The location criteria is established to promote

[26:53] compatibility among the uses, especially new nonresidential uses, in relation to existing

[26:58] residential uses. The criteria are designed to create smooth transitions of use intensity

[27:04] from large scale concentrations of general commercial uses near major street intersections to

[27:09] small scale, dispersed neighborhood commercial uses, and approximate proximity to

[27:14] residential areas. Those transitions prevent the adverse impacts of continuous strip

[27:19] commercial development along major streets, and avoid negative and blighting

[27:23] influences of some commercial uses on adjacent residential neighborhoods. The subject

[27:28] property does allow along a local road, Lenox Parkway, and therefore cannot achieve the

[27:34] location criteria of the Commercial Zoning District as we referenced there, because it

[27:39] doesn't front an arterial or collector street. Therefore, to achieve the location criteria

[27:44] of the Commercial Zoning District, the applicant has provided competent, substantial

[27:50] evidence of unique circumstances regarding the potential uses of the property

[27:54] that were not anticipated by the alternative criteria of the requested zoning district. We

[28:00] provided a summary that was provided by the applicant that's needed to achieve the

[28:05] necessary criteria related to the documented compatibility. The summary documents that the

[28:11] property has already developed with a substantial former institutional building and

[28:16] associated site improvements. The site is approximately 0.14 mile from North Palafox Street

[28:25] and closely connected to an established commercial and employment corridor, commercial

[28:30] and heavy commercial light, industrial zoning and nonresidential development are

[28:34] located nearby towards North Palafox and Massachusetts Avenue. While the high density,

[28:40] mixed use and residential uses are located to the northwest southwest, giving the parcel a

[28:46] transitional function, the commercial is less intensive than the heavy commercial light

[28:52] industrial and is expressively identified as an appropriate transition between the high

[28:56] density mixed use development and the heavy commercial and industrial development. The

[29:01] permanent uses within the Commercial Zoning District consists of principally of

[29:07] retail, service, office, civic, recreational and limited industrial related activities.

[29:14] Future development will remain subject to the review of access, circulation, parking, loading,

[29:20] buffering, landscaping, lighting, drainage, solid waste screening and outdoor activity.

[29:25] One note on that the applicant has submitted to the county's development review process and

[29:30] has met for a pre-application for this proposal as well. The requested rezoning promotes

[29:37] private reinvestment within the Palafox Community Redevelopment Area and supports adaptive

[29:42] reuse of the site. We also provided the. In accordance with the Commercial Zoning

[29:51] District, this may be established only within the mixed use suburban mixed use

[29:56] urban or commercial future land use categories. The district is appropriate to provide.

[30:01] Transitions between. Areas zoned are used for high density. Mixed use in areas. Zoning are

[30:06] used for heavy commercial or industrial. Rezoning to commercial is subject to the

[30:10] same location criteria as any new non residential use proposed within the commercial

[30:15] district. Our County Community Redevelopment Area Agency did provide us with a summary and a

[30:23] memo, and basically they stated they have no concerns regarding the rezoning request. Also, our

[30:33] Traffic and transportation office reviewed this and they had no concerns as well.

[30:40] Criterion C, compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff found that through the site

[30:45] specific requirements of the Land Development Code, such as screening and buffering, the

[30:48] proposed amendment to commercial can be compatible with the surrounding properties

[30:52] in the area. The subject property has an existing building that, according to

[30:56] county property appraiser data, was built in 1955 and the building was used as a church.

[31:01] Until recently. The area surrounding the subject property is generally mixed use,

[31:07] consisting of historic commercial uses. When the. Within the heavy commercial

[31:11] light industrial zoning. South side of Lenox Parkway and single family residential uses

[31:16] to the northeast and west into the residential neighborhood and our zone. High density

[31:22] mixed use. An assessment of the surrounding land uses show that the property across Lenox at

[31:28] 117 Lenox Parkway is zoned Heavy Commercial, Light industrial and is currently

[31:32] vacant. That property appears to have been occupied by a salvage and towing yard as

[31:37] recently as 2022, and the building was recently demolished. Additionally, the

[31:43] property at 201 Lenox is on heavy commercial light, industrial nonalcoholic and

[31:50] contains an existing warehouse facility. Most uses in the surrounding area appear to be

[31:55] residential in nature, with commercial and industrial type uses. Located near the

[32:00] intersection of North Palafox and Lenox Parkway along the North Palafox Corridor.

[32:06] Concerning criteria D appropriate a spot zoning. By definition, the proposed

[32:11] commercial zoning would create or reinforce a condition of spot zoning, as there's no

[32:16] commercial zoning on the adjacent property. The proposed commercial zoning district

[32:20] would be isolated and higher in intensity of commercial uses than adjoining DMU. High

[32:26] density mixed use. The allowable density of the current DMU and the proposed

[32:32] zoning to commercial is both 25 dwelling units per acre. Now, spot zoning is not by itself

[32:38] prohibited, but due to potential adverse impacts on adjoining zoning, it carries a

[32:44] higher burden of demonstration that, if authorized, will contribute to or result in

[32:49] logical and orderly development. Finally, criterion E appropriate with changed or

[32:55] changing conditions. We found that the land use and development conditions adjacent

[32:58] to or near the subject property are changing. A rezoning case was approved by the BCC Board

[33:03] of County Commissioners under case Z2015-07 for the property at 201 Lenox Parkway. That

[33:11] property was rezoned from DMU to CLINA. The proposed amendment would not create or

[33:18] contribute to urban sprawl and would assign an appropriate zoning district to the property

[33:23] based on the established historic use requiring buffering and fencing of the

[33:28] adjacent residential uses that is otherwise not currently in place. That concludes our

[33:33] findings for this case board. Are there any questions for staff at this time? All right.

[33:42] If we got questions, we'll come back to you guys. All right. Now we'll hear from members of

[33:49] the public, those members who wish to speak. Please make sure that you filled out a speaker

[33:55] request form in the back of the room and bring it up front. Our the Planning Board bases its

[34:01] decisions on the approval conditions and exceptions described in section 2-6.8 of

[34:07] the Escambia County Land Development Code. During our deliberations, the board will

[34:12] not consider general statements of support or opposition, but accordingly, just to limit your

[34:18] testimony to the approval conditions that we went over earlier described in section

[34:24] 2-6.8. Please also note that only those individuals who are present and give testimony on

[34:30] this rezoning case will be able to speak before the Board of County Commissioners for their

[34:36] final decision. So first up, I have Nancy Accardo. And if you want to come forward and state

[34:47] your name and address for the record and be sworn in, I will get your time started. Okay.

[34:53] Good morning. Good morning everyone. My name is Nancy Liccardo. My address is 112

[35:01] Baileys Court, and I'm here in regards to the rezoning. I've lived in this neighborhood for

[35:09] over 40 years. I've seen a lot of things come and go. I'm very concerned over what will be put

[35:17] on this property. She wasn't sworn. Oh, I'm sorry, I was just sworn in. Raise your right

[35:26] hand. Do solemnly swear or affirm the testimony about to give in this case will be the

[35:30] truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God, I do thank you. Thank

[35:35] you. Yeah. Thank you. Anyway, we'd like to know. And I guess I'm speaking for the two

[35:41] streets. A lot of people couldn't get off to come this time of day, but we. It's true

[35:49] that there is a lot of commercial. But it's on the outskirts. We're surrounded by

[35:54] four highways. As you all know. Debbie Street to Palafox Brant Lane are Beverly Parkway to

[36:01] Massachusetts, which was messed up, but we are so. And I speak for the group that couldn't be

[36:09] here today. We are so concerned about what is going into that property. Is it going to bring

[36:17] our our value of our property down? Is it going to build it up? Is it going to be a

[36:25] business? There's a lot of rumors going around as far as apartments, low income housing,

[36:32] some type of business. Of course, you hear all kind of things, but yet when it's built,

[36:39] it's built. We are trying and we would love to have our little residential area to stay

[36:47] that way. We've had a couple of businesses in and out, but we have one. I think that's might

[36:56] be it closed. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, someone is rented it. I have no idea. Just

[37:08] appreciate you letting me speak. And I really think that if we could get something in there,

[37:15] say brick homes or something, we've got about five new homes that's been built that has been

[37:20] built in our neighborhood. Four of them right down the street from me, about two houses down

[37:25] the residential area is growing. We're trying to build it. We would love to have it built to

[37:33] where we can have a nice neighborhood again. But when you start bringing businesses

[37:40] in, it's going to be more traffic. It's going to be riff raff come in, it's going to be

[37:45] whatever. And I would really like for you to really consider what you're bringing into our

[37:54] neighborhood. If you don't mind, please. Thank you, thank you. Any questions for the speaker?

[38:06] Thank you. All right, I appreciate it. Thank you very much. All right. Our next

[38:11] speaker is Larry Downs Jr. Yeah, please come on up, be sworn in. State your name and address for

[38:16] the record and we'll get your time started. Larry. Hello. Larry Daniels jr I'm ready. Oh,

[38:31] address. Address. What is this? Is this violating my to not. To have to have protection at my

[38:43] house like government officials do? Isn't that weird? You can decline to give your address.

[38:49] 12156 Hamburg Drive. I don't need any help. Half Burg Drive, Pensacola, Florida 32506. Raise

[38:57] your right hand. Sir. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony about to give, in

[39:02] this case the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do. Mr. Alrighty. Of

[39:08] course I, I support this and and I support it based on approval conditions. Meredith

[39:18] laid it out pretty well. I think staff did staff agree. Is that right? Horse? Did y'all.

[39:27] Yes. Yeah. Okay. Good deal. Staff agreed. So there we go. And y'all have done it before.

[39:32] So it's a 14th amendment thing. You've already done it before. So you can't you know, it's

[39:37] kind of wrong to approve someone else and then deny one. And this is not just for this

[39:44] case. This is for every case. Y'all should consider that. You should say, what makes you know,

[39:50] Mr. Smith, any more valuable than Mr. Thomas? You know, in theory or his property, you

[39:56] know, or his property rights? The lady said that she represents a group of people

[40:02] who live near there. Well, I represent a group of people in this country who still love

[40:08] freedom and property rights. So I'm speaking on their behalf. And riff raff. We always hear

[40:15] that riff raff, don't we? Gotta keep the riff raff out. That's not that's not y'all's job or

[40:22] the, or the staff's job, you know, or the presenter's job, you know, that's that's, that's

[40:29] the problem with freedom. With freedom. You get some riff raff, some sometimes it's not all

[40:35] neat and perfect, but you can, you can try to legislate it, but it doesn't help. Anyways,

[40:41] I'm for this, so please, please move along with some freedom. Thank you Larry. Next up is

[40:50] Pepper Weimer. Y'all please come forward, be sworn in and state your name and address for

[40:55] the record. Hi, Pepper Weimer and 8079 Heirloom Drive. And I solemnly swear that I'm telling

[41:06] the truth. And raise your right hand. Your right hand. Thank you. You saw me swear or affirm

[41:12] the testimony about. To give in this case would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

[41:16] but the truth. So help you? Yes, sir. Now you can. Thank you. Hey, guys. So finally learned

[41:21] about the quasi or the zoning. So you have to speak to speak. So I'm going to talk a little

[41:29] bit about transparency and clarity and notice to the public, which are all

[41:35] accessibility issues and accessibility issues are transparency issues. Because

[41:42] when things aren't accessible to the public and it's hard for them to show up. Sounds like

[41:47] Miss Nancy has a lot of neighbors that couldn't make it. They're probably working. So

[41:53] those are those are all issues for the public to interact with these issues that directly

[42:00] affect their communities and their neighbors and their homes. So I learned from Mr. Keith

[42:09] that I can just say I adopt the position of all speakers for further consideration. I don't

[42:15] know if I agree with Nancy or Larry because, again, the transparency issue, Miss Nancy

[42:21] didn't know what what the plans are. And that is just a serious issue in the community in

[42:30] general, not just for this, just all these things that y'all are trying to sneak in.

[42:37] We're, we're, we're connecting with y'all. And, and we would just like a little bit of

[42:41] transparency back. And I know y'all are just the planning board members, members. I'm

[42:45] just putting it up on the record. Maybe somebody's actually listening, you know,

[42:50] and I appreciate what y'all do. So I'm just going to say that we really the public is begging,

[42:59] begging and screaming and crying for transparency and clarity. That's all we want.

[43:05] And this isn't a left or right or any anything like these issues. We all agree on it. We

[43:14] all agree on it. So I think that times are changing right now. We're the public

[43:23] interacting with their local governance. So yeah, the the governance needs to change with

[43:30] us and actually stop obscuring what's going on. You know, there's, there's actually a law

[43:37] called the plain language law. And it's a law where when there's things that have to do

[43:45] with the public and the government and they're supposed to work together, it's supposed

[43:50] to be made to put in layman's terms. So like on your agendas online, they're explained, but

[43:59] they're not explained on those papers. And I know that a paper might be an issue. Like y'all

[44:04] are worried about a paper bill. But at the last board of County commissioners meeting, there

[44:09] was a huge stack of papers that were being wasted. So I think that maybe this place might be

[44:17] a place to pay for some paper so that people can understand. Thank you, thank you. All right.

[44:27] And then we did have the owner of the property, Tammy Bohanon, sign up. But I don't know if

[44:35] you wanted to speak or not, but if you don't have to, but if you would just state your name

[44:41] and address. Tammy Bohanon 228 Starboard Drive, Pensacola Beach, Florida 32561. Right.

[44:47] And you saw miss. Where are you an attorney? No. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the

[44:52] testimony about to give in this case will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but

[44:56] the truth, so help you God? Thank you. Yes, sir. I'm just here in case you have any

[45:01] questions. Any questions for the property owner? None. None. Okay. All right. Thank you very

[45:08] much. All right. Are there after hearing both from the applicant and staff, do we have

[45:16] any questions for them? No. Okay. If there's no questions, I'll entertain a motion on Mr.

[45:29] Walker. Yes, sir. I want to try to provide some education with I. I did speak with Miss Nancy.

[45:41] I I've been known a long time. Amen. She at William High School. She's my cafeteria lady.

[45:47] That's been a long time ago. Wait a minute, Caleb. I don't need that. But but just for the

[45:57] purpose of educating her and I. And I'd be glad to talk to her more. Whatever the. Whatever

[46:02] decision of the Planning Board is this zoning category currently right now is high

[46:09] density, mixed use. Currently without any people giving them permission. They could put some

[46:19] neighborhood commercial type uses on this property right now. Right now it's zone. It is

[46:27] zoned for it. So I want to clarify, it's not this zoning category. If someone came in,

[46:34] they can come to me and say, hey, I want to put this commercial, will look at it.

[46:39] They go through a proper process, but commercial uses can already go in this area.

[46:45] Now, there are some other stipulations that miss that that have they have to go

[46:49] through, as Miss Bush stated, but this zoning category is high density. It currently

[46:56] allows for minimum neighborhood, high density, mixed use commercial can go in this area

[47:07] right now without any special provisions by any type of board or Boa or anything like that.

[47:14] So give me an example then of what kind of commercial uses could go on right now with you

[47:20] and what in moving to commercial is currently zoning. The current zoning category is

[47:28] high density, mixed use. Just a few of the residential uses that people have concerns with,

[47:36] for example, apartments. There are allowable use in this area right now. Townhouses, group

[47:47] living right now without any type of special provision. Again, apartments. And those

[47:53] are those are approved uses not conditional correct. These are permitted allowable uses not

[47:59] conditional uses. A group that would need site plan review process. Of course retail sales.

[48:08] Right now you can have retail sales such as. Now the square footage is a factor 6000 square

[48:17] foot. No more. You can have bed, breakfast and boarding rooming houses. Some of the retail

[48:24] sales professional services including realtors, bankers, accountants, repair services

[48:29] such as appliance repair, furniture that just to name just a few. But it does. It

[48:34] does not allow for motor vehicles. Okay, so go into commercial. What intense uses

[48:40] would then now be allowed that are not. Yes. So that one more time the commercial district

[48:47] does allow for more intense uses such as, you know, hotels, motels, the as far as

[48:53] residential uses, they're essentially the same right as DMU. The density allocations

[48:58] and the intensity. As far as apartments, they're both allowed in the DMU and the

[49:04] commercial. The difference is there's no restriction on the size of the retail sales in the

[49:11] DMU, and the current zoning district is limited to 6000 square foot. Think neighborhood

[49:22] type of retail sales and service. Barbershop. A conditional use is available in

[49:25] this existing zoning district to build up to 35,000ft² of retail, sales, service, those

[49:33] type of things. The commercial district. There's no limitation on the size. There are

[49:39] provisions such as car washes. More greater personal services, repair service restaurants. So

[49:48] that kind of gives you a little bit more idea. H DMU it's really restricted on the size

[49:54] of the buildings without conditional use. And also to thank you, Caleb also too, if

[49:59] someone if someone had what the current zoning of of if you decide to keep it the same, if

[50:06] someone wanted to come in with one of those, use a greater. That's right. Greater than

[50:10] signs. The use would have to be specified and maybe that's can help with the neighborhood. It

[50:16] would have to be a public meeting, but they have to get approval from the Board of

[50:20] adjustments. But it's conditional. And the neighborhood, they can show up

[50:23] and they could they could see what is going on with that particular use going on in the

[50:31] neighborhood. So so there will be a, a, another public meeting. If, if someone want to come in

[50:38] with those higher uses that are allowable and conditional use, and with that, and they want to

[50:43] go more than 6000 square foot. So there will be a public BOA and neighborhood impact. The

[50:48] uses clearly got to be identified then. So, Mr. Speaker, and in light of one of

[50:55] the speakers, miss Pepper, I believe the plain speak. I'm a big fan of it. They've got to

[51:01] dumb this down for me a lot. One of the one of the reasons what we do up here, we have to

[51:06] look at the macro. We can't look at the specific. Hence the question I asked is it for

[51:11] marketability or for a specific use? She was kind enough to mention the specific use. I

[51:15] think a windows door type of property. But again, for the homeowner nearby, there's

[51:21] another level where he just mentioned the board of adjustments where you have.

[51:25] Don't wash your hands if this. You have still a voice in this whole process as you go forward

[51:31] and how they allow things to be built there or not. But up here, we look at the macro and then

[51:37] we we ask for detail, but we cannot basically judge it on what specific use. Because if

[51:44] today it's a if it's commercial, that could mean a whole list of things. We have to think about

[51:49] everything that's possible for them. It's not to obscure what is, you know, planned to be

[51:54] there because quite frankly, none of us know. We have no idea ten years from now. Yeah.

[51:59] And Mr. Collins, and let me let me clarify something. I want to make sure I said it correctly.

[52:04] If it remains high density, mixed use, if it remains what it currently is, and if there's

[52:11] any of those uses that exceed the square footage, then they will have to have Boa approval.

[52:18] With the conditional use approval got to be specified. That's if someone come and

[52:24] y'all make a decision to keep it there. Those higher uses, there's another option for them,

[52:31] which is through the board of adjustments at a public meeting. I want to be clear, for the

[52:37] record, that's if it remains high density, mixed use, right. You're saying if we denied the

[52:44] request today, that the other option would be to go to the board of adjustments for one of

[52:50] those uses, or conditional use or variance. So for the owner, if it does get approved, what

[52:57] what voice do they have? What what part of the process can they if somebody comes through

[53:02] with a permit request and they have a pre-application meeting, are they allowed to join in

[53:09] that process or hear what's going to be presented? You speak to me without their staff.

[53:17] Well, of course there is known if it is approved, if someone if they do want to come, they

[53:25] come to the site plan review process. There is no type of quote unquote public meetings

[53:32] or anything where they can come, but they can. The meetings will be posted, they can show up the

[53:37] pre app, but if that use is allowed, it will be rather challenging for someone to say

[53:44] that basically, because I don't like it. That's not that's not according to the law. Meredith,

[53:53] do you want to add something? I would like to yes. Just briefly respond to some of the

[53:57] statements being made. We appreciate Miss Liccardo coming out, as we always do with

[54:02] citizens expressing their concerns. As she stated stated herself, there is a lot of

[54:07] commercial. It's a direct quote. There's. This is already happening around her. Any idea

[54:12] that apartments or low housing or anything like that may occur? As Mr. Jones stated, as we've

[54:17] stated, the density, the number of houses, none of that's changing. So if this owner

[54:21] wanted to put that in today, We could file a pre app for that today. The major difference is

[54:26] the square footage and not the need to come in for a conditional use. Because again

[54:30] if it's marketability, if it's, you know, a broad range of potential uses, then, you know,

[54:36] having to narrow one down and say, this is exactly what we're going to do and do at this

[54:40] stage in the development really is not the best path for us, which is why we're here for the

[54:45] rezoning. Florida law actually prohibits contract zoning. So for us to come say we're

[54:50] absolutely we promise we're going to do a window store. So therefore give us this 100. You

[54:54] know, that's a contract that's saying we'll give you something, you give us something and

[54:58] that's not allowed. So we can't say even though, you know, everyone has good intentions.

[55:03] Obviously, you all understand. And for the public to understand, you are looking at

[55:07] the broad picture and all permitted uses in these cases, your, you know, purview is very

[55:17] narrow. You have to look only at the criteria and determine whether by competent and

[55:20] substantial evidence, we've met those criteria. We, you know, have submitted our evidence,

[55:24] our supporting materials and our report meeting that criteria. The county has

[55:27] adopted and agreed with that. They even say in their findings that it is transitional between

[55:32] the CLI and the DMU. Concerns about traffic or riff raff. The Redevelopment Agency has no

[55:40] concerns, and they're charged with redeveloping a blighted, not necessarily blighted, but

[55:45] an area that needs some attention. So I'm not saying the area is blighted. However

[55:49] that's what they're charged with. They say, you know, we're good with this traffic

[55:53] department. TT o has issued a memorandum. They're good with it. Again, staff says we've met

[55:58] the criteria. And just for, you know, a little bit of reassurance for the neighbors,

[56:04] any use, any of the permitted uses has to come back through the county. It goes through

[56:10] development review committee. They can come and participate. Those are, you know, agenda

[56:16] meetings they can get with Mr. Jones and ask to be notified when that process starts. And

[56:22] be aware, because the county must look to see whether that particular use actually also is

[56:29] compatible and consistent. So if we, you know, somebody wanted to come in with

[56:33] something that was going to be, you know, incredibly noisy or generate a lot of traffic or

[56:38] somehow adverse to the neighborhood. The county still has the ability at review

[56:42] committee level to deny it. So having met the criteria, again, we appreciate everyone's

[56:46] concerns. But we would ask for approval today. Meredith. I have a chairman. I have a

[56:51] question for Meredith. The current property has obviously a church structure on it that

[56:55] was built in 1980. So from a I mean, this is prior to us even having zoning here in Escambia

[57:00] County that didn't start until Windhorse 96, that we really had a real zoning

[57:04] classifications here. And from a stormwater standpoint, which I saw, I think I saw Chris Curb

[57:09] back there. He'll appreciate this. Any changes in this property footprint would have

[57:14] to meet today's current standards. And this is only an acre. One acre just over an

[57:19] acre property. So any any changes to this footprint parking wise and things would

[57:24] have to have new stormwater meet today's current standards. So if that gives if if that

[57:29] gives the citizens some some, you know, and not only is that true, but a change of use that

[57:35] increases the parking requirements also has to come up. So let's say, you know, to

[57:41] your question, if the building gets raised, hurricane, whatever takes it out, they're

[57:44] going to rebuild. Absolutely. To today's standards, if we if somebody comes in and wants to

[57:50] do something, you know, a change of use that that the use itself is going to impact or,

[57:55] you know, create that higher demand. Today's standards, while the building itself may

[58:02] be, I hate to use grandfathered, but non-conforming in some way. And I don't know that it is

[58:07] actually non-conforming, but but to the extent it may be, you know, more intense

[58:11] development, anything like that is going to trigger those protections for the

[58:15] neighborhood. And again, anytime you have a commercial use adjacent to or buffering a

[58:20] residence, there are those heightened buffering standards, higher, you know, heightened

[58:23] protections between the two uses and lots of steps to get to a change in from what it

[58:29] currently is today as far as use goes, as well as parking and so forth. So yes,

[58:33] absolutely. Thank you. All right. Any further questions? If there aren't any I'll

[58:39] entertain a motion on case Z2026-16. Well, as much as I don't like spot zoning, but I

[58:46] feel with the urban infill component of all this and with the CRA there, I think this

[58:51] merits this. So I'm you know, recommend approval for this case. Second. Okay. Any

[58:58] discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand

[59:04] motion carries. All right. That was the only case that we had in the rezoning meeting. So we

[59:10] will adjourn that meeting. And we will now call to order the regular Planning Board meeting.

[59:17] So the Escambia County Planning Board for September 1st is hereby called to order with six

[59:23] members present. We do have a quorum. Do we have proof of publication? Yes, sir. The

[59:29] publication meet all legal requirements. Yes, sir. I'll entertain a motion to waive the

[59:34] reading of the legal advertisement. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second.

[59:37] Second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries.

[59:42] Planning board meeting minutes for July 7th, 2026 have been provided to the board. I'll

[59:48] entertain a motion to accept the meeting minutes into evidence. Do we have a motion?

[59:53] Motion? We have a second. Second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your

[59:57] right hand. All right. Motion carries. Planning board hearing package for September 1st has

[1:00:02] been provided to the board. I'll entertain a motion to accept the hearing package and

[1:00:05] legal advertisement into evidence to have a motion. Motion to accept. Second.

[1:00:10] Second. All right. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All

[1:00:13] right. Great. All right. So there is one item to be heard today that we will vote on.

[1:00:22] That is the small scale map amendment application for consideration case SSA202601

[1:00:32] request change the future Land Use category for parcel number 26-1-31- 3200 dash 000-001 off

[1:00:44] Mill View Road from mixed use suburban MUS to AR agricultural residential flew as requested

[1:00:51] by Meredith Bush, the agent for Chavers construction. The owner staff was. Notice of the

[1:00:57] hearing sent to all interested parties. Yes, sir. Was notice of the hearing posted on the

[1:01:03] subject property? Yes, sir. All right. Meredith, are you good with staff presenting maps and

[1:01:08] photographs? Yes, sir. All right. Good morning, planning Board. My name is Melissa

[1:01:15] Shirley. I am an urban planner two with the Development Services Department. This is

[1:01:21] the location map. This is the 500 radius zoning map for the subject parcel. This is the

[1:01:33] existing future land use. This is the proposed future land use. This is the NWI wetlands map.

[1:01:47] This is an aerial photograph. This is the notice of the public hearing sign on the

[1:01:54] subject parcel. This is looking east along Bankhead Drive. This is looking across Bankhead

[1:02:03] Drive. This is looking west along Bankhead Drive. This is looking south onto the site.

[1:02:13] This is also looking south onto the site. This is actually on some of the site right here, as

[1:02:23] well as more of the site right here. The conditions currently at the site. That's all of the

[1:02:38] staff findings of the. All right. Thank you very much, Meredith. Please just go ahead

[1:02:43] and come forward. And we've already had you state your name and address. So we'll skip that

[1:02:50] part. And did you read that part? Yeah. Okay. Did you receive a hearing or the

[1:02:56] package for. With staff's analysis for today's case? Yes, sir. All right. I'll go ahead.

[1:03:02] So this is a small scale map amendment. We're actually seeking to go from the mixed

[1:03:07] use suburban down to an agricultural residential. Part of this is implementation of

[1:03:13] the savings clause. As you're aware, in 2015, the county adopted a new Land Development

[1:03:19] code rezone. The entire county. Part of that and an unintended consequence, was that certain

[1:03:26] rights and permitted uses were lost. To avoid any issues with that, legally, the county

[1:03:32] adopted the savings clause, which allows an owner to ask to be reverted back or allow those

[1:03:38] prior uses. However, in order to do so, the county, at no cost to the applicant, has to

[1:03:44] process a future land use map amendment when that action would create an incompatibility

[1:03:51] with one of the uses being requested. So, you know, we had discussions back and forth with

[1:03:59] the county whether or not for the intended use. This is an already excavated borrow pit

[1:04:04] for the intended use. Whether or not we should, you know, bump up to an industrial or go

[1:04:09] back to a agricultural residential. The prior zoning is rural residential that's

[1:04:16] been implemented and out of, you know, for every reason, we have determined that going back

[1:04:21] down to the agricultural residential is the most appropriate. It's going from 25,

[1:04:25] you know, potential dwelling units to one per four acres in a much more limited scope. We

[1:04:32] have met the criteria, I believe counties report outlines that. However, I will

[1:04:38] walk through those requirements. So there are quite a few for these. So the property as far

[1:04:58] as environmental criteria, the property is in an area of minimal flood hazard zone X

[1:05:05] soils of the area, primarily Bonifay loamy sand and big B garcon complex soils. We've

[1:05:11] submitted a contour map. We are not within any protected wellhead area outside of both

[1:05:19] the seven year and 20 year contour. Sanitary, sewer and water to the extent necessary.

[1:05:28] Emerald Coast Utilities Authority will provide water and sanitation services if

[1:05:34] needed. Traffic. The subject property is located to the south of Bankhead Drive and

[1:05:38] west of blue Angel Parkway, near the intersection of blue Angel and Mobile Highway. FDOT

[1:05:44] provides an annual traffic daily count at that. At that location of 15000 trips on blue

[1:05:50] Angel Parkway. Wetlands and drainage to the site contains a shallow, man made water body

[1:05:57] created by the prior excavation. So when the pit was dug out, there is, you know, some water

[1:06:02] there, but the artificial borrow pit pond does not constitute jurisdictional

[1:06:07] wetlands. Any necessary assessments or any, you know, review of the stormwater or

[1:06:14] drainage would occur at the development review stage. Stormwater system, if needed,

[1:06:20] would be designed for 100 year storm event. It's not within a stormwater problem area. It is

[1:06:25] located within the eight Mile Creek drainage basin. Solid waste to the extent necessary,

[1:06:31] will be collected by Ecua for disposal in the county landfill, which has adequate existing and

[1:06:38] projected capacity. Level of standard. Level of service standard for solid waste

[1:06:43] disposal is 6 pounds per capita per day. Parks, recreation and open space. Proposed amendments

[1:06:51] would not adversely affect parks, recreation or open space. All code requirements will be

[1:06:57] adhered to throughout development review process. The current school assignments for

[1:07:01] the area are Beulah Elementary, Beulah Middle School, and Pine Forest High School. The

[1:07:07] amendment to AR is not anticipated to create any capacity issue, and again, it

[1:07:11] actually reduces any conflict with school capacity as we're going from 25 units per acre

[1:07:17] down to one one unit per four acres. State of Florida Division of Historical

[1:07:24] Resources. We did request that analysis. The historic and archeological investigation

[1:07:30] revealed there were no protected historical or cultural references on the

[1:07:34] property, and as part of our packet, we have submitted those findings with a comprehensive

[1:07:40] plan request. We have to show a need and benefit. The identified land use need is

[1:07:45] consistent with the scope and function of the comprehensive plan, for which the amendment

[1:07:50] to AR is clearly warranted. In this case, the County Savings Clause provides the specific

[1:07:55] policy basis for the amendment to restore the property's prior rural residential zoning rights

[1:08:01] rights that cannot be meaningfully implemented under the current Muhs designation.

[1:08:06] So again, in order to accommodate that restoration of rights, we have to have the flu

[1:08:13] change. We also have to show professional practices. The amendment applies contemporary

[1:08:18] planning principles, engineering standards, and professional best practices.

[1:08:23] The implementation of the savings clause to restore the RR zoning entitlements reflect

[1:08:29] sound planning methodology by ensuring the comprehensive plan, zoning map and long standing

[1:08:34] use and history of the property operate cohesively. As far as the specific small scale

[1:08:41] amendment conditions out of Florida statutes 16331871. We're less than 50 acres. It's

[1:08:48] about a 20 acre parcel. This does not involve a text change. The comprehensive plan. It's

[1:08:53] only a land use change to the map. And we are not in an area designated of critical state

[1:09:00] concern. Section D of our report. We go through about 40 comprehensive plan principles

[1:09:07] which we meet. I won't take the time to read all those to you, but they are submitted as

[1:09:12] evidence in the background of this hearing. And I believe that concludes the specific

[1:09:19] findings. Again, staff supports our request. This may be one that you've heard a little

[1:09:25] about, because we were recently at the Board of Adjustment and were granted a conditional use

[1:09:29] approval for land clearing debris. As an amended reclamation plan on the pit. So

[1:09:34] there has been some concern. I would just remind everyone, if there are speakers, that today

[1:09:39] is only about the savings clause and the change in the land, the future land use

[1:09:45] conditional use hearing that was already determined by the Board of Adjustment, we will

[1:09:49] have after this, the whole development review process to get a development order, which

[1:09:53] will be contingent on a full public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners for an

[1:09:57] operational permit. So all we're asking today is that you give us a consistent flew for

[1:10:03] our entitlement to the RR zoning. And again, it reduces the density from 25 to 1 per

[1:10:10] four. Happy to take any questions or address speakers concerns. Any questions for

[1:10:16] Meredith at this time? Just just for clarification, the savings clause allows it to

[1:10:21] roll back will will to a previous zoning that doesn't exist anymore. Right. Will that

[1:10:31] affect will they have to come here? We'll have to have a quasi judicial meeting. Or is

[1:10:35] it just. No, no. It's automatic. So when someone has lost a use, there's an application form to

[1:10:42] the county just seeking to have them restore that, reinstate that prior use. That does not

[1:10:48] go to anyone but county reviewers who look at. Yes, this is the prior zoning. Yes,

[1:10:52] this was a prior use. We're giving it to them because we shouldn't have taken it per law.

[1:10:57] It's only when you look at that and you see, oh, you know, there's this use or there's

[1:11:01] this, this zoning category that is no longer consistent under the code with the future land

[1:11:06] use. So the county at its cost must I mean, the applicant has to apply. The county didn't

[1:11:11] apply for us. But as part of that restoration of the entitlement, we have to do the

[1:11:16] future land use. So that's where the hearing comes in. And then once we get the approval,

[1:11:21] you know, you recommend or recommend approval or denial. But once that final decision is

[1:11:25] made by the county commission, the savings clause is then signed and recorded. But the

[1:11:31] actual reversion to that prior zoning is not a question for anyone other than staff looking

[1:11:36] to say, yeah, we took this, we got to give it back, right? We're not in instituting any

[1:11:40] new things. It's just taking it back to where the previous uses were. Correct. And again, here

[1:11:46] we're going back to rural residential, which is a much less intense, much less dense.

[1:11:51] So, you know, future use of the property is much more protected for and lower intensity for the

[1:11:57] surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you. And board just there are a lot of moving parts with

[1:12:04] this issue. Sorry. Andrew Holmer Development services. As Miss Busch mentioned, you're

[1:12:13] strictly here looking at a small scale future land use map amendment strictly to bring the

[1:12:24] savings clause uses into conformance with the future land use. The savings clause is

[1:12:30] for uses, but it's also for density. In either case, when someone enacts it, we, the

[1:12:35] staff, are obligated to make sure they have a compatible future land use. And that's all

[1:12:40] this is today. Last month at the Board of Adjustment, we handled the conditional use

[1:12:45] because in the previous zoning, RR, borrow pits and reclamation activities were a conditional

[1:12:52] use. So this change to the reclamation was reviewed by the Board of Adjustment and

[1:12:58] approved by the Board of Adjustment. So today is the next to last step of cleaning

[1:13:06] this up. In the future land use change. All right. All right. Now we'll have staff make their

[1:13:16] presentation. Okay. Again this is a summary of the proposed amendment for transition from

[1:13:27] mixed use suburban to agricultural residential. So the small scale amendment to

[1:13:35] the future land use map of Escambia County proposes the change to change. Excuse me,

[1:13:43] the flu category of one parcel totaling 21.4 acres from mixed use suburban to agricultural

[1:13:52] residential. The current zoning designation of the subject parcel is low density

[1:13:58] residential with a savings clause. Zoning of rural residential district. Low

[1:14:03] density. The subject parcel was historically permitted as the bank had. Borrow pit. The RR

[1:14:10] zoning designation by the use of the saving savings clause reestablishes the ability to

[1:14:19] apply for a conditional use of borrow pits and reclamation activities subject to the local

[1:14:26] permit and development review requirements. The application. Excuse me, the applicant has an

[1:14:33] approved conditional use request CU202601 to allow a borrow pit within 1000ft of a

[1:14:42] residential. Use the RR zoning designation in lieu of the low Density Zoning designation,

[1:14:50] requires a future land use change. This future land use change from mixed use suburban

[1:14:56] to agricultural residential will allow for the most compatible and consistent flu

[1:15:02] category to support continued commercial activities consistent with the approved

[1:15:09] conditional use. And then below is just some information about those two designations. Mixed

[1:15:15] use suburban. The intended use is a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, while

[1:15:21] promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses.

[1:15:27] And then the proposed future land use is agricultural residential, which is intended

[1:15:33] for routine agricultural and silvicultural related activities and low density

[1:15:41] residential uses. It also allows for commercial activity limited to those endeavors,

[1:15:47] ancillary to agricultural and silvicultural pursuits, and in support of agricultural

[1:15:53] activities such as seed feed and food outlets, farm equipment and repair and

[1:16:00] veterinary services so as to the land development, flu amendment requirements. There

[1:16:09] are general amendment conditions, the need and benefits, a conversion from

[1:16:16] mixed use suburban flu to agricultural. Excuse me, agricultural residential flu

[1:16:22] would allow for reinstated conditional use. Commercial activity on the savings clause

[1:16:28] has already been applied for and vested. The continued use of the bank head pit as to

[1:16:35] professional practices, the requested change to agricultural residential would

[1:16:41] be compatible with the existing site. This is also compatible with the approved conditional

[1:16:47] use operation of the borrow pit at this location. As to the flu amendment conditions subject to

[1:16:54] Florida statutes. 163.31871 as to one, the subject parcel is 21.48 acres, which is less than

[1:17:10] those 50 acre requirement or fewer. The proposed amendment does not involve a text change

[1:17:17] to the Comprehensive Plan, and only a site specific small scale development activity, and

[1:17:26] the properties are subject to the proposed amendment, not within a critical state concern

[1:17:33] area. As to other comp plan objectives and policies for housing. The approved

[1:17:43] historical borrow pit would not be suitable for residential uses. The reclamation plan for

[1:17:49] the land Clearing Debris Facility would be challenging for future redevelopment. If

[1:17:56] the flu change is approved, the commercial activity would be consistent with the savings

[1:18:01] clause zoning, and it would allow for the most productive use of the existing site. As

[1:18:07] for the future land use, the future land use categories adjacent and surrounding the

[1:18:14] subject parcel are mixed use suburban and industrial. This change to AR would not change

[1:18:22] the area's characteristics while preventing sprawl and higher densities, as well as

[1:18:28] preserving the protection of rural areas. As to infrastructure, the parcel is

[1:18:34] currently undeveloped for any kind of residential activities. The scope of the proposed

[1:18:40] continued conditional use of the pit operations will be reviewed at a future date to

[1:18:45] determine provisions for any required infrastructure changes, and then as to the concurrency

[1:18:53] management system in relation to potable water, sanitary sewer and solid waste disposal.

[1:19:01] According to the application, Ecua provides the potable water, sanitary sewer and solid waste

[1:19:08] collection and disposal of the subject parcel. The continued use of the proposed conditional

[1:19:15] use commercial activity would require future review. If any capacity changes at this

[1:19:22] location. As to the stormwater management and the the current installation will be reviewed

[1:19:36] if any new development will be made here and be the responsibility of the developer

[1:19:43] as to transportation and mobility, the t o staff has submitted information there.

[1:19:54] I'm not going to go through all of that, but they did note that they were in approval of the

[1:20:04] small scale change as to protected resources. The subject parcel is outside of

[1:20:12] any kind of wellhead protection areas. As to the historically significant sites, there was

[1:20:21] none that were identified as to wetlands and habitats. The. There are indications there

[1:20:27] that there are hydric soils, which may indicate the presence of wetlands. However, a review

[1:20:32] of the available National Wetlands Inventory data showed that only the southernmost

[1:20:36] portion of the property had been identified as having wetlands attributes. A site

[1:20:41] specific survey will be required before any future development authorizations,

[1:20:46] regardless of the proposed flu change. Requirements for state and federal wetlands impacts or

[1:20:53] responsibility of the developer, and a requirement for any new development of the existing

[1:20:59] location. And as to the final urban forest, any existing vegetation will remain as

[1:21:07] buffering to the site. Any future development may require a tree inventory and subject

[1:21:13] parcel for any expansion of the future use of the site, and that concludes the staff's

[1:21:20] findings. All right. Any questions for staff? All right. Seeing none, we do have two

[1:21:29] members of the public that have signed up to speak. So Larry Downes Jr, if you'll please

[1:21:34] come forward, state your name and address for us and we'll get your time started. Address

[1:21:43] again? Oh, yeah. You've already said yours, Larry. Larry Downes junior here. I happen to have a

[1:21:50] little bit of experience with this. It's probably ten years ago or so that I had to utilize

[1:21:57] the savings clause. Didn't know anything about it. And of course, I'm in favor of this

[1:22:03] because it's the right thing to do. But they rezoned Half Bird Drive where I live. The whole

[1:22:11] one mile long road rezoned it to LDR low density residential from RR. Nothing is conforming

[1:22:20] out there. 90% of the properties on that road are non-conforming cows, horses,

[1:22:24] all types of stuff. So I don't know why they did this. I was in the middle of battling the

[1:22:31] city natural gas department, so I was busy and whoever put up the sign, y'all know that I

[1:22:37] would I would have been here. So they put the sign up and then it must have disappeared

[1:22:45] really quickly because I didn't see it coming in or out. And y'all know me. Y'all know I

[1:22:50] would have got out, took a picture with this sign and came here. But I was busy fighting

[1:22:54] another leg of government. So anyways, I'm for this restoration of rights, you know,

[1:23:01] I mean, that's isn't that weird that we had rights once upon a time and now y'all have to

[1:23:09] suggest to the county commissioners to restore them rights. So I'm for that. And

[1:23:15] also, you know, the 14th amendment supports this, right? You know, because we're

[1:23:20] supposed to have property rights. And if we if we give it to anybody else, which it was

[1:23:26] given to me, I have a paper in my safe to make sure it never goes away because of because of

[1:23:34] my farm, which I have chickens and cows and goats and turkeys and all this kind of stuff. But

[1:23:40] all the uses that are allowed with this, you know, it's, it's it's kind of a, it's kind of

[1:23:48] represents the basic principles of liberty and our founding principles of this country. So

[1:23:54] anyways, recommend to the county that they accept the savings clause. Thank you to

[1:24:02] the commissioners. All right. Thank you Larry. Next up is Deborah Fall. If you'll state

[1:24:12] your name and address for the record and be well, you don't have to be sworn in in this

[1:24:18] meeting, so we'll get your time started. My name is Deborah Fall. I have I own 5115

[1:24:32] Bankhead Drive. I am the L right ahead of the pit. I'm. I like chambers, I'm all in

[1:24:40] favors what he wants to do. My concern and my question is that that access road belongs to me.

[1:24:46] I they he has irrevocable use of it. There's also two other pits right there beside it.

[1:24:51] They all have irrevocable use of that access road, but it belongs to me on my legal

[1:24:55] description. So my question is, if they are going to develop something back there, how does

[1:24:59] that work with it being an access road? And that's really all. Otherwise I'm in favor. I

[1:25:03] like rural residential and I hope they do put large acreage back there eventually, but

[1:25:07] they've got to go across my road to get there. So if somebody can explain how that

[1:25:11] works out, that would be great. Thank you. All right. I would refer you over to Developmental

[1:25:15] Services for a better answer with that. And probably, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, ma'am. He

[1:25:19] knows me. Very good. All right. We have no further speakers. Any further questions for staff

[1:25:24] or the applicant. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Motion to accept move to state. Okay.

[1:25:32] Second. Second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please signify by

[1:25:35] raising your right hand. All right. Motion carries. All right. We do have one action

[1:25:44] item for discussion today or one discussion item. I'm sorry. That's out lying fields a

[1:25:51] discussion. So am I turning this on over to you guys. And okay. And we do have several

[1:25:59] speakers on this as well. All right. There's a lot of moving parts with this issue as well.

[1:26:10] Okay. Ol f eight. So as you will recall, we were here before with the future land use

[1:26:15] change that was recommended by the BCC to be transmitted to Tallahassee. It has been sent

[1:26:24] to Tallahassee. We're waiting on their answer. Along with that is the master plan. The

[1:26:36] changes to the the master plan that's on there. Now, in addition to that, and from that

[1:26:44] master plan, there's going to be some proposed rezoning involved with that. Can. Can I

[1:26:50] pause this just a second, chair? Yeah. How did this item get on the agenda? So requested to put

[1:26:56] this item on the agenda? It came from our direction that we were given. Now, this is is the

[1:27:05] county did the county, county administration. Yes. County. So West Marino was requested to

[1:27:09] this be put on the agenda? I don't recall exactly what person said who what, but

[1:27:17] because this hasn't been discussed at the Board of County Commissioners, for it to

[1:27:20] come to us for discussion. So correct. Everything that goes to them from this board comes

[1:27:25] here first. So this is a discussion item. Okay. As you'll recall, when the future

[1:27:31] land use items came through, there were questions from from this board about not having

[1:27:39] enough time to review. So as an action item, the master plan will be showing up at a later

[1:27:49] date. We're looking at October, but before doing that, we're bringing it to this board and

[1:27:55] the public as a discussion item for it to have the whole month of discussion prior to

[1:28:02] requesting an action on the item. So that's, that's how we got here. So I, I need some

[1:28:09] legal clarification. So considering this is an item that's going to come as a

[1:28:13] future rezoning, will, will, will not. Ex-parte communication there. So there's

[1:28:22] multiple items coming in the upcoming planning board. There's a rezoning component.

[1:28:27] And then there's a master plan design plan component. The master plan design plan

[1:28:31] component is not quasi judicial. That means it's not subject to the same proceeding. Okay. This

[1:28:40] is in order for the board to evaluate in general the design plan and have some time to

[1:28:46] process things before the actual planning board hearing, where there will be a vote

[1:28:52] taken to recommend it, or to deny or to approve or deny the recommended recommendation to

[1:28:58] the BCC. So this today is just discussion item on that before it comes before for a vote. So

[1:29:06] a rezoning is coming based on what Mr. Homer just said. And you so what ex parte

[1:29:12] communication be considered. So anybody that we talk to and the board members that the

[1:29:17] applicant citizens any any of that is going to be ex parte communications when those

[1:29:21] rezoning come to us. Correct. As far as the rezoning part of this, that part is subject to

[1:29:26] the quasi judicial procedures. Yes. Okay. Just looking for clarification. Thank you. So I

[1:29:37] guess to Jonathan's point, what we're discussing today, are we potentially introducing

[1:29:44] evidence into what could be a potential future rezoning case and hearing evidence that may

[1:29:53] be presented to us before we should be getting that? Sure. I can provide clarification to

[1:29:58] that as well. So this public hearing, legislative amendments like this, they're about

[1:30:06] setting and creating policy, quasi judicial, are about applying policies. So having

[1:30:11] that separation there is helpful to your understanding of how these proceedings should

[1:30:17] work. So quasi judicial means you're applying something, you're doing rezoning, you're

[1:30:21] doing a variance, something like that. This is about policy setting. This is the text, the

[1:30:30] design standards more generally of this development or this parcel. Excuse me. So it's

[1:30:39] setting policy. That's why it's not quasi judicial and why it can be discussed today. And if

[1:30:45] I may, and if I may basically, as stated, basically, we're just going to be looking at a

[1:30:53] plan, the overall concept of the master plan, drawings, diagrams, layouts for we've

[1:31:02] this is, is this the same version that we've seen before, or is this has some revisions

[1:31:06] to it? This what this what they're going to present just like we did for the, the other

[1:31:10] one that we adopted, we looked at the pictures and graphics and drawings. Master plan for

[1:31:15] discussion. It will. This drawing concept will come back at this stage for a public

[1:31:22] meeting. But this is the first step right now that just writing, writing this really.

[1:31:28] There's no. You can have discussion on it. It's not even a horse. Is this the same

[1:31:34] presentation we received back in July? It's not, it's not. No, it's not okay. It's updated. So

[1:31:40] it's there's been changes made to it as far as whatever zoning class, zoning, classification

[1:31:50] changes previous to what we've seen before, let them present. And if you can let them go

[1:31:56] through it and they they going to show you. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Pretty slippery slope

[1:32:02] we're getting on here, fellas. It's it's it's not we got legal. Yeah. Yeah. We're not I mean

[1:32:07] horse legal is legal. And everybody's got opinions just like I do. So but this is a

[1:32:11] slippery slope. We're going down here. I do kind of agree with them because we are

[1:32:15] entering something that is technically privy to our discussion beforehand, which we

[1:32:18] do come and state. We didn't, you know, kind of have discussions about that parcel.

[1:32:22] I get that it's supposed to be to that underlying zoning. So I do get kind of with everyone

[1:32:27] here. I guess my question would be, what is our goal for us today for this? Just to listen

[1:32:34] more information. Yeah, that's a great question. Do you clarify do we vote on this

[1:32:39] action item today? No, there's no vote. It's a discussion item. Yes. And the direction from

[1:32:50] county administration for having this set for today was to kind of workshop this design

[1:32:55] plan and give the opportunity of the public to speak as well as the team to speak to this

[1:33:02] project. So that was the intent of today from administration is to gather more public input,

[1:33:06] because these are significant legislative changes to our LDC. So if you look at the design

[1:33:13] code, we're not doing a rezoning today. There's not maps related to rezoning,

[1:33:18] putting things into different zoning categories. That's not what's happening. It's a

[1:33:23] discussion on the design plan and whether those standards and whatnot and kind of workshop

[1:33:29] those things a bit so that when it comes next time, there'll be more of a better understanding

[1:33:34] of the process and the, the current status of the, of the design plan. So this is

[1:33:42] basically an awareness effort, and it's perfectly appropriate for this board to absorb with

[1:33:47] zero response, all discussion discussion. You're welcome to discuss it and recommend

[1:33:54] changes to the developer. So it's kind of just a workshop because this is such a

[1:34:00] substantial project for the county and its impact is substantial. Putting all those

[1:34:04] things in one day, the rezoning and workshopping, this is a lot. So it kind of separates those

[1:34:11] processes out a bit to the extent that they're able to be. It was a long way for the

[1:34:16] citizens of district one and Bula residents to get to where we are today. With outlying

[1:34:22] field eight or outlying fields. The future name of it, lots of workshops, Navy, federal paid

[1:34:30] for a design company to do charrettes lots of civic engagement. So for us to take

[1:34:37] information about a future rezoning for a future owner. Because right now, the citizens

[1:34:43] of Escambia County still own outlying field. Would you agree? Yes, yes. So. So, chairman,

[1:34:54] it's up to you. I get the sense that whereas a few of us up here, maybe most of us up here,

[1:35:09] are a little uneasy about this and don't want to get ourselves, you know, ahead of this or into

[1:35:17] an issue, potential issue that maybe some of us sea view, maybe not what the attorneys

[1:35:22] see. Are, I don't know. You know, if this is something we want to continue with, we

[1:35:33] certainly can. If it's an item that we want to drop, we could do that too. And I would hate

[1:35:41] to have wasted people's time to come down here for that. But. Well, being that it's just a

[1:35:47] discussion, theoretically, I, I'm kind of curious about what the applicant, how similar it

[1:35:54] is to the charrette program, to DP's, because in my opinion, from everything that they spoke

[1:36:00] to before, it seemed to mirror to some degree the DPP's process, the charrette process,

[1:36:05] and my inclination last time we were accused of not listening to the people that were against

[1:36:13] it. And I adamantly opposed that because and I'm strongly in favor of how I voted last

[1:36:19] time, because it mirrored what the charrette program, exactly what they asked for, what they

[1:36:24] wanted. And so to that point, and I felt like saying, look, if the opposition would like it

[1:36:30] to remain a green field, then be honest about it and present that to the county

[1:36:35] commissioners and figure out a way to pay for it to be maintained. I mean, we're never

[1:36:40] going to create the perfect animal for the people, apparently, because like I said,

[1:36:47] it seemed like it was DP's exact charrette. What came out of the whole charrette program.

[1:36:52] I feel like this is probably more of a covering someone's backside to have this put out

[1:36:57] there for us. But hey, I'd like to suss that out. Is this like DPP's charrette process or is

[1:37:04] this not? Yeah. That is I mean, we are it is a workshop right now, but I. We're going to have

[1:37:18] to wait till we figure out what we're doing. Exactly. May I address that point or not yet.

[1:37:25] Not yet. I'm sorry. Okay. So where do we want to continue on and and hear the presentation

[1:37:35] or. We'll be here. We'll be here next. Well, that's that's true. Yeah, it at some point it

[1:37:46] will come before you as an action item. That's why it's here as a discussion so that

[1:37:52] you can have this time to go through it, discuss it, listen to the presentation prior to

[1:38:00] things being brought to you requesting action. There's no action required, just simply a

[1:38:04] discussion. Okay. I lean towards at least giving this a go since we've got so many

[1:38:09] people that have signed up to speak and came down here and have spent some time with us

[1:38:14] this morning. So if we'll proceed, unless, you know a majority of you tell me we

[1:38:22] should not. Anyways, we'll go ahead and move forward. So who is presenting? No. She's got

[1:38:34] the slide. She's got the slides. Okay. Good deal. Appreciate it. Thank you all. Good morning,

[1:38:39] Mr. Chairman. Members. My name is Truett Brewer. I'm an attorney at Phelps Dunbar here

[1:38:42] in Pensacola. My firm and I represent the purchaser under the contract with the county.

[1:38:47] The developer group, Tri-w and Chad Henderson. As you've been briefed just now, what we have

[1:38:53] today is something that we were presenting in the nature of good faith and transparency.

[1:38:57] Again, informational purposes, only to present to this body what we intend to bring

[1:39:02] formally in the next hearing in October. Just our presentation on the changes to the master

[1:39:07] plan and the design codes. I have a question for you. You bringing this as the

[1:39:11] representative of the buyer, or are you bringing this as a representative of the citizens

[1:39:15] of Escambia County, the buyer, the purchaser under the contract with the county? Yes,

[1:39:19] sir. Gotcha. We've got our primary consultant, design consultant, planning consultant,

[1:39:24] Melissa Headley, who will be up here to present the substance of the presentation. We've got

[1:39:28] Mr. Henderson here as well to provide some comments. In closing, answer any questions.

[1:39:32] If there may be some, my my comments will be will be brief. And just to set the stage as to

[1:39:38] the question of why we're here today, presently in this in this procedure. Next slide

[1:39:42] please. And one more. This is a segment from the original purchase contract between my

[1:39:48] client and the county back in June of 2025. I draw your attention to section seven two

[1:39:53] A, which recognizes expressly that the parties agree that the existing design code must be

[1:39:59] modified to accommodate for certain market economic engineering conditions

[1:40:03] regarding the property. So again, this was something that was contemplated. Our presence

[1:40:07] here before this body and our application to change the the plan and the design code was

[1:40:13] contemplated at contract formation and in the negotiations with the county

[1:40:17] beforehand. This isn't something that we've gone through the due diligence

[1:40:19] process and realized, hey, we've got to change some things and are trying to go back to

[1:40:24] the drawing board on that. This was Contemplated at the time. We got under contract in 2025,

[1:40:28] and so much so, it was made an express condition precedent or of our obligation to purchase

[1:40:32] the property. We've got to go through this process, make the changes to the master plan and

[1:40:37] the design code to accommodate for these market economic and engineering conditions that

[1:40:41] were recognized by all parties before. We are obligated to proceed with the purchase of

[1:40:45] the property. We're here because the contract requires it, and that's and that's the

[1:40:49] the purpose of this proceeding before you in October when we formally submit that

[1:40:53] application. Next slide please. The contract was amended in March of this year. As many

[1:40:59] recall, the primary purpose of that amendment was to take out the E t district, what we've

[1:41:03] called the E t district, which again is the job creation technology employment hub of

[1:41:08] the proposed development and have that retained by the county. It's an asset for the

[1:41:12] county now and forever into the future. The amendment also reiterated and recognized the

[1:41:17] need to go through this process, the need to amend the master plan and the design codes to

[1:41:21] accommodate for certain things that Melissa and a few others will come up here and speak to

[1:41:26] you in more detail about. But again, this is not something that popped up in this

[1:41:30] amendment. As you recall the previous slide, it was in the contract back in 2025 that we

[1:41:34] were to go through this process as part of our due diligence. And that's that's why we're

[1:41:38] here engaging with with you and your staff. I will say that in the past year or more, my

[1:41:43] client has expended six sincere amount of funds, time and effort and due diligence and

[1:41:47] looking into what these exact market and economic, economic and engineering conditions are,

[1:41:50] how they can be remedied by our proposed changes to the master plan and to the design code.

[1:41:54] And I think what you'll see is a very comprehensive and not out of the spirit of the

[1:42:00] original plan, but a. But a proposed master plan, a proposed changes to the design

[1:42:04] code that are beneficial for us as the buyer, for us as the county, and most importantly

[1:42:08] for the constituents who will live, work and play here in this development. And so with

[1:42:12] that next slide, I'll turn it over to Miss Hadley. Thank you, and good morning, Planning

[1:42:22] Board Chair and members. It's my pleasure to be here this morning. Melissa Hadley with

[1:42:26] the firm Goodwyn Mills and Cawood. And we're going to go through the master plan and

[1:42:32] talk about that in particular. We did mention that there are other items that will come

[1:42:36] later, but we're focusing strictly on the master plan this morning. So currently the

[1:42:43] property is zoned with multiple zones. And this is according to the D, P, z regulating plan

[1:42:49] that was adopted into the county's ordinances in 2021. So we have Z one through Z five

[1:42:56] that is currently under the zoning. And you can see these are represented by the

[1:43:01] different colors. The when the PDF converted it some of the things got misaligned. But you

[1:43:07] can see where the different zones lie. And then with the master plan, we have

[1:43:16] represented those same districts. We have the light industrial, the residential,

[1:43:21] the civic, open space, town center, commerce and residential. So as we mentioned,

[1:43:30] this plan follows regulating plan one. And this came up out of a process that was long.

[1:43:37] There was stakeholder interviews, there were website surveys, there were charrettes,

[1:43:42] and there were specific goals that were set forth. And those goals were to have a mixed use

[1:43:47] area, to have a town center, to be pedestrian oriented and to create jobs. So we been talking

[1:43:59] about, well, why are we here today? So the reason that we're here is we are presenting a new

[1:44:05] master plan. And the reason that we have a new master plan is that the current plan

[1:44:10] doesn't work. And so we're going to talk about why those why it's been problematic.

[1:44:15] Number one, it's overly complicated. It has multiple multiple regulating plans that

[1:44:22] change every five years. So every five years the property gets automatically rezoned. And

[1:44:27] it starts off one way. And what we saw, and by the time we get to the final regulating plan,

[1:44:33] it's more than 50% residential. There are inconsistencies between the master plan, the

[1:44:40] design code and the regulating plan. And we'll talk about just a couple. The roads and the

[1:44:45] parking don't meet county and industry standards. A desired uses are prohibited by the

[1:44:52] design code, and there's a two story maximum building height on nearly all of the property,

[1:44:57] with variances prohibited by the design code. So what we are proposing is a much simpler

[1:45:04] plan. We're simplifying our codes and our policies to make it easier for the county to

[1:45:09] follow and enforce. We're going to just one regulating plan. So it's very unusual to have this

[1:45:16] multiple regulating plan with this role rolling rezoning. It's a very unusual condition.

[1:45:23] So we're going to have just one regulating plan, create cohesiveness across all of the

[1:45:28] documents. And we want to meet county standards and best industry practices. So the

[1:45:36] adopted master plan and design code, some of the things that are not quite as obvious

[1:45:42] sometimes when you look at things on paper is how they might ultimately happen. So

[1:45:47] here are some examples of desired uses. We have a a technology center. We have Navy

[1:45:55] federal, and we have an office complex. And none of these things are allowed in the

[1:46:00] current OLF8, including the blue areas that don't have the X's on them. But the only

[1:46:07] places where something more than two stories would be allowed is in the purple down

[1:46:12] at the very bottom. So these are highly desirable uses. So even Navy federal, which has a

[1:46:18] has four story buildings would not be allowed in O L, F eight. And we all know how wonderful

[1:46:24] and successful the Navy federal credit has been. These aren't monstrosities. These are jobs.

[1:46:32] These are things that are beneficial to the to the residents and the citizens of

[1:46:36] Escambia County. So. Well then what is allowed? So again, with the light industrial that are

[1:46:44] marked with the X's, the things that we can do are things like car washes, light industrial.

[1:46:50] Obviously commercial entertainment, farm equipment and outdoor sales. But again,

[1:46:56] over, you know, half of the site or, or close to two thirds, the things that we want to do

[1:47:02] can't be done. And I think the things that Escambia County wants and sort of maybe thought

[1:47:07] that they were going to be able to get is not in actuality what can be achieved through the

[1:47:13] current plans. So to talk a little bit about some of the inconsistencies and some of the

[1:47:21] places where there's a lack of agreement between the master plan and the regulating plan,

[1:47:26] we're all look at just two specific, but there are many. So we'll talk about open space.

[1:47:32] So on the left we have the regulating plan. And you can see the green squares

[1:47:36] indicating where regulate where green spaces are supposed to be located. And then we have also

[1:47:42] a trail location that is around the perimeter of the site. So the DPP's design code states

[1:47:47] that open space shown on the regulating plan has to be within 100ft of that location.

[1:47:54] So if you then take those red circles where all of the open spaces are shown, and then put

[1:48:00] them on the actual master plan, you can see that they don't fall. They fall in the middle

[1:48:06] of parking lots. They they don't follow the regulating plan. So this is an example of

[1:48:12] the inconsistencies and the things that are not able to be properly developed or properly

[1:48:20] enforced. Did we miss one? No, because we did. The land uses first. Excuse me. So what we

[1:48:32] are talking about is our plan. So our planning approach is that we wanted to have

[1:48:38] something that was feasible. We wanted to make sure that we we honored the community

[1:48:44] engagement that had gone before. We followed the same goals and objectives that had been set

[1:48:49] forth in the original documents. And we identified three major stakeholder groups. So those

[1:48:58] stakeholder groups are the people of Beulah. This is in the Beulah community. It's also

[1:49:03] the economic development community. So the number one goal that had been stated from

[1:49:07] the very beginning was the creation of at least a thousand good paying jobs. So the

[1:49:14] economic development community is another stakeholder. And then the citizens at large of

[1:49:19] Escambia County. So the property is not owned by any one community group. It's owned

[1:49:25] by the entire citizens of Escambia County. So we have these three major stakeholder

[1:49:31] groups. And as Chad has said before, it's not that one group wins out over another. All

[1:49:38] three are stakeholders, and all three have a say. And it shouldn't be that one group

[1:49:44] wins out and the other two groups lose. So the stakeholder goals that were identified, I

[1:49:52] organized them into fiscal goals and land use goals. And so the very top goal and from

[1:49:58] the very beginning, this was envisioned as a job creation place. So early iterations of

[1:50:04] the site showed it to be a completely as an industrial park. And so there's always

[1:50:09] been the goal that there would be this massive job creation here, so that with at least a

[1:50:16] thousand high paying jobs on the site, economic viability of the plan, that the county would

[1:50:21] have a solid return on its investment, that it would benefit the residents across

[1:50:26] Escambia County, and not just the Beulah community, and the need for planned transportation

[1:50:31] improvements. We've got the interchange at I-10 coming in, the widening of roads and a lot

[1:50:37] of road improvements, and then land use goals were to create a more compact residential,

[1:50:45] commercial and high tech mixed use environment. Provide walkable uses, include a mixed

[1:50:51] use town center, protect the quality of life, and. To make sure that stormwater management

[1:50:58] was handled in a in a responsible way and that we could incorporate low impact

[1:51:02] development standards. So what we did was we when we were contemplating how the site

[1:51:11] could be developed, we wanted to honor the original plan and the and the original

[1:51:17] stakeholder input and the goals that had been set forth. So we started with the basic

[1:51:23] framework of the plan. So the roads and the block network are left intact, as you can see

[1:51:28] here. So on the left is the Df's master plan that was adopted in 2021 with the major

[1:51:34] roads shown. And then on the right is our master plan that we're proposing, where we left

[1:51:39] the major road network intact with the same block network. So again, we're using the same

[1:51:46] goals where we want to have a mixed use center. We want to have a town center, we want to

[1:51:52] have job creation, and we want to have pedestrian oriented streets. So this is our master

[1:51:59] plan that we ultimately designed. So the road network in the block network, block

[1:52:05] network are all in place. And we have developed with some major districts that include

[1:52:12] residential that include commerce, our employment technology and innovation

[1:52:17] districts, health and wellness areas. So we have a lot of different uses, and we've come

[1:52:24] up with a really great plan that brings these things together and then improves on

[1:52:30] the plan that we already that already exists. So those districts are in accordance

[1:52:38] with the future land use application that has gone before. And these are the

[1:52:43] required mixes of uses and maximum percentages that can be dedicated of the land to each

[1:52:50] one. And they do correspond to what will be our regulating plan. So our plan is built

[1:52:59] solidly on new urbanism principles. So the key principles in New Urbanism

[1:53:05] design are to maintain walkability for mix of uses on the development. So commercial

[1:53:11] uses and housing uses and things are all located within close proximity of each other.

[1:53:17] That the site provides connectivity so that it's not isolated or cut off from its

[1:53:24] context, that the design is kept to be human scale, and that there are sustainable

[1:53:29] principles folded into the design. So here we have a side by side comparison of the two

[1:53:36] plans. And I think this is going to be very helpful in helping to understand how we're

[1:53:42] changing. So there are eight specific site elements that are common to both plans. So we'll

[1:53:49] start with number one the walkable town center. So on the Dfe's plan, the town center is

[1:53:55] located in the south part of the site near West Nine Mile Road. And for us, our number

[1:54:02] one town center is right in the middle of the site. So we that is the the town center has been

[1:54:10] relocated. And so there's a very specific reason for that. So if you look over at the item

[1:54:16] that's labeled number nine on our plan, you can see that we've added a connection to

[1:54:20] Beulah Road. So if you are on that at that connection point and traveled east along a new

[1:54:28] boulevard that we're creating, you'll come into the middle of the site if you start from the

[1:54:34] area where we connect at West Nine Mile Road on our main boulevard and travel north,

[1:54:40] those two boulevards intersect right in the middle of the site, and that's the heart of the

[1:54:46] site. And so that's where we located our town center. So when we talk about walkability

[1:54:50] and we talk about accessibility, the current location of the town center along West Nine

[1:54:57] Mile Road, this site is one mile square. So that means it's a mile away from anything on

[1:55:02] the northern part of the site where we have ours. We're within a half a mile of any

[1:55:07] point on the site. Our town center is centrally located and within easy walking distance of

[1:55:14] the residential neighborhood, which is our item number two. As you can see, we've relocated

[1:55:19] to the northwest portion of the site so that it's compatible with existing residential uses.

[1:55:25] On the Dpz plan, residential uses are over in the center to the north of the town center.

[1:55:33] Our civic uses. They're on both plans. Number four is integrated low impact

[1:55:40] development. So that means that we're locating stormwater within parking lots within

[1:55:46] roadways so that there's a cumulative storing and treatment of water. And then it

[1:55:52] will ultimately discharge into our ten acre lake that we're creating. Item number five

[1:56:00] parking in the rear of buildings. So both plans incorporate rear loaded parking

[1:56:05] areas, preserving open space. Number six, with our large wetlands areas that's being

[1:56:11] preserved. Light industrial uses number seven in both plans. And then commercial uses number

[1:56:18] eight. So for us commercial uses are located primarily in the southeast quadrant of the

[1:56:25] site on the Dfe's plan. They're located along West Nine Mile Road and then also along Frank

[1:56:31] Reeder Road. So the other things that we've added, number ten, and we'll talk about this

[1:56:38] in a little bit of detail, but multiple open spaces throughout. So in the Dpz plan and in the

[1:56:44] Dpz code, parks are not allowed in any of the zoning districts except for the CC, and the CC

[1:56:52] is the large quadrant in the southwest that contains the wetlands. Why can't you put a

[1:56:57] park in a residential area? It's not allowed in the Dpz design code. So no it's not.

[1:57:04] That's the design code. Excuse me. Sorry. The park. So we have parks located in every district

[1:57:14] and in every part of the site. There are parks in the residential areas. There are

[1:57:19] parks in the commercial areas. There are parks in the town center. We have a large central

[1:57:26] green. So we felt like that was important. We have preserved historic elements on site that

[1:57:32] are not part of the plan. So the historic landing mound where the helicopters took off

[1:57:39] and landed, that's number 11. That is called Pinnacle Landing. And then we have number 12,

[1:57:45] multiple housing options. So we have single family. We have multi-family, we have 55 plus.

[1:57:51] We have a range of of housing options that are affordable for multiple points of living in

[1:58:01] your, in your lifespan. So I think that there's a lot of really important improvements

[1:58:06] that we've made on our plan. So if we look at the plan in a little bit more detail, you can

[1:58:13] see that our, our, the light industrial on the Dpz plan, we are now with the e t, which is

[1:58:21] employment, technology and innovation, and that is primarily in the northeast

[1:58:26] corner or quadrant. And this is the area that the county maintains ownership of. So that

[1:58:32] will be able to be flexible, uses light industrial commercial uses office space. I

[1:58:39] want to back up one slide to the previous. There's there's some movement around in what

[1:58:48] the previous plan in the E t district four, five and seven. So you really haven't made any

[1:58:53] made any changes to the e t district, the lighting. So the light industrial the light

[1:59:00] industrial on the Dfe's plan is basically the the let me come over here. You can you go to

[1:59:09] the one that shows the zoning. That's. So you can see our our e t district is that purple in

[1:59:29] the northeast quadrant, which is not being purchased. Correct. That's that's that's the

[1:59:34] county's maintained. Right. And then the light industrial zone, which is the Z four. On the

[1:59:45] current plan. Just shows the existing zoning, the existing asset. That's it right there.

[2:00:08] So all of the areas in gray are the the Z four that's zoned light industrial. Okay. And

[2:00:16] then the areas that are blue is the commerce for commercial. And that's your current zoning,

[2:00:23] right? Right. So with the, with our plan, what we've done is, and it's easy to see here. So

[2:00:32] everything in the blue and in the red, those are the blue is the ETI employment technology

[2:00:39] and innovation. And then the red is the commerce and service. So it's still basically in that

[2:00:45] same area. So as as we mentioned earlier, our town center is very mixed use, lots

[2:00:59] of retail. It includes residential options as well. Very pedestrian oriented, a lot

[2:01:05] of different commercial uses and residential uses. And we have a main street that runs

[2:01:10] through it with a town square. And then on the west side, we are anchored by Pinnacle

[2:01:17] Landing and the large open space. And on the east side we are anchored by a six acre

[2:01:22] seasonal park. So the the seasonal park is envisioned as a place that will change with

[2:01:28] the seasons. So in the. In the spring it might be a flower market. In the fall it's a

[2:01:33] pumpkin patch, and in the winter it's more of a winter wonderland. So it's a it's a

[2:01:39] beautiful place for the community. We have the, the commercial residential or

[2:01:44] excuse me, CMR district, which is Commerce and service. It's mixed use with the. Featuring a

[2:01:49] health and wellness district where we'll have clinics and all types of health care

[2:01:56] available. We have multiple kinds of commercial uses retail, restaurants, hotels, all sorts

[2:02:02] of commerce and service uses. We have the same main entrance and main boulevard running

[2:02:09] through the site. We've preserved all of the open space, and then we have a ten acre

[2:02:14] lake that we're proposing called, we're calling it Angel Lake that will filter all of

[2:02:19] our stormwater ultimately, and also be a buffer to the existing wetlands. We have our

[2:02:24] new connection point at Beulah Road, which will bring will take a lot of the traffic off

[2:02:31] of just coming in off of either Frank Reeder or off of West Nile Mall Road. So it gives a

[2:02:36] way for traffic traffic to be more distributed throughout the site. And we have the

[2:02:43] preservation of the pinnacle landing and also the three main clearings as well. So the town

[2:02:55] centers moved right through. You can get it either way. So you can get an access for, for

[2:03:03] folks for the rest of the county, right? Because this is not just for people, it's for

[2:03:07] everybody, right? It's coming off of Bula Road, correct. That's, that's one of the main

[2:03:11] entrance. The main entrance is still the main boulevard. That property is not currently owned

[2:03:15] by the by the buyer. Correct. Well, that's what we're under contract for. Okay. So you got

[2:03:20] to purchase it. Yes. Or the buyer is purchasing this property as well. That's right.

[2:03:24] So we have the main entrance coming in off of West Nine Mile Road. And that road runs to the

[2:03:30] north and and curves a little bit to the west and connects to Frank Reeder Road. So at the

[2:03:37] intersection of that main north South Boulevard and the new east west Boulevard, that will

[2:03:42] connect all the way on over to Navy Federal's ultimate property. Right at the

[2:03:49] intersection there is where we have located our town center. So we have, like I mentioned,

[2:03:56] we have placed a priority on green space. So we've created multiple green space

[2:04:03] opportunities of different sizes of different types. We have an 83 acre community open

[2:04:09] space with a ten acre lake preserving all of the wetlands intact. We have a six acre

[2:04:15] seasonal park, a two acre town center, central green, a 1.2 acre park in green space

[2:04:22] located along Frank Reeder Road. So if we just talk about that northwest quadrant for a minute,

[2:04:30] having those green spaces and the residential uses adjacent to existing neighborhoods is a

[2:04:35] very different feel from the Dfe's plan, where those neighborhoods that are on the

[2:04:40] north side of Frank Reeder would have been looking into the backs of, of industrial

[2:04:45] buildings and large parking lots. And so now those neighborhoods and Frank Reeder

[2:04:50] Road will be looking onto other residential neighborhoods and a green 1.2 acre green space. We

[2:04:59] are providing 100 foot buffer along the westerly boundary line to buffer between those

[2:05:05] existing residential uses and our site. We have, as I mentioned, preserved the

[2:05:11] wetlands in the in the southwest quadrant, but also there's a wetland in the

[2:05:15] northeast corner, and then one right kind of in the middle along Frank Reeder Road. All of

[2:05:21] our streets are tree lined streets, and we're using Landscape Island throughout all

[2:05:26] of our parking areas. So we'll have more than 100 acres of the total, 540 acres of the site,

[2:05:34] preserved in some sort of park or open space. So we have really placed a priority on

[2:05:40] creating a beautiful green environment for all of these different uses to flourish. And

[2:05:47] one other thing I would like to point out while we're looking at this plan, is you see the

[2:05:52] connection road that we're that we're planning in from Beulah Road. We negotiated with the

[2:05:59] diocese property to do that connection. It wasn't part of the plan. So that's a major

[2:06:04] improvement. But their desire was that road be located at the northernmost part of their

[2:06:09] property. But we did purchase enough land to provide a buffer to that neighborhood to the

[2:06:16] north. But then you'll see that the road makes a kind of a big dip and a curve back around.

[2:06:21] And so this is a way for traffic calming. So instead of just a straight shot running

[2:06:26] right on in, there's a lot of different ways and different techniques that you can use for

[2:06:31] traffic calming. So wide open streets that are straight are those that people tend to pick

[2:06:37] up speed. So in our plan, we're using curves in a lot of places and multiple intersection

[2:06:44] points, different pavement, pavement patterns. So brick, we have brick circles in some

[2:06:50] places, brick crosswalks or areas just to those are all the different ways that we're using

[2:06:57] for traffic calming. I have a question since this is the main hart to get to, I'm sorry. So

[2:07:03] this is the main access to get to the town center. What's the travel lane widths on this road?

[2:07:10] Proposed roadway coming in. So the travel lane widths are 12ft which is the county standard.

[2:07:16] So all of our roads ultimately these roads will become public and they're going to be

[2:07:22] maintained by the county. So we're proposing that our roads meet county standards. So

[2:07:26] that's what the 12 foot wide. Yes. That's different from the master plan, correct. That is

[2:07:32] correct. So what was the previous for Dpw's master plan? Road widths. Their roads were

[2:07:36] ten feet wide so they do not meet. I mean would you agree with narrow narrower roads

[2:07:41] would would essentially affect traffic calming as well. They can in some places. It depends

[2:07:46] on the context. So there are so many ways that you can achieve traffic calming. But I want to

[2:07:52] point out that the, the way that that road width is, or the lane width is measured includes

[2:07:57] 18in of, of gutter. So the, the lane width is actually measured to the face of the curb. So the

[2:08:04] way that a curb is built, you have a six inch vertical element and then you have an 18

[2:08:09] inch gutter. So that's all part of a two foot wide curb. So the 12ft is measured from the face

[2:08:14] of the curb to the center line. So it's 10.5ft of asphalt. So we're talking about a very

[2:08:20] small change in the width. Thank you. So our road network we have in addition to the main

[2:08:31] roads, we have a lot of internal roads. So you can see that our blocks are broken down

[2:08:36] more and more. And as we just went through our, our goal was so that our roads would meet

[2:08:42] county standards. What are those residential roads also 12ft. Yes. So there's no there

[2:08:49] are some roads that are smaller, like rear entry roads for like rear loaded lots and things

[2:08:54] like that, alleys, that type of road. Thank you. So here's an example of one of our roadway

[2:09:03] sections. So you can, and I, I put the county's standards over here on the right so that you

[2:09:08] can see what the county standards are. And we're meeting those. And we're

[2:09:13] creating a very walkable environment because we have wide sidewalks. Our sidewalks

[2:09:17] are a little wider. We have wider medians than what are actually required. We have on

[2:09:24] street parking in almost every part of the site, other than in areas where there it wouldn't

[2:09:30] be serving a use. So this is just one example. This is the town center road number one. So

[2:09:37] we have multiple different types of road typologies. So here are a couple of other our

[2:09:45] roads. So in different road conditions, some with some without medians. We have our

[2:09:51] sidewalks everywhere. We have street trees everywhere. So street trees are another

[2:09:56] traffic calming technique, as well as just having sidewalks and having more people in the

[2:10:03] area. So excuse me, can we go back one? So the design elements that we're including,

[2:10:12] we have right sized our our lane widths and things like that. We have connectivity to

[2:10:19] the other adjoining parcels. We have a few connections on the east side to the Navy federal

[2:10:25] property. We have street trees everywhere on street parking options where they're needed.

[2:10:31] And we are integrating low impact development standards just in in a way that works

[2:10:38] where it's, as I mentioned earlier, it's sort of accumulative where we collected

[2:10:41] as close as we can, and then the areas get treated on site. So we're going to talk a little

[2:10:51] bit about each one of the districts. So we're going to start with the town center

[2:10:55] district. So it is, as we said, right in the heart of the district or in the heart of the

[2:11:01] site. So I've highlighted a few of our main elements. So we have a two acre town green

[2:11:08] where shops and restaurants and things like that will be able to face and have an outdoor

[2:11:13] concert. Or you can play Frisbee, have a picnic or whatever you want to do. We

[2:11:18] have a beautiful boulevards that go down our main street. It's very walkable. We have our

[2:11:24] seasonal park on the east side, and then we're connecting to a really important part of our

[2:11:30] open space, where we have Pinnacle Landing, our community center, and we'll talk about

[2:11:35] those when we get to the community district. So here's a rendering of what we're

[2:11:42] thinking. And this is based on our plan of how the buildings would be laid out. So we have

[2:11:48] beautiful pedestrian oriented environment. So it's, you know, there's a lot of talk about

[2:11:54] we're taking away the pedestrian oriented neighborhood. That's not what

[2:11:58] we're doing at all. It's right here in the town center where it's always been. And so this

[2:12:05] is our rendering of what it might look like looking down our main street to the west.

[2:12:09] And you can see sort of in the background where Pinnacle Landing might be. And we have

[2:12:14] ideas. Maybe we'll enhance that with a tower or different things. So our community

[2:12:21] district, so this would be community oriented uses, including open space and civic

[2:12:26] uses. So we'll preserve our natural landscapes and things that celebrate Escambia

[2:12:31] County's unique woodlands and wetlands. So this is located primarily in the southwest

[2:12:38] quadrant. We have our ten acre, ten acre Angel Lake that we'll be creating to handle all of

[2:12:44] our storm water, but we're also going to use it as amenity. So they'll be walking trails,

[2:12:49] fishing pier, the ability to do kayak, launch kayaks and things like that. We're hoping to

[2:12:55] maybe get a post office. We're proposing a community center and a post office with an

[2:13:00] outdoor food court in the northeast portion of that main open space. We're preserving

[2:13:07] the wetlands and creating just a beautiful space to anchor the site. So these are images of

[2:13:17] the existing conditions there. So there's three clearings that are located on that site that

[2:13:23] have been there historically. And we're proposing to keep those. So you can, as you go

[2:13:29] through the different walking trails in that main large open space, you'll go from different

[2:13:34] conditions where you have wooded areas and the cleared areas, the wetland areas. There

[2:13:40] may be some interpretive signage that gets put up with along those trails so that

[2:13:45] people understand the ecosystems and all that they're walking through. And then

[2:13:51] here's a rendering of one of our the outdoor dining area and what that might look like. So

[2:13:59] with our residential district, again, located in the northwest corner of the site, so very

[2:14:05] accessible to the town center, accessible to the job center, and then easily accessed off of

[2:14:11] either Frank Reeder Road or our new road that will be coming in to the site. So we have we're

[2:14:17] showing here townhomes, but we could also have single family detached if needed, active

[2:14:23] adult multifamily. So the idea is that there'll be a range of housing options. So with a

[2:14:28] range of options, there comes a range of price points that those housing choices would be

[2:14:34] would be offered at. And here you can see the context that we're located adjacent. We've

[2:14:41] moved that so that it's more compatible with the existing surrounding neighborhoods to

[2:14:47] the west and to the north. So here's a rendering of how our townhomes, we have a lot of

[2:14:55] town greens located within the townhome district. So they will break up the roads a little bit

[2:15:00] and give the townhomes a focus on a central green spaces, creating little neighborhoods

[2:15:07] within the larger neighborhood overall. So the Commerce and Services District is the

[2:15:15] southeast quadrant of the site. And this will be shops, businesses, all sorts of retail,

[2:15:22] lots of opportunity also for jobs. So these the area that's outlined in red. So we'll have

[2:15:31] lodging various types of commercial and retail uses restaurants, hotels. The

[2:15:38] primary boulevard goes right through the middle of this. So that primary boulevard that

[2:15:43] connects from West Nine Mile Road through the north and makes a little bit of a

[2:15:48] westerly jog back up to Frank Reeder, will bring people really to pretty much every

[2:15:55] part of the site. So a rendering of what our health and wellness district might

[2:16:01] look like here. And so this is going to be really special area, another really prime employment

[2:16:08] center for people in the health care industry. Pensacola area is a very well known regional

[2:16:15] hub for health care. It's one of our largest employment sectors in the county. So we

[2:16:21] plan to have health and wellness as a big part of our commerce district. And then the

[2:16:28] district. So this is the portion that the county will maintain ownership of. And this

[2:16:33] is a real a real gem for job creation, a workforce development. So you can see

[2:16:41] that sitting there in the northeast quadrant of the site. So again, we have some

[2:16:46] preserved wetlands, but here we want to think flexible. We want to think of different different

[2:16:52] things that could be put there. We might have office uses. We might have office towers, we

[2:16:57] might have light industrial, we might have things that support our military force here. And so

[2:17:05] there's a lot of opportunity in the district for all these job opportunities. It's a very

[2:17:12] strategic location. It's easily accessed either off of Frank Reeder, off of the new

[2:17:16] boulevard, coming in off of Beulah, and then off of the main boulevard, coming in off

[2:17:21] of West Nine Mile Road. And it is also has a lot of proximity to the existing housing that or

[2:17:29] the new housing that we are proposing here. So, for example, if let's say we have Boeing

[2:17:35] that wants to come and locate in the ETI, so they might they would have in the area that

[2:17:40] we've got labeled here, office towers. So when we think about how with all of our technology

[2:17:47] and the way that things have advanced simulation labs and things like that, it's all it's

[2:17:52] all done in computers now. And so the, the big warehouses aren't always as used. They're,

[2:17:59] they're much more likely to look like office towers. And so we have these office towers

[2:18:05] located here very close to where there could be lodging, where there's close to

[2:18:09] restaurants and shopping. So there's a very thoughtful mix of being able to put people and

[2:18:15] attract people to come to good paying jobs that have in a location that has tons of

[2:18:21] opportunity, tons of enrichment for their life during the day. So if you work in a secure

[2:18:30] building, like something, say that's doing R&D, maybe you don't have as much freedom or

[2:18:35] as much ability to go on or off a site. And so here we're very proximal to restaurants and

[2:18:42] things like that for lunch breaks or after after work gatherings. So this is a

[2:18:49] rendering of what the e t might look like. So here we'll integrate our low impact

[2:18:55] development stormwater techniques as to be used as amenities to enhance our our

[2:19:00] building scapes. They'll be walkable. They'll be connected so people can ride bikes or

[2:19:06] walk to work if they live on site or nearby. And so that's pretty much the whole plan.

[2:19:15] We've walked all the way through it. I appreciate your time and your attention. So if

[2:19:19] you have any specific questions or would like to ask anything or go back over anything.

[2:19:29] Anything, anyone. Thank you very much. And now I'm going to introduce Chad Henderson to

[2:19:35] come and speak. Thanks, Melissa. Chairman and members, thank you so much for for having me. My

[2:19:45] name is Chad Henderson. I am a principal and tri-w and developer. Proposed developer

[2:19:51] of of outlying fields. I just wanted to quickly state, thank you for letting us walk you

[2:19:57] through this. This is completely informational. I mean, we were just trying to be

[2:20:00] as transparent and as intentional as possible and being and bringing such a large

[2:20:06] and impactful project to try and move forward. I mean, I just want to say that the

[2:20:13] design code in the master plan is, is reflects the same discipline that we've applied

[2:20:20] from, from the onset in approaching this project, we keep on harping on these three

[2:20:25] major stakeholders. If I could even be more blunt. I mean, Jim Cronley, a great man, noticed a

[2:20:33] long time ago that maybe in Ellis Industrial Field was filling up and that we need

[2:20:37] more places for commerce. And 30 years ago brought about this idea for a job creation. And I

[2:20:44] think if that move forward, this would have been a a large, you know, very single use

[2:20:50] commerce, light industrial park. We then had the community of, of Beulah come together and

[2:20:56] think about looking with, with, with Andres Duany, about how to create a beating heart of

[2:21:03] Beulah that wanted to really focus on, on, on creating experiences and green space and

[2:21:11] gathering places. And then we have some folks in Escambia County that say, you know what,

[2:21:15] let's just sell this property for the highest that we can sell it for. I don't really

[2:21:20] didn't really maybe as matter as much of what goes there. But if you see these stakeholders,

[2:21:25] they want to create jobs, you know, they want to have a meaningful place to gather and

[2:21:31] to create a beating heart of Beulah. Hey, and we need to, we need to sell this and have an

[2:21:36] ROI not only immediately, but ongoing, because this is just not for this district, but for

[2:21:42] all of Escambia County. So that's how we're framing these stakeholders. And we don't want

[2:21:47] to move the plan forward at the expense of any one of those stakeholders. We keep saying

[2:21:53] that we're hoping one plus one equal three, four, and five. And that's what we believe this

[2:21:58] plan does is that we're working with every stakeholder. Again, not at the expense of what

[2:22:03] they're trying to do and not to give them one third of what they want. But every move

[2:22:07] within the plan, hopefully, is accretive to what the other stakeholder would like to enjoy.

[2:22:12] And that's what this plan, the spirit of this plan grounded in the DP's, has come from. There

[2:22:18] has been a ton of intentionality, and there's been a ton of effort, and

[2:22:23] there's been a ton of resources spent on gathering data and create evidence based decisions

[2:22:29] to get to this point, to move this plan forward. So again, appreciate your attention. You

[2:22:35] know, our entire intent was to be transparent and to create awareness around our thought

[2:22:41] process and our approach. Thank you. Thank you, Chad. All right. I'm sorry. Oh, no. You're good.

[2:22:51] Sorry. Appreciate that presentation. And at this point, we do have some public speakers

[2:22:59] that have signed up to speak on this item. All right. We have John Moore, if you'll please

[2:23:08] come forward, state your name and address and we'll get your time started after John, we've

[2:23:14] got Jacqueline Wild. Sorry. Before I start, before you start my time, I just want to

[2:23:30] acknowledge Mr. Horace Socks today, Mr. Moore, your on point. That's bold. Okay, I'll kick

[2:23:38] off thousands of hours of citizen participation and input over $1 million, built off a

[2:23:43] design code. And the only defect in that thing is the phasing. That's a simple fix.

[2:23:48] Once again, warehouse distribution language has been inserted into the code. The

[2:23:52] community fought this to a draw and now it's back. Why? The proposed definition of a

[2:23:57] permitted use of that reads a warehouse or distribution facility used primarily for the

[2:24:01] storage, sale, distribution of goods, materials and merchandise. That means

[2:24:05] unnecessary heavy trucks and associated commercial vehicle traffic, and real safety

[2:24:09] concerns for every surrounding community. Six story warehouses doubled today's height limit,

[2:24:14] with a 60% increase in floor area ratio across the entire field relating to housing. The

[2:24:20] developer's plan assumes 1300 units. The entitlement allows several times that actually as

[2:24:25] many as 32,000 if it were to actually cap out. There's no county analysis, sewer, water,

[2:24:30] traffic or schools at the at the maximums here. There's no analysis that's close. The

[2:24:36] Purchase and sale agreement defines this project as mixed use residential and commercial

[2:24:40] retail. It says nothing about industrial. Nothing here is remotely consistent with the

[2:24:45] current design code, which that same agreement requires. That is direct conflict. How does

[2:24:50] this board honestly forward any of this to the BCC with a positive recommendation, I will

[2:24:56] get around to what was already asked. I think. Who owns this field? Didn't the citizens buy

[2:25:00] this with their lost dollars? Who are the signatories on this contract? Who placed the item

[2:25:07] on today's agenda? I think we already addressed that. I'd like to know, actually, the

[2:25:11] person that did this and why everybody's here today. The developers already established

[2:25:15] some of that. We don't know who represents the people. The developer was given agency to

[2:25:20] represent the county, but they come in here and they say they represent themselves. The

[2:25:24] planning department pays the developers own proposals. The record calls them developer

[2:25:28] drafted into the applications that this board sees. The contract gives our BCC zero

[2:25:33] incentive to challenge anything the developer demands. It reads like a rubber stamp. On May 7th,

[2:25:38] no one at the BCC could say who actually represents the county. Florida West demurred.

[2:25:43] Administrator Moreno said he and council had been project managing. Then the board

[2:25:47] ratified Marino's three week old notarized signatures, giving the developer agency to

[2:25:51] represent me. I didn't get to vote on that, and no other citizen got to vote on that. In

[2:25:56] my opinion, ratifying backdated signatures does not cure an ultra serious process. So it

[2:26:01] comes down to this who's going to represent me and the citizens of Escambia County, if

[2:26:06] not the BCC, not the developer and not the state who I know it's only listed as a

[2:26:12] discussion item today. I'm asking, please pause this long enough for the citizens and

[2:26:18] their elected officials to actually discuss these changes, and for review by independent,

[2:26:22] qualified counsel, since we're just here for discussion. Right. And I've got a little bit of

[2:26:27] time, I read that kind of fast. The developer was given agency on May 7th to represent the

[2:26:34] county. They come in here and say they represent themselves and it's not a knock. I'm just

[2:26:38] confused. The business the business impact statement from the last meeting, that was part

[2:26:45] of the documentation here in the package, all the blocks on that was marked n a. So I don't

[2:26:52] understand if it's a private entity or can those be n a or a public entity making the

[2:26:58] application. Why was that left in a. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Jacqueline Wild.

[2:27:05] After Jacqueline, I've got Melissa Hadley slash Godwin Mills, so I'm not sure if

[2:27:12] that's a. So sorry. After Jacqueline it'll be Keith Pope. Jacqueline still here. Not not

[2:27:26] you. You're later on. Well we'll come back and Keith, if you want to go ahead and come

[2:27:32] forward after Keith has Pepper. Keith. Bow. Oh yes. Now it's your turn, Keith. Wake up here.

[2:27:47] Don't start the clock yet. Okay? All right. Your weak spot in this. Let let me get up here.

[2:27:59] Need my name and all that? Yes, sir. Keith Bow, 1213 Paulding Avenue, Pensacola, Warrington

[2:28:06] Beach Haven. And I didn't walk here, so it's not walkability. Anyway, the weak spot in this

[2:28:17] rezoning and the master plan and all this is to comply with the compatibility and zoning

[2:28:24] generality. So on that point. Let's take what the Olef eight. You know, the ten years of

[2:28:35] putting together the the walkability and stuff, it had the town center that had retail

[2:28:40] business with residential up on top of it close to the the parkways and such as that. That

[2:28:46] was the concept. It, it got here through this process. Now what you're wanting to do is or

[2:28:54] eventually rezone the whole thing. Well, you're, you're, you're rezoning it, but you

[2:29:01] don't know what specifically you're rezoning it for. So what I'm saying is you don't know

[2:29:07] what's compatible if you don't know what's there. And so to change the whole strip the

[2:29:11] sheets off the bed, you don't know what you're going to make the bed with when you get done.

[2:29:16] That's the whole point. So whether or not you can get past that competitive compatibility

[2:29:23] issue is going to be paramount to your decision here. Nobody. Chad can design and you know

[2:29:33] nobody wants to take that away from him. All we want is the time to instead of rushing into

[2:29:39] this because we've rushed into this through two contracts one year, get it done and we don't

[2:29:45] know what we're going to get done. We don't know the compatibility. So I think Chad

[2:29:51] can do it. I know he can do it, and he's got the support of everybody to do it. But at this

[2:29:57] point, all we're trying to say is, let's give it a little bit more time. If you need an

[2:30:02] extension, we can waive, you know, the Dyess can waive whatever the fees are, the

[2:30:07] costs. Is there a reason why this has to be done right now, right away on this timeline, or

[2:30:13] can we assess whether or not the walkability means the integration of the retail

[2:30:20] spaces with the living spaces, with the recreational spaces? The plan looks good, but it

[2:30:26] doesn't have the congruency that we were expecting with the Ola fate. So I want this to go

[2:30:33] on, but I want it to go on, right? And I don't want to see it fall apart because of the

[2:30:38] way we got here. Thank you. Thank you so much. Pepper. You are up after Pepper is Larry

[2:30:43] Downs junior. Before she starts, can I ask a quick question of whoever can answer this. So I'm

[2:30:49] on the same page. What exactly is getting dedicated back to the county? Besides, I'm not

[2:30:55] talking the e t district, but what infrastructure? I know we just talked about the roads

[2:31:01] coming back to the county. What else is coming back to the county. So I'm on the same page

[2:31:06] here because I'm staring at this picture and I'm kind of having some head scratching.

[2:31:15] Can someone from what is it, GMC or whatever come up or, or someone who's part of the plan?

[2:31:22] Yes, sir. True. Brewer again with Phelps Dunbar legal counsel. It's going to be part

[2:31:26] of the development of the property to fully determine what that infrastructure will

[2:31:29] be. Preliminarily, right now, we're thinking roadways and drainage infrastructure,

[2:31:33] stormwater drainage. So what about the parks? And what about any of the other infrastructure

[2:31:40] that would be associated with like, I don't want to say livability, like who's

[2:31:47] maintaining all this after the fact? Is any of this coming back to Escambia County or like

[2:31:53] this seasonal park that was brought up several times of this landing area? Who's

[2:31:56] maintaining this all after for the parks? I would assume it's the fee owner, the dirt owner

[2:32:01] of those parks. So it's not getting back to Escambia County if it's in the E t district, I

[2:32:07] believe so, but not everything that's non e t. Yeah. I would presume it's the owner of the

[2:32:12] property. But yeah. Is it addressed in this any of this right now or any of that.

[2:32:16] Because I didn't see anything. I'm kind of curious actually. Who's I don't think we're there

[2:32:20] yet. Yeah. I know we're building it to it. But who's taking after the fact. Who's

[2:32:26] controlling this I guess is kind of like we're talking about these roads coming back

[2:32:30] to us as a fact. But then what about everything that attaches to the roads, this Angel Lake

[2:32:34] who's maintaining this? And I think that kind of helps me understand, I think the public

[2:32:39] as well coming up, as long as if it comes back to them, ultimately, I think they should

[2:32:44] have a say in what gets done here. Sure, I understand and I'll confirm that on the green

[2:32:49] spaces, but I would presume, just as the boundaries of the districts lie, the E t district,

[2:32:53] which the county will retain, of course, will retain ownership and the

[2:32:56] responsibility, I understand that it's going to be retained by it, and that makes sense.

[2:33:00] It's public then, but everywhere else, if we're getting the roads back to us,

[2:33:05] or for instance, are we getting the parks back to us or any other infrastructure or

[2:33:11] anything that would be coming back on that's coming back to what's coming back to Escambia

[2:33:16] County, that the taxpayer would ultimately be born after the development. Understood. And

[2:33:21] then we'll work to get a full answer to that question. Much appreciated. I was just going

[2:33:27] to say that those things also will come up when the site plans are done on a site plan

[2:33:32] by site plan basis. So there will be a master development association that will be

[2:33:38] ultimately responsible for the development of the site. And there may be a mix where some

[2:33:43] things are public, some things are private. For example, in the residential area, it's

[2:33:48] typical for the homeowner's association to be responsible for their common areas and

[2:33:53] their parks and things like that. Oh, and I and I get that too with this, I guess before

[2:33:59] we get to the sale and everything, I guess it should have been one of the things

[2:34:03] that the county should have had the discussion of what we are ultimately boring at the end of

[2:34:08] the day. And that's where if we're coming to this design, if all of a sudden we sell this

[2:34:12] property for X amount of dollars, but all of a sudden it becomes an X amount of

[2:34:17] liability every year in perpetuity. I think that is something where we come up and

[2:34:20] say, hey, this design needs to be reflective where it's ultimately not what we're

[2:34:24] taking, you know, the dollars now, and we're spending X amount over the lifetime of

[2:34:28] this project. You know, we're maintaining that's my $0.10. Now, if there's an HOA or

[2:34:31] anything that's established beforehand or some other taxing authority over this specific

[2:34:35] area or something like that, I have no idea. And those are there's probably a hundred

[2:34:41] different answers nationally where we could come up with this. But having these right

[2:34:45] here in this master plan in front of me, those are questions I'd like before even

[2:34:49] giving any type of real, you know, criticisms. Or we can get more detail back to that. But

[2:34:56] obviously the things like the major public infrastructure, roads or water tower, whatever,

[2:35:01] those are public. Yeah. But that needs to be spelled out beforehand. If especially if

[2:35:06] all of a sudden, like I said, we sell this property and we have stuff coming back to us

[2:35:11] and it's not said in this document beforehand. And that's where I kind of, you know, I

[2:35:15] run into that issue is, is like, what are we assuming after the fact that's going to be chucked

[2:35:20] at us? All of a sudden, you can come out in these parks are ours. And, you know, we do have

[2:35:25] a standard in Escambia County for funding mechanisms and everything like that. But

[2:35:30] typically, you know, with commercial developments, the open spaces and things are are

[2:35:35] maintained by those entities that that own those properties or are leasing them and things

[2:35:40] like that, because it's in their interest for those to be maintained to certain standards.

[2:35:45] And I get that for a smaller project, but we're talking hundreds of acres here. And

[2:35:50] that's where unless there was a retainage specifically where it's sold off in large blocks

[2:35:56] or the town centers all under one ownership, I see that perfectly making sense. But if

[2:36:00] you sell off every single block or, you know, lot, that's where I raise these questions now,

[2:36:06] because eventually it will end up being more by the taxpayers and the Escambia County. So

[2:36:11] having that question of what is ultimately coming back to us, I think is a good thing in this

[2:36:17] master plan that should have been discussed. We'll definitely look into that and

[2:36:22] have some info for that. Thank you. Just one real quick point and follow up for the roads,

[2:36:28] for example. There's a process for that dedication to occur. We're not going to throw

[2:36:32] anything at the county without the county's approval, obviously, and anything we

[2:36:36] propose the county to accept ownership of outside of the district, which is under

[2:36:40] contract already, that would be subject to full approval and the requisite process to to

[2:36:44] make that transfer. And once again, I get that it's pretty much everything else that's the

[2:36:49] outlier of the unknown. Sure. Walker. Yes, sir. This is probably a question for staff

[2:36:57] planning and zoning or engineering. I don't know if we have anybody from engineering

[2:37:00] in here that can answer this, but any commercial development, it's my understanding. Correct

[2:37:04] me if I'm wrong, that that stormwater retention needs to go back to what would end up

[2:37:08] going to the county regardless. I mean, there's there's the private pond issue here in

[2:37:12] Escambia County. Can anyone from staff address that? So the way it works, each site has to

[2:37:19] accommodate its own impervious cover, right along with whatever water was running off

[2:37:25] previous to that. Fortunately, this is a greenfield, so yeah, well, it still runs off. So

[2:37:34] you've got a site that's happening. You're going to have to accommodate for yours on

[2:37:39] your site. Now, if. We have an overall plan, it's going to be designed to accommodate your

[2:37:52] overflow from that because you're going to have. Right. In a lot of cases, it goes

[2:37:58] straight to DOT right of way. We don't have any site plans approved on this site. Nothing

[2:38:07] was approved under the DP's plan. No site plans at all. So we can we can address

[2:38:16] generalities, but those specifics, until we get a site plan, we don't know here.

[2:38:22] Here's some guidelines on how to design it. We don't have that exact design until

[2:38:27] somebody buys right and and submits a plan. But in general, it's at some point when the

[2:38:35] water comes off the site, there's it's going to involve some sort of conveyance from

[2:38:40] the public, public ownership of some form of. So somewhere on OLF outlying fields. Still.

[2:38:48] Sorry, it's been a long time of calling it all f eight. The public infrastructure that's

[2:38:53] going to be put in the roadways right of ways. That's going to shed water to a common pond

[2:38:59] somewhere. Correct. At some point, when we get all those designs that the county will

[2:39:06] maintain, yes, there there will be county ownership of infrastructure. That way we can

[2:39:11] keep an eye on it and make sure it's maintained what those what exactly that's going to be and

[2:39:18] how it's going to work out. We don't have that. Okay. Thank you. And kind of to follow that

[2:39:24] up, I mean, I think that's kind of important, having that understanding when we're making

[2:39:29] a full design plan. And this is why, like I go to the Perdido Key master plan, or if DP Z had

[2:39:36] a representative here, I mean, they know I'm critical of them always. But you know, when you

[2:39:41] have private properties already over, you know, an overlay, you don't have this issue as much

[2:39:45] as what's being tossed around after the fact. So I don't know. To me, there's a lot of

[2:39:50] unknowns after the fact. The only difference is the lost key plan will is irrelevant because

[2:39:57] there's no hand in hand action with the developer where it's going to happen. So you can

[2:40:03] make a pretty picture, but it won't happen without the economic handholding of

[2:40:07] somebody who's got a stake in it like they do. This is why, to me, debate whether you want

[2:40:13] it or you don't and work with the people during this next time frame to make it closest

[2:40:21] to what you want or say, forget it, just be honest and say, I. We want a 500 acre green space

[2:40:27] and we want to figure out how to maintain it. I just think this is the closest even shot

[2:40:33] of making something happen. When you've got the person who's putting the most at stake,

[2:40:37] the developer I that I can see so far. Yeah, of course, the county wants the waterways back

[2:40:43] because I don't want like for my subdivision, I don't want my HOA trying to maintain our, our

[2:40:50] ponds because we don't know what we're doing. And if we're going to vacate the roads back

[2:40:55] or keep the roads with county, I want them under county control. I think there's enough

[2:40:59] return on this. We could go round and round, but certainly there's enough return here

[2:41:03] shown for the tax implications that far make up a lot more. And like you said hoa's

[2:41:11] leaseholders, they're the ones that are going to have to have it written into their

[2:41:14] stipulations as ownership takes transaction or as it transfers ownership, they're going to be

[2:41:18] the ones to maintain it. But anyway, I think we're kind of getting caught in the horse.

[2:41:24] And don't forget, when you're talking about anything being a plan like this, if somebody

[2:41:31] purchased some property and they're saying, well, I'm going to build all of this and turn

[2:41:35] it over to the county, County has to accept it. Okay, that, that that's the end of the day.

[2:41:42] People forget that part. You can't just turn your problem over. The county has to accept

[2:41:47] it. So there will be discussion on that. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for that. And there will be,

[2:41:54] of course, those technicalities, the details they're going to have to come into play as it if

[2:41:59] it is approved going forward. So right now we're just looking at the general concept of of

[2:42:04] the plan like we do for any proposals. And and they work those issues out going forward.

[2:42:13] Okay. All right. Let's get back to public speakers here. Pepper Weimer, you're up next. After

[2:42:21] Peppers Larry Downs. So we started the this meeting specifically about ol F eight

[2:42:29] with some confusion. And then there was a long presentation from the developers. And then

[2:42:37] Mr. Van Horn brought up a really good question. And I really appreciate that, because

[2:42:42] when the beginning of this meeting started, we were people were confused about like what

[2:42:48] the discussion was. So what I saw was no discussion, a presentation from the

[2:42:56] developers. And then the public gets to speak. And we all know that when the public speaks at

[2:43:00] these meetings, nobody's really listening. So thank you, Mr. Van Horn. And I don't remember

[2:43:08] who brought up the water retention, but both of those are great issues. And I think

[2:43:13] that we're talking about discussing. And then there was no discussion. It was literally

[2:43:18] just a presentation. And then we're going to come up and speak and not be listened to is

[2:43:24] how it appears to me. So I'm just learning this process. But I just found that to be very

[2:43:31] interesting. And then Back to Mr. Van Horn's point. So it just appears that the plan was

[2:43:40] not planned very well. When we can't even figure out what's going to be state roads or or

[2:43:48] whatever county, whatever. So I don't know what's going on. And then I wanted to talk about

[2:43:56] what Mr. Moore said. Again, it's it just appears to be like a rubber stamp because a long

[2:44:05] presentation from the developers, you hear from the public, but there's no

[2:44:10] discussion until in the middle of the public speaking. But I do really, truly appreciate

[2:44:16] bringing these issues up because this is what it appears to the public. Like. I'm, I'm

[2:44:21] just one of the people that actually shows up and talks like we're all really

[2:44:26] suspicious of everything these days. So, you know, I wanted to shout out the, the developers,

[2:44:32] you know, for they said that they wanted to bring this forward for transparency, you

[2:44:37] know, and that that's my thing. I still think that there's a transparency issue. And I

[2:44:44] appreciate the, the effort. So I just more transparency, more discussion, more advocating for

[2:44:53] the public, like Mr. Van Horn did. Thank you. Pepper. Just pepper, just to be clear, you

[2:44:59] always come. And I appreciate you coming to speak. And it's great you said we rubber stamp

[2:45:04] today, but we're not rubber stamping anything. We're just here listening. So in full

[2:45:09] transparency, I'm missing work right now. We're just here having discussion. We're not

[2:45:14] stamping anything. So we're listening to everything you say and is falling in my ears. And

[2:45:20] I'm I'm listening to it for next time when we do have to stamp something. So thank you.

[2:45:24] Well, thank you, Mr. Nelson. Thank you. Pepper. Hilarious. Theresa. Get ready. Theresa.

[2:45:37] All right. Larry Downs Junior Plumbing, LLC. Because fecal matters. All right. I don't

[2:45:44] know why these people are suspicious. Have no clue why they be suspicious of of our

[2:45:51] property. You know, our property being purchased by the county in the first place. And

[2:45:56] then and then the, the deals that come along, you know, the triumph money and all that. I

[2:46:01] mean, it's, it's, it's a, it's a little thing, you know, it's a little thing that's, that's

[2:46:06] done. And I'm sure everything will work out just fine. But, you know, I agree with, with

[2:46:13] Horace whenever he, he said earlier and it's, it's recorded. He said really no reason to

[2:46:18] have this discussion at this discussion. I agree with you. It's all, it's all it's

[2:46:28] recorded. I made sure I went back and looked at it. I mean, it may have been just a mistake.

[2:46:34] The problem I have with this, you know, with this parcel and what we're doing here is they

[2:46:42] don't own it. They've contracted to buy a part of it. But and it's not a, another

[2:46:50] owner or a group of owners. It's we the people who own it. So that's, that's totally

[2:46:56] different. Otherwise I'd be up here advocating for, you know, to make it happen for them. But

[2:47:02] it's not, it's, it's the people own it. So there's, you know, they're, they're representing

[2:47:08] themselves when they come up here. And then they're the, the developers are representing

[2:47:14] themselves and kind of seem like they're representing the commissioners also because

[2:47:18] they're going to make the final, final say. But we you know, that's the thing. Why don't why

[2:47:25] don't. And I know this ain't for y'all, but this property should be just be sold and then

[2:47:34] have private owners. Because when it's the government, you see how. And they're going to

[2:47:38] be partnerships, private public partnerships. All throughout. I, I told them it was going to be

[2:47:44] a debacle years ago, just like the, the soccer complex, just like, you know, Willie Junior

[2:47:51] didn't found under under a crawl space, you know, drinking antifreeze. I mean, come on,

[2:47:58] we've got a history of this stuff. Why is the government involved in real estate deals?

[2:48:05] It's unlimited. We shouldn't be doing this. And I know y'all are in a conundrum, but at

[2:48:10] least y'all don't have the final say the commissioners do. All y'all got to do is just

[2:48:14] recommend it to them and then they'll do. You know what? Whatever it is they do like,

[2:48:21] like every government agency who has the power to, to create problems, they'll do it and

[2:48:27] then we'll end up paying for that debacle, just like with the Covid shots, just like with

[2:48:34] the it's just a mask. It's just six foot social distance. It's just two weeks to flatten the

[2:48:39] curve. It's the same principle. It's repeats, it's silly cycle over and over again. And

[2:48:47] anyways, mission obvious.com. If y'all go there, y'all can see some real obviousness. All

[2:48:52] right, Teresa, then we have Jacqueline Rogers. Good morning, Teresa Blackwell. I live in

[2:49:09] Beulah. I don't know what the confusion is about. This was a discussion item with the design

[2:49:16] code attached. When you think we're going to discuss the design code, of course, we got

[2:49:22] no guidance from our planners on what how this is different than the DPC code? None

[2:49:28] whatsoever. So I'm just amazed that once again, the process has been confused and distorted.

[2:49:36] For nearly ten years. The people of Beulah have worked toward one clear goal for all

[2:49:41] of fate a place designed for people with a scale and intensity that fits our

[2:49:46] community. That promise is embedded in the DPC Master Plan Design Code, a document created

[2:49:53] with extensive public input and built around a careful balance of walkability, building height

[2:50:00] and development intensity. The design code is the mechanism that ensures the development

[2:50:07] becomes what the community was promised. Any changes must be listed out and clearly

[2:50:13] justified. Not with. Times have changed. The most significant change in Tri-w is proposed.

[2:50:19] Replacement code is basically a massive up zoning. No, it's not quasi judicial. They're doing

[2:50:26] it a different way. They achieve it by making buildings taller and more massive, with

[2:50:32] higher floor area ratios and higher height limits. That alone would undermine undermine

[2:50:39] the development plan DPS has created for us. DP Z designed a graduated ladder of intensity,

[2:50:47] using far to step down from the walkable core to the rest of the development. That ladder

[2:50:53] creates human scaled streets and predictable transitions between districts. It is a

[2:50:59] fundamental part of the DP Z code. Tri-w replacement code removes that ladder entirely.

[2:51:08] It up zones nearly the. The entire 540 acres to 4.0 far, including areas DP Z capped at

[2:51:18] at 2.5. Combined with increased building heights, this dramatically changes the scale

[2:51:24] of the development. A blanket 4.05 is not a minor adjustment. It is an urban level intensity.

[2:51:32] It allows much larger buildings and far more total square footage than DP's ever intended.

[2:51:39] And little old Bula. It pushes all effort toward a high intensity, car dependent

[2:51:45] pattern that is completely different from the plan. The community supported. A second

[2:51:51] change that would alter the site is the removal of Dps's requirement for continuous

[2:51:56] sidewalks and bike lanes, along with wider road widths that make streets less safe.

[2:52:01] Walkability is a core part of the adopted plan, and weakening those standards undermines the

[2:52:07] entire mixed use framework. I have visited Tri-w development in East Montgomery, as well as

[2:52:14] catalysts, nice buildings and landscape. But they are not what we want. We want a people

[2:52:20] centered, walkable place that have the character those places lack. AI misled me. That was

[2:52:27] four minutes at least, I guess. But thank you. Thank you Tracy. We'll see you in a few in

[2:52:31] public. All right. Jacqueline then Jacob Rockwell. Just a note. We are the owners and we

[2:52:43] should get as much time as the developers. That's my opinion. And the other ones, you give it

[2:52:48] to the owner. But my name is Jacqueline Rogers. I came here to talk about the design code,

[2:52:53] but I have whiplash because your agenda had the design code attached and design code on the

[2:52:58] agenda. But now we're talking about the master plan. So I'm sitting in the back with my

[2:53:03] geriatric eyes. I'm supposed to read all that because they didn't want to attach it. And

[2:53:07] when I asked for all this to be put on a website in OLF website, the design code, any changes to

[2:53:12] the master plan, I see a we didn't get it on the website and I see a complaint by

[2:53:17] Development Services staff saying, you know, it'll come up seven days before. That's when

[2:53:22] you'll get it. So this is not a workshop, not at 830 in the morning, Mr. Moreno. It's not a

[2:53:27] workshop. And especially when you change the agenda and don't attach it, it's a shell game. I

[2:53:32] will speak to the design code because that's what I prepared for. The lane widths are 12

[2:53:37] foot okay, she said. That's what the county does. The the urban and walkable design.

[2:53:44] You're not going to have 12 foot. Look what we have the problems with Cervantes already.

[2:53:48] We don't need to go back to that where they made them so wide that then we had to put up

[2:53:53] barriers in the middle. If you look at the design code for the transfer Florida Department of

[2:53:59] Transportation, I don't know what they do in Alabama, but the Florida Transportation said

[2:54:04] in in conventional in suburban areas, it's not it's ten foot on state roads, it's 11ft. And

[2:54:11] then on the highways, it's 12ft, interstates and freeways, it said. So this that's ridiculous.

[2:54:16] That change. Do we have any type of analysis from the staff or a third party analysis? No

[2:54:21] we don't. The block structure size. If you make the blocks too big like they're proposing,

[2:54:26] people won't want to walk down there. They don't want to commit to walking down a large

[2:54:31] block. They want to be able to have side roads where they could go down, stop and sit.

[2:54:35] Same thing for the parking standards. Now that allows some of the front loaded parking,

[2:54:39] and that's uninteresting and it's unsafe. I'm a woman. I don't want to walk through

[2:54:44] creepy parking lot at night in front of one. I want to walk along a store aisle. And then

[2:54:49] if I'm going to drive there and I don't live in Beulah, I am another. What do you call it? A

[2:54:55] person who has an interest in OLFA. I will probably drive there, but I do want to walk

[2:55:00] when I get there, and not just in the town center. So I think that this is a lack of

[2:55:07] transparency. I think you're trying to they're trying to socialize the idea, but not get

[2:55:12] the information out to the people where we could truly, outside of a three minute time,

[2:55:17] really ask questions of them. And so I'm going to go back a little bit. I did tell you this

[2:55:23] was not attached to the agenda. Oh, the private infrastructure. You say that the private

[2:55:30] infrastructure, there is no private infrastructure. But look at what we've already

[2:55:34] experienced. If if it's not clearly defined, like you said, Mr. Van Horn, neighborhoods are

[2:55:40] not just going to take it over. Neighborhoods will fight it. They will take the county to

[2:55:44] court and stuff like that. It needs to be defined. You know, drew said, well, if the county

[2:55:49] doesn't want to take it over, we won't. So then what will we do with it? Because we're not

[2:55:54] allowed to have private infrastructure. We already have things about that. So it should

[2:55:57] be clearly spelled out. And thank you for asking those questions. Thank you Jacob.

[2:56:01] Well, you're up next. And then Chris Curb. Hello hello. Howdy, folks. I'm reckon I reckon I'm

[2:56:19] here to rant about ol F eight again. I've gone back and watched a lot that had to do

[2:56:24] with this process, especially the commissioners bickering for hours on end, causing the high

[2:56:29] bidder to RUNNOFT. It was painful to watch. Luckily, YouTube has a 1.5 time setting

[2:56:36] to get through that slog a little quicker. All the stops were pulled out for the low bid,

[2:56:41] though I guess they forgot we were bidding a land sale and not a retention wall job. Now

[2:56:46] we're getting about half as much as work as it's worth looking at campaign

[2:56:50] contributions for. Various folks answered all the questions I needed to know,

[2:56:53] though. To me all this stinks like a pig sty in July. But here we are regardless. So

[2:56:59] there's this distribution center language I saw while I was looking for back door data

[2:57:03] center implementation. I wonder who that's for. I have an idea, but I'll ask anyway. Are these

[2:57:08] like Amazon distribution warehouses, but not quite. Amazon warehouses, nuclear

[2:57:12] waste storage? Are we talking future government warehouses where they keep the Ark of the

[2:57:17] Covenant and Epstein files? I don't know, it's very ambiguous. So then I look at the plan,

[2:57:23] employment avenues. What kind of jobs are we talking here? Domino's minimum wage clothing

[2:57:27] retail hostess at a chain restaurant. Alcohol establishments. When fentanyl

[2:57:31] federal came in, their entire campus was decent jobs. There was no garbage, minimum wage,

[2:57:36] retail jobs or apartment complexes built there. I've been around long enough to be

[2:57:40] very wary when lizard people start saying loaded words like high paying and local jobs.

[2:57:45] That's why I keep hearing the words maybe and might when it comes to these high paying jobs.

[2:57:49] While the dog water jobs are near guarantees so far outside a Navy federal high paying jobs

[2:57:55] meant foreigners and transplants, while as Gambians are cooking pizzas for them,

[2:57:59] everything so far proposed outside of a town center is also available at the corner of

[2:58:04] Pine Forest and Nine Mile. Hell, you could just rename it the Publix Town Center and you got

[2:58:08] one. All the benefits to the community that were told to us are vague promises with no

[2:58:13] guarantees. The only guarantees we've gotten so far is urbanization with low paying

[2:58:16] retail crap jobs, a bunch of housing, $100 million, private public, private infrastructure

[2:58:23] cost, infrastructure impacts I know will be passed on to me. I'll believe Tri-w pays for

[2:58:28] those infrastructure impacts when pigs fly and leprechauns put pots of gold at the end of

[2:58:32] rainbows. Hell, they don't even know how much that's going to be. Who's going to pay for the

[2:58:37] new school that gets ultimately built from all these new housing and urbanizations the

[2:58:40] new firefighters, deputies, school teachers, road widenings, crosswalks, traffic lights,

[2:58:46] utility infrastructure, etc. etc. etc. and that's all I got to say. Thank you, thank you.

[2:58:53] All right, Chris curb and then John Martin. Flooding matters just asked Noah. I'm Chris Kerr

[2:59:11] with Flood Defenders Panhandle. I worked here for 25 years. There's a couple of handouts. I

[2:59:21] emailed that to you by the way, horse earlier I heard. Design standards. Whose design

[2:59:32] standards? Well I'm not going to get into all this other stuff. I'm going to stay in my

[2:59:38] lane, which is stormwater. FDOT has a design standard that they came up with at a 2022, excuse

[2:59:52] me, 2022 legislation. 339.157 Florida statutes. That's where fDOT archived and abandoned and

[3:00:06] actually put on their stormwater precipitation, intensity, duration, frequency

[3:00:13] curves they put on there that do not use for stormwater design. Well, the nice thing

[3:00:20] about this site is most of it drains to Nine Mile Road, which means you're going to have to

[3:00:28] meet dot design standards. There is a little ponds right up here in the top right corner

[3:00:38] there. I don't know if that'll go over onto the Navy, Federal Credit Union drainage way or

[3:00:44] your little wetlands at the top end that maybe that might go up in that area. But. Your county

[3:00:51] codes, even your state environmental resource regulations, environmental

[3:00:57] resource permitting regulations under chapter 623 30, they used archive and old rainfall data.

[3:01:07] For the record, I, I hope these guys hear a lot of your bigger engineering firms and

[3:01:14] consultants are actually understand the liability behind using data that has been

[3:01:21] archived. Scare me. County Board of County commissioners don't seem to get that. They

[3:01:29] don't understand their liability behind approving stuff that does not meet an

[3:01:37] acceptable science of hydrology, which is the most accurate available rainfall data. And

[3:01:45] it's costing us lots of money. By the way, this drains into 11 Mile Creek Basin, one of your

[3:01:50] worst basins in the county as far as completely overloaded, it's completely overloaded.

[3:01:57] Your floodplains are way bigger than what they used to be. You got houses flooding in areas

[3:02:01] that did not flood when they were built. 160 homes flooded in Bristol Park subdivision in

[3:02:10] April 2014. 100 of them flooded in hurricane Sally. They're not even listed on your flood

[3:02:18] insurance rate map as a high hazard flood zone. What are we doing, guys? This is the issue

[3:02:27] for your Board of County commissioners. Please tell them to get on board with modern

[3:02:33] technology. Thank you. Chris. Darren. Martin. Boomer. And then Deborah fall after. Hey

[3:02:47] good morning John. Go. Hi, Jack. I want to be here as a resident of Beulah, and I'm a local

[3:02:54] realtor and just I've been looking forward to. I drive by this field every day and I

[3:02:59] can't wait to see something special happen. I know what it's like to be in Escambia

[3:03:05] County. I grew up here, lived here my whole life, and it's easy to live here and then be

[3:03:10] skeptical of something new happening and happening towards the end as a positive. So I'm

[3:03:17] excited to see I want to say thank you guys for your presentation. It was it was

[3:03:21] very well done. Lots of great things there. I think the, the, the biggest concern would be

[3:03:26] when you have something that's going on this long, any kind of change can feel sudden, can

[3:03:32] feel. They talk about whiplash. I think that's why a lot of the residents are so, so worried. I

[3:03:38] live off of Beulah Road. So the, the there's, there's a lot of interest in to make sure that

[3:03:43] this is done right and done well. So again, taking the time to, to have this discussion, I

[3:03:47] think was, was great. I'm glad you guys did that. To me, the, the biggest concern I have when

[3:03:52] seeing any kind of changes to these, these things, here's distribution centers. That's I

[3:03:56] think when we talk about jobs, we talk about walkability. We talk about life in this area.

[3:04:01] Distribution center to me is the exact opposite of all three things. Distribution does not

[3:04:08] provide jobs, is a is to maximize profit. The next great product will not be built there.

[3:04:14] There will not be anything bought or sold there. They will do whatever they can to limit

[3:04:18] the amount of jobs there, because that's what brings down your labor cost. But you will

[3:04:22] still have big trucks, so you have big trucks and big warehouses and no jobs. And

[3:04:26] again, that area right now will only mean we we talk about traffic like we live in Atlanta.

[3:04:33] We obviously don't, but traffic would not get better if we have big, large trucks in that area.

[3:04:38] So again, distribution centers is the main concern that I have seeing this plan because this

[3:04:43] this looks great seeing this. There's lots of great things about that. I love the idea of

[3:04:47] narrow streets. I'd like to get clarification on the questions you're asking on the 12 foot

[3:04:51] versus ten foot and the they it's just like 18in of, of the, the curb. Does that mean it's

[3:05:01] really just a short distance? It's not actually a ten versus 12. It's actually ten and a

[3:05:07] half versus ten. Or is that correct? Okay. So it wouldn't be okay. To talk about

[3:05:13] walkability, but obviously the, the thing that I will tell you as a realtor, whether you're

[3:05:20] buying or selling, one of the things we personally do is we run our PR report. And one of

[3:05:24] the first things your home gets scored on is walkability or access to walkable areas. And

[3:05:29] again, I can't tell you the difference between my house versus not. I don't compare it

[3:05:34] to Aragon because of the neighborhood, but the walkability aspect is a huge is

[3:05:38] from 1 to 5. I think making this area walkable continue to make the entire area sidewalks

[3:05:44] is a huge focus that should stay there. I think that would be a big in sidewalk. So thank

[3:05:49] you guys. Thank you thank you thank you Deborah fall. Then we have Josh Roberson. Hi, I am

[3:06:03] Deborah Fall. I also live in Beulah. I'm exactly like what he said. I love the idea of

[3:06:10] having a town center. I think it's improving. Like they said, the heartbeat of Beulah. I am

[3:06:15] concerned about the distribution centers. We've already we're doing our own

[3:06:19] research, guys. It is not rocket science to get out there and find the profitability of

[3:06:23] the distribution centers are all up and down I-75. Just go down to South Florida. You'll

[3:06:28] see them everywhere. And we have places like in Ellison Industrial. We have places out

[3:06:33] there in Nine Mile Road that is, I mean, up highway 29, that's an industrial park. So we have

[3:06:39] other areas they can put distribution centers. We want that to be a town center, like

[3:06:43] what they're describing, where you can walk the neighborhoods, walk to commerce, be in the

[3:06:48] greens. I think every bit of that is perfect for what Beulah has because we have nothing

[3:06:53] there. However, we don't want distribution centers. We don't want the big trucks coming in

[3:06:57] there. Every one of us has come up here for years saying in the master plan, we don't want them.

[3:07:03] We don't want them on our streets. We don't want them on Nine Mile Road, and we

[3:07:07] definitely don't want them coming off of Frank road. That route is too small. We have

[3:07:12] been through this many times at these meetings. Then you've got the interstate access coming in

[3:07:16] there now and it's going to be highly congested. We have busses coming in there around

[3:07:21] those kids. We do not want those trucks coming in and out of Frank Reeder Road, and I

[3:07:26] don't really want them on Nine mile, but if they had to come, that would be the only way that

[3:07:31] we would be supportive of having trucks coming in out of there. Frank Road is just too

[3:07:35] small, guys. And we have discussed this until we're blue in the face, we are supportive

[3:07:40] of these guys. It was a great presentation, lovely area. We do not want distribution

[3:07:45] centers at all. So find another place for those. And then I think we would all come

[3:07:50] together and agree on these things. But that is our big thorn. We don't want those

[3:07:54] trucks coming in. Thank you. Thank you Josh Roberson. And then we'll finish with public

[3:08:02] forum. Well hello. Good evening. I don't like it. All right. Hey good morning. I'm Joshua

[3:08:26] Robertson. I wasn't going to say anything today. I'm just going to listen because it was

[3:08:29] information purposes. Then you said discussion. And it reminded me of two shows I

[3:08:34] watched last night on 48 hours. I watched the opening, I watched the meet, and then I

[3:08:39] watched the closing. It's kind of weird. Anyway. Mr. Owens, I listened to your concerns when

[3:08:46] you brought it up about having this, and it was pretty interesting. It'll be kicked

[3:08:52] back to you. Anyway, I listened to your concerns, and that's what discussions are about. Not

[3:08:57] about 35 minutes of laying out this trial with lawyers. I don't even know what they do,

[3:09:05] what law they practice. No answers on this side. However, I do listen. I listen very

[3:09:11] carefully. Let me set the stage. Lawyer number one. Let me set the stage and explain why we're

[3:09:16] here. There's your answer. Followed that lawyer number two. Let's see why as to why we are

[3:09:26] here. Then it says, as per the contract in 2025, then that was also stated. Lawyer number one

[3:09:35] 2025 contract. Well, none of that was adhered to anyway. So then we go back and let's see,

[3:09:41] original plan mentioned 11 times the entire. I don't know, whatever presentation, but it

[3:09:51] was also stated as per the contract in 2025. But it's too complicated. We got to change

[3:09:58] that contract. I listened to certain words again, raise the limits as a blanket. There's no

[3:10:05] definition of what is actually wanting to be done to raise the limits of the height. Yeah,

[3:10:09] you're right Nate. Tallest buildings at Navy federal was done in phase two. It was

[3:10:14] building seven and eight. What's the tallest height on that? Was this a discussion? So

[3:10:17] what's the tallest height? Six stories. I actually built those so I can tell you they're eight

[3:10:23] stories. They're eight. Yeah. Including the roof with a penthouse. There you go with a

[3:10:27] penthouse. Were they designed six stories? Phase one I believe was six stories. Phase

[3:10:33] two was seven plus the penthouse plus the penthouse. Yeah. So eight stories,

[3:10:37] including the the deal, right? Yeah. I'm not sure what the design criteria was back then,

[3:10:42] but that's that's what they are. But that love this discussion. No, no, no, I love the

[3:10:48] discussion. So but on top of that they were laid out in front though right. It wasn't

[3:10:54] an NDA that building seven and eight were going to be this. We'll let you know. I was just

[3:10:59] blown. Oh okay. Well you said you built them. You said. But anyway, they were going to be

[3:11:04] part of the banking institution. And not saying that we can put this in. And then later on,

[3:11:10] when you do blanket policies, how does that work? I'm just going off. I wasn't going to

[3:11:14] speak until I heard the discussion. These are all notes. I don't know the three

[3:11:25] stakeholders. Yeah, we are Escambia County citizens. It is Bula citizens. It wasn't the

[3:11:31] economic development until it was given back to the county. With the economic development

[3:11:38] grants. It wasn't that. So I don't know, $100 million. We're going to get all the

[3:11:43] infrastructure HOAs. They're not going to sign off on the actual parks that aren't inside

[3:11:48] those neighborhoods. I don't know, food for thought, but thanks for asking those

[3:11:52] questions in the beginning. I do appreciate it. Mr. Tim Powell I how you doing? It's

[3:11:57] hard for us when when we come down from, you know, where we live out in the sticks. But

[3:12:03] thanks for having us again, I appreciate it. Thanks for having us. Yeah. Thanks, Mr.

[3:12:09] Rosen. I guess since this is. This is a discussion item. So I think that finalizes our

[3:12:18] discussion. Unless there's anything else for this board here. Or. I mean, we can't have

[3:12:26] discussing, I guess. I mean I just a discussion. Anything else? I'll say this. I think we

[3:12:31] had more discussion today than the last time. So we can say it was productive. Yeah. And I

[3:12:37] hope that that was I don't know what else to say there. Yeah. Still for the for the sake of

[3:12:42] the public, can you sequence the next 60 days or so on where this goes from here? You can

[3:12:52] tell them. Yeah, of course we're we're waiting on the results from Tallahassee. We're

[3:13:00] waiting. We're definitely waiting on the results from Tallahassee, whether they are

[3:13:05] men or Tallahassee. Then it goes back to the board for approval. If there are no

[3:13:11] recommendations for a public meeting. In the meantime, while we're still waiting on that,

[3:13:16] we're going to with the direction of staff and with the with them, come back in October

[3:13:22] for the public hearing on the master plan, on the master plan, how many public hearings are

[3:13:32] required? How many? It's I believe it's just one legislative. Correct. So

[3:13:38] because because see, the reason why? Because as you see. And board. Sometimes doing

[3:13:43] everything together, it causes a little concern because you got the legislative and

[3:13:50] judiciary. And our legal counsel said sometimes it's best to keep it separated. If

[3:13:55] we're trying to give the public the opportunity to come for you all without just bringing

[3:14:01] everything at once, step by step, the master plan that goes before, then the next thing we

[3:14:09] will come. Quasi judicial portion. These are general steps, and that's when the.

[3:14:15] We'll address the Land Development Code, the zoning districts, all of those things.

[3:14:20] We. Because sometimes this is such a big. Doing all at once may cause more confusion. We're

[3:14:26] trying to minimize the confusion and trying to give everybody the opportunity for

[3:14:31] the board to understand, to be transparent step by step, without trying to throw

[3:14:37] everything all at once. Mr. Jones, why did you attach the design code to the agenda? It

[3:14:43] was not the master plan. That's what I answer my question. You're confused. So did that

[3:14:53] answer your question in the what's what the timeline is for the next six? Yes. I asked it

[3:14:58] for the benefit of the public, who came today with several comments. Knowing that I think

[3:15:02] it's very important that you all track the sequencing and progression of this so that you

[3:15:09] have the same opportunity every chance you get to be heard. Today, just the beginning

[3:15:17] discussion item. There's an action item later. We're waiting on a response from

[3:15:21] Tallahassee to see where that goes. You have the BCC as well. These are all opportunities for

[3:15:27] you to be heard. This is just the beginning. Get more than seven days notice in the public

[3:15:37] eye. More than seven days notice. We don't get that much. Jamie, I couldn't hear what you

[3:15:43] asked. What was that? You have more than seven days. Seven days notice for what? The

[3:15:49] planning board agenda. That's all we get. Sometimes it's six, sometimes it's five. That's not

[3:15:54] enough for us to study and be prepared to speak to the issue. And then if you change the

[3:16:00] issue, of course, that's fine. Okay. Did board did you hear that? Yeah. And I would defer

[3:16:08] to staff on how their regulatory you know, for timing for that. That's the best I can

[3:16:13] say. So timing of public notices that's all set out by the state. It's all codified in

[3:16:22] our code. And you can attest that this was compliant with those statutes. Yes it is.

[3:16:31] Thank you. All right. I guess we're moving off of that. So if there's any other discussion

[3:16:39] we're good to go. Not at this time. So. Okay. But before you jump into the next. No. So

[3:16:54] while we're going through discussion, the Board of Adjustment made a rather unique

[3:16:59] request of staff that. They are asking for a change, a code change in the sign section. So

[3:17:11] I'm going to explain it to you now. What's going to you're going to be seeing coming up

[3:17:17] our current land development code. When somebody wants to build a drive through, it only

[3:17:23] allows for signage for one drive through. I'll. Since Covid, the standard now when

[3:17:30] folks bring in drive thrus is two aisles. The board of adjustment doesn't want to have

[3:17:36] to go through a variance every single time one of them comes in. So they're asking us to

[3:17:40] bring a proposal for changing that to you guys. So we will get that scheduled. I mean,

[3:17:47] there's a lot going on towards the end of the year, but we are going to be bringing that to

[3:17:52] you because they have requested that we don't know when. We just want to let you know it's

[3:17:58] just forthcoming. We don't want to say we're just trying to let you know. Things that we got on

[3:18:02] the calendar along with this item, which is definitely primary. And I and our other

[3:18:07] rezoning cases that are yet coming. So we still got three public speakers, Teresa

[3:18:13] Blackwell and then Larry Downs and Jacqueline Rogers. So. Who's first? Teresa? You're

[3:18:27] first. She's a little older and takes her just a minute. Wherever whoever's second go,

[3:18:35] go now so I can find my speech. All right, Larry, you're up first. Oh, I've got my speech

[3:18:41] ready. It's all in my head. All right. Since since since staff brought up Larry Downs Junior

[3:18:50] Plumbing, LLC. Because fecal matters and mission obvious dot coms where you can go get all

[3:18:55] your information. Since staff brought up since Covid, since Covid, we got new stuff. Are

[3:19:07] y'all are y'all up to date on y'all's corporate chemical vaccine injections? Staff up to

[3:19:15] date? I just want to make sure everybody's protected in here. Now, for all you that are 50

[3:19:20] and older, they got a new flu mRNA shot by Moderna. Oh, it's going to be great. It's going

[3:19:28] to be great. Y'all can go get that and join the the cardiac arrest and cancers and all that.

[3:19:35] All right. One of the things I wanted to say. Hold on. I wrote it down right here. Oh yeah.

[3:19:45] Whenever you are moving forward in the future and I know we're always moving forward, I would

[3:19:52] like for y'all to do I would like to see if I could get a discussion item put on here,

[3:19:58] just like they did a discussion item for property rights. So we can kind of have a public

[3:20:05] discussion for property rights and, and maybe we can discuss it back and forth. What would

[3:20:10] be the best way to go back to the savings clause for all properties to, you know, to

[3:20:20] have that traditional use, that this founding, you know, that our country was founded upon

[3:20:26] the basic principles of liberty. If we, you know, imagine that if we went back to that now, it

[3:20:32] would make a lot of people upset. It'd make a lot of people upset. They would be

[3:20:36] they'd be like, we can't have people having grass this tall. It's just too much. It must be

[3:20:46] six inches. Do y'all know what the grass code is? Do y'all know? No freedom there? Yeah,

[3:20:56] maybe I need to put in a Freedom of Information Act so I can find that out. We thought

[3:21:02] you were going to tell us. Yeah, but. Well, I used to know it, but since I live a place where

[3:21:10] I got my savings calls back. I don't have to go buy it. But anyhow, how do you how how

[3:21:19] could we rezone if we if we had that discussion, how could we get have Burke drive one mile

[3:21:25] long road that was zoned RR and somehow, you know, went through the whole process without the

[3:21:32] signs up, how could we get it rezoned back to RR from what? They changed it from LDR

[3:21:39] because that's it's non-conforming. 90% of the people on there are

[3:21:43] non-conforming. So we should not have that. And all we have to do to go back to that is I'm

[3:21:51] guessing we could have that discussion first, like, like they have, and we could get our

[3:21:56] rights back because there's a lot of a lot of people don't have Burke Drive that are

[3:22:01] violating LDR rules. So anyways, maybe we could move towards that. All right. Teresa, then

[3:22:08] Jacqueline Rogers, mission obvious.com. Don't forget your shots. Did you? Okay, first I'm

[3:22:19] gonna just get in my last few points. As far as the design code. First, restore Dps's

[3:22:30] requirement for continuous sidewalks and bike lanes and restore the narrower, safer

[3:22:34] street widths in the DP's design code. Second, restore Dps's far intensity ladder. Do

[3:22:41] not approve a blanket 4.0 far across the entire site. Third, restore Dps's height limits to

[3:22:49] maintain human scale streets and predictable transitions. Fourth, remove distribution

[3:22:56] uses that distribute directly directly to consumers, whether labeled as warehouses,

[3:23:04] facilities, or logistics. Fifth, prohibit standalone data centers. Okay. Please ensure

[3:23:14] that the design code for oh eight reflects the scale, intensity, and land use pattern

[3:23:19] the community supported, and that the Board of County Commissioners agreed to. Thank

[3:23:25] you. Now I'm going to talk about transparency, and I think today was pretty much of a

[3:23:31] farce. It was advertised as a discussion with the design code attached. The developer

[3:23:38] presented about the master plan. And then we talked about the master plan. So as far as the

[3:23:44] first meeting being a discussion meeting, we did not discuss the design code. And

[3:23:50] that's what the subject was advertised to be. So there's that. No wonder we get confused.

[3:23:59] So, you know, it's nice to get an after the fact explanation on what we're doing, but you

[3:24:04] know, put that in what goes in the agenda. Thank you. And I want to address a transparency

[3:24:13] concern related to the outlying field design code, one that affects public confidence in

[3:24:19] how decisions are made. Recently, an email from the Director of Development

[3:24:24] Services included wording that raised questions about the independence of the review

[3:24:30] process. Of course, we didn't see any review here today, but in that message he asked his

[3:24:35] team, which actually includes county staff as well as the developers planner. He this was

[3:24:41] an email to that group asking about changes between the two plans so that he'd be able to

[3:24:50] explain them. So he said. He wanted to know about what he called our. And then he changed

[3:25:01] that word to the proposed code. So when staff refer to an applicant's document as our

[3:25:08] code, it suggests a level of collaboration that goes beyond the neutral arm's length review.

[3:25:15] The public expects the community relies on staff to evaluate proposals and

[3:25:21] independently, independently and protect adopted plans. So as my as John Moore asked, who

[3:25:29] is representing us, even advising us? Not happening over here. Thank you. Thank you

[3:25:35] Teresa. All right. Jacqueline Rogers pepper Weimer. Okay, I have five unrelated things. One

[3:25:47] of them you used to put out there on that sheet that you gave, what the criteria were.

[3:25:55] You have the five criteria. And then at the end you had board action. And I even came and

[3:26:00] said, hey, that's so great that you're finally including that last thing, board action. And

[3:26:04] the attorney even agreed with me or not agreed with me, but said, yes, that's appropriate.

[3:26:09] The board, even if a rezoning meets all the criteria, the board can see if keeping it the

[3:26:15] same would be better. And now you guys took it off. So I don't know why you did that.

[3:26:19] I'm just give you staff or whoever took it off. That's that's not good because you did

[3:26:24] it right the first time. Number two that he said they met the statutory minimum for notice.

[3:26:32] But just like the Boa can say, look, I don't want to see two lanes of a drive through. You

[3:26:38] can direct the staff to put it out more than a week ahead of time. That's I mean, I

[3:26:43] understand that developers are working on this, working on this, but it has to be a timely

[3:26:48] time for us to review it. Five days sometimes is all and then it's incorrect. And then and

[3:26:54] then we have to do it all over again. This was incorrect. What was what was attached. So it's

[3:27:00] up to you. You guys are our planning board. I understand that I can't vote on everything

[3:27:05] you guys can, but you are our only board that is standing in for the people you're standing

[3:27:11] for. Developers to developers are people. I understand that to make it fair. So please

[3:27:15] think about directing them to put it on more than 5 to 7 days before. When they say they

[3:27:21] don't pass off evaluation on rezonings and comp plans to the DRC process. Because if you

[3:27:28] look up the DRC process, there is no initial application meeting. It says right on there.

[3:27:33] There's no application meeting for the public. So what is required to find out when he

[3:27:38] says, well, you can go to a pre app meeting. Pre apps are not required. Somebody could just

[3:27:43] go straight to the initial. So you're not going to know that somebody's doing a pre app or

[3:27:47] not. And pre op sometimes are like crazy off the wall and they find out it's not feasible.

[3:27:52] Initial application is where we could get involved. It's published for the final

[3:27:56] application but not for the initial. I mean it's public. There's a public meeting for it.

[3:28:02] So we would have to dig in to go to each reviewer, find out what all they're saying, and we

[3:28:07] might not even know it's on on there. If you look on August, there's nothing for initial.

[3:28:12] Did we get no initial applications in August? There's nothing for the one this week

[3:28:16] in September. There's nothing listed. Do we get in the last five weeks no initial

[3:28:21] applications or are they just not putting them on the agenda anymore? So the last thing I

[3:28:26] wanted to say, well, no, there's two things. Okay. Sector plan versus the DP's

[3:28:32] master plan. You guys told me, oh, the sector plan was thrown up on all these people that

[3:28:36] didn't already own this property. And it wasn't fair. But even Commissioner Bergus,

[3:28:41] former Commissioner bergus acknowledged that DPS was different. This was our chance

[3:28:46] because the public owned this. We could put whatever we wanted. So what do we do? We got the DC

[3:28:52] DPS master plan ahead of time. Then we put it out there and people bid on it and said, yes,

[3:28:58] I want to do this master plan and now we're totally changing it. Why did we do it ahead of

[3:29:04] time? If if it's a blank check to the developer to just change it because he's putting all his

[3:29:09] investment and he's putting all his money out there, then why did we do the million dollar

[3:29:14] investment and the time of ten years of a lot of our time? Why did we do that? Thank you. All

[3:29:20] right, Pepper, and we're done with public forum. I still want to talk about the confusion. I

[3:29:33] it's really confusing. And we should be able to interact with you guys and and I do

[3:29:39] appreciate the attitude here. You guys are really open and helpful over here. But the fact

[3:29:48] that the agenda did not reflect what's what's going on here is, is crazy. I'm lucky enough to

[3:29:57] be able to just show up a lot at a lot of these meetings, but most people are not. So again,

[3:30:04] it's this is accessibility because people aren't being told what's going on. And so,

[3:30:09] you know what Miss Rogers was talking about with the agendas that that is a serious problem.

[3:30:13] And it's not even just a problem here. It's a problem with the city and the county

[3:30:18] commissioners and councils as well. The public deserves to know what's going on. And it

[3:30:23] just feels, as a member of the public, like every single step of the way that there is to

[3:30:31] interact with any kind of process, is just shrouded in confusion. And it's just

[3:30:40] absolutely unacceptable. It's undemocratic. We should be able to understand, and I understand

[3:30:48] that, you know, maybe 50 years ago, people were showing up in a way that they weren't 15

[3:30:54] years ago. But the pendulum swings and we're back. We're back. The public's back. So

[3:31:00] we're begging. The public is begging for transparency. And transparency means

[3:31:07] understanding what's going on. So I don't, you know, we really need this. You know, it would

[3:31:13] help everybody because you've got people showing up confused about what they want to talk

[3:31:18] about. And, you know, so that would really subvert the issue. But I think that, and I'm not

[3:31:24] talking about the planning Board meeting again, planning board members, I appreciate you

[3:31:28] guys. But somewhere along the line, it just feels intentional and strategic like that. You

[3:31:35] guys are strategically making it confusing, putting things in legalese. You why? How can you

[3:31:44] expect the public to not be frustrated? And when when the Planning board members are

[3:31:50] confused too? If the Planning Board members are confused, how could you look down on the

[3:31:55] public for not understanding? Because it feels like a lot of people think that we're dumb

[3:32:00] for not understanding, and we just want to interact, and it just feels like a brick wall.

[3:32:08] Seriously, it's it's it's it's ridiculous. And I really hope somebody other than you guys

[3:32:14] hear this because I know y'all, you know, y'all aren't doing it. But but that's what this is

[3:32:20] supposed to be for. I just don't know if anybody really pays attention. You know, I, I

[3:32:23] heard what you said, Mr. Nelson. I understand y'all are listening, but I don't under I

[3:32:28] don't know if the commissioners go back and listen to this. I do because I'm a reporter, but

[3:32:32] I don't think they do. I don't think they care. Thank you so much. We are. You have to fill

[3:32:40] out a form. I signed up for the old. I mean, what what is this specific? This is public forum.

[3:32:44] Just public forum for the planning board. Separate. Separate. Yes. All right. Thank

[3:32:49] for me. Next time. Unless you really want to. Several more times. Yes. All right.

[3:32:56] Directors review anything we got besides that we haven't already talked about Drew or

[3:33:00] Horse. No, I think that's covering everything. And we've got a code enforcement hearing

[3:33:07] on the way for this room, so. Okay. All right. And then county attorney. Anything. All

[3:33:11] right then we're done. Thank you so much. Hold on. Y'all don't leave yet. I gotta get a

[3:33:17] photo op with the shot. The shot? Come on. You love these thoughts, man. Submit to my

[3:33:28] work. Well, I mean, how much time do you.

Planning Board-Regular

Agenda

Transcript