[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.