Highway up there. Oh boy. Good.
pretty good. All right, good morning everybody and uh thanks for for being here. Um want to just give you a reminder to go ahead and turn your cell phones to silent or off. Uh and this meeting of the Escambia County Planning Board for July 1st is hereby called to order. Um wow. With nine members present, we do have a quorum. 100%
attendance. So if you would please join me standing for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Thank you. Do we have uh proof of publication? Yes, sir. Did the publication meet all legal requirements? Yes, sir. I'll entertain a motion to wave the
reading of the legal advertisement. Second. Motion is second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed? Motion carries. Planning board meeting minutes for June 3rd have been provided to the board. I'll entertain a motion to accept the planning board meeting minutes into evidence. Motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All right. Motion carries. The planning board hearing package for July 1st, 2025 has been provided to the board members. I'll entertain a motion to accept the planning board
hearing package and the legal advertisement into evidence. Do we have a motion? moved. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Motion second. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. All right. Motion carries. All right. So, today um we've got a public hearing concerning the review of a development agreement for Skyline Subdivision. Um, and so we're gonna take this and then we're going to jump over to our
uh reasonzoning meeting and take care of two items on that agenda and then we'll jump back into the regular planning board meeting and do the other two public hearings that we have today. So, um, I will remind anybody that wants to speak, the the pink forms are in the back of the room. Um, and if you would just fill those out so we make sure we get you called up here and and turn them in here to the front desk. All right. Our first hearing, a public hearing concerning
the review of a development agreement for Skyline Subdivision. That the board review and recommend to the board of county commissioners, the BCC for approval a development agreement between SNS Acquisitions LLC and Escambia County for Skyline Subdivision to vest certain conditions agreed to by both parties in accordance with procedures and requirements of Florida statutes. Uh would the applicant of their representative please come forward? I think that's a bit Bill.
All right. And um if you would just state your name and um address for the record and then we'll let you go ahead and make your presentation. Sure. Uh name is Bill Mitchum. Um address is 501 Comedencia, Pensacola, Florida 32502. Uh, I'm council for the developer and we are here um proposing a development agreement for a 19.57 acre parcel on Belleview Avenue. Uh, as I understand it, this parcel has been up for resoning in front of this board and the
county commission previously. Uh, both times there was a concern over the storm water drainage. Uh, the developer in this case has been working with the county staff to address that in two ways. Number one, and and these are both in the development agreement and then in the PUD that we'll talk about uh a little bit later, but the development agreement limits the capacity uh the density to 134 units. Uh we will be requesting a resoning from low density residential to medium density residential, which is 10 a 10 units per acre. Obviously,
that's 190 units. So this is a 60unit concession from the maximum density under the medium density residential uh category which you know at 190 some odd units that's probably a town home development as opposed to a single family residential. So this is a single family residential subdivision. It's 134 units max. And so that's the first concession and the first uh item that's u an item in the development agreement. The second, and maybe more importantly, the developer is agreeing to,
in conjunction with their infrastructure improvements for the Skyline subdivision, which is our our subdivision, expand the Rosewood Estates retention pond, allowing for additional storm water storage capacity for Rosewood Estates so that is capable of attenuating the runoff from a 100red-year critical duration storm event. So when the Rosewood Estates pond was originally built, it was designed only for water quality treatment. Uh but the new system, so combining our system with the Rosewood Estates will provide both water quality treatment and
flood attenuation. So that's a that's a a fairly large concession from the developer and something that staff recommended and that's now in the development agreement. Um although not related to stormwater issue, traffic, you know, often is a conversation these things. And just note that the u transportation and traffic operations has reviewed our application um and provided a memo noting that TTO has no traffic capacity concerns related to Belleview Avenue. Any questions?
Or any questions at this time or go ahead Mr. Adams? Where is it located on Belleview Avenue in relation to uh if we have a to Belleview Elementary? Um we have a Mulun and Belleview. Molden and Bel. Oh, there we go. All right. Yeah, just west of the fairgrounds. That's right. That helps. Okay. Okay. Okay,
I know where that is. It was going to be a church there at one time, I think. Right. Yeah, that's right. Just wanted to see if we had any traffic, possible traffic. Understood. Yeah, understood. This parcel um that's looking to be developed is roughly the same size as the road Rosewood subdivision. Correct. I mean, total it's 19 a little almost 20 acres. Yeah. Um total number of dwelling units in Rosewood is less than 60 right now. Correct. I think that's correct. So, this is roughly double. That's correct.
More than double. That's correct. Thank you. Yep. All right. Any other questions at this time? All right. Thanks, Bob. We'll uh we got more questions. We'll get you back up here. Sounds great. Thanks very much. All right. staff, if we could um go ahead and have you make your presentation at this time or we comments that you'd like to add from staff side.
So, uh I I don't have a presentation. What I can do is answer any questions about development agreements uh and what rights they entail should the board have questions. All right, board. Any questions on the agreement that was provided in the agenda? Okay. All right. If we do, we'll come to you. So, uh, at this time, we will move on to public comment. Um, I've I've got Mr. Hammond, the engineer of record. I don't know if you want to speak or not. We can skip over
unless there's questions. Um, Mr. Sutton, we've got you as the agent, so good for now. All right. And then, first public speaker is David Gibson. if you please come forward and state your name and address for the record and um we'll start your time. Dave Gibson, 608 Yellow Rose Drive, Pensacola, Florida. I live in the house that's right next to the Ketchup Pond in Rosewood. And uh I'm speaking against this. Uh this is the third time I've been here. I spoke to the
um zoning years ago when the church was trying to get it zoned. I was the only person that supported the church and uh our concern is that the water is not been um really addressed adequately. Um I had water out front of my house about a foot deep this past Sunday. This is the third time in the last six weeks I've had water there. It's getting worse. Usually we have two to three, four times a year at the most. This is in the last three or last six weeks three times. And to say
you're going to put twice as many units on there is completely out of scope with what the other uh subdivisions are there. You got 60 units roughly in Rosewood and you're talking about putting double on that which means probably at patio homes maybe but even they going up to 10 units which would be 190 units. They've agreed on that but that was the other thing I want to ask you about. Why wasn't a resident put on that board for the agreement? Why wasn't somebody from Rosewood
put on that board to come up with the agreement with the developer? And so basically what's happening is we're getting railroaded. And what we're what we're also fearing is what you've got over on Softly Field right behind the units that were built on Blue Angel. You go down one street, turn, come down, and you got units built right up to the zoning limit of apartments with people. then on the second floor able to look into the backyards of these people who have privacy fences
up and who can look right into their open windows if they want to. And so basically you've become a rubber stamp for the developers. You're going to give them what they want without any consideration of the neighborhood, any consideration of the other homes that are there in the area. We've got a major water problem. I will probably have to buy flood insurance now. Even though the pond's going to be expanded, but all the water drains to my house out of Rosewood. The road is collapsing
in front of my house. I didn't bring any pictures because I I offered pictures last time. And so, I mean, it's uh you you're you're doing a disservice to the uh to the residents there. And you could turn this down and you could send it back and you could do more because there's a clause in the statement that says if there's an adverse and I'm paraphrasing here, adverse uh uh considerations that need to be made, they can be made, but we're, you know,
we're we're going to be helpless now. And I also would say with the flooding that is there, if there's an emergency such as a fire or such as an ambulance, they will not go through. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, next we have Mary Kopka. If you'll please come forward and state your name and address for the record and uh, we'll get your time started. My name is Mary Kopka, 6248 Mold Dune Road, Pensacola. And I've had dental surgery,
so it's hard to talk. It may be hard to understand me. We ready? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Um, as far as the developer uh working with the county engineer on storm water, this has been done over and over again in this county. First off, the county storm water um package that they use is 45 years old.
Florida State has better standards. They have 2024 standards. Scambia County has 1979 standards. And it doesn't matter that developers work with engineering. I have a list, a small list, not the full list of developments that the developers done it, gone, and the counties end up spending a lot of money fixing the stuff. Chris Kerb can tell you more about that.
Um, so I have no no faith in the developer building a drainage system that's going to work for everybody. 30 years I've lived in that area and the more building that happens, the more flooding I have. It has almost flooded out my business, my life, my income. I don't appreciate it. Um Horus Jones, he never tells you guys, you guys are don't want to know anything. You say,
"Haven't been there, haven't talked to anybody. You need to talk to people. You need to see." And Horus Jones doesn't tell you that the LDC talks about current residents negative impacts their safety. Like Don Gibson said, when that water rises, emergency vehicles will not enter the only entrance to that neighborhood. And cars have been washed out, flooded out trying to get in and out.
the residents are stuck. I don't see where you can give us a 100% guarantee that the developer working with the county is going to remedy the flood issues because the flood issues just aren't in Rosewood. They're down Mulune Road. And Don did bring up something and take no offense, but it appears to all of us as you could see, a lot of you are in real estate. Is
that why you approve everything? Is that why you approve? Is there a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for you by approving this stuff? Because commercial stuff you're All right. Thanks, M. That was your disapproved. Yes, ma'am. Next, we have Tina Lynn. If you'll please come forward and state your name and address and uh we'll get your time started.
My name is Tina Lynn and I live at 6813 Chicago Avenue. And I too um repeat a lot of what Mary has said. Um I've lived in some of these neighborhoods. I've been in Pensacola for 35 years, uh more than that actually, paid taxes, county taxes, and I've had a lot of water issues, flooding in my own home and everything. With regards to this situation, um it appears that it's just a resubmission of the same case Z2024-11,
but with new agents. Uh same conditions still exist. That should negate the approval of this resoning. Uh there's still massive flooding in the area after heavy rains. The drainage pond at Yellow Rose is still grossly inadequate. The county has still not come up with the estimated $20 million it will take to fix the Belleview flooding pro problem by redesigning Hogan's Pond. Residents still have problems with both sewer and septic backing up in their yards and are immersed
in water and they can't even use the toilets with dignity and ease that toilets were designed for. the single entrance to the neighborhood floods so deeply it washes out cars and anything anybody trying to navigate at this point. Uh you can't and they if they're trying to go anywhere they just end up flooded out and have no way to actually leave the neighborhood at this point. It's not an option. Uh emergency responder vehicles still will not enter the neighborhood when the entrance
is flooded to a depth that reaches their bumpers. And again, um, Horus Jones still does not inform the board of the references in the LDC that refer to current residents comfort, quality of life, and safety or the detriment to the community that would negate upzoning in this area, which allows the planning board to disapprove the upzoning. The traffic counter is still located in an area that does not demonstrate the true traffic issues on Belleview Avenue.
the county is still using the 45 year old drainage standards when the Florida state of Florida uses the 2024 standards. Then of course the county wonders why they're saddled with so many drainage problems and they don't have the money to fix them. That's pretty much my sentiments. Thank you very much. Um, next I've got uh Chris Kerb. If you'll
please come forward and state your name. And this was the last speaker that I had signed up for this um this item on today's agenda. So, if there was somebody else that thought they signed up, we'll get to you after after Mr. Kurb goes. I make make sure and check again. Okay. I saw a hand in the back, so we'll come to you, sir. Good morning. Chris Ker with Defenders. Um, I have a question about this development agreement. Um, will the Hogan Pit be expanded
before this development uh is built or permitted? I'd refer to staff. We have some representatives of engineer that maybe answer that. Yeah. And and Mr. I'll say I do have some questions regarding the retaining pond um once we get everybody up here and speak. So, um I will I will make sure to get some clarification on that for you. All right. Well, I might be able to shed some light on
it. Um the Hogan Pit is under capacity. It floods the properties around it. Can you can you back up from the mic? Excuse me. You become very muffled. Muffled. Okay. Yes. Yes. Uh the Hogan Pit U is under capacity. It needs to be expanded as represented in the Bay Marcus U basin study. Mr. um Blue has been flooding for 30 plus years from this Hogan Pit.
Mary Kopkin lives right next to it, too. The plan calls for upgrading the the pond, expanding the volume, and it calls for putting a drainage system on Belleview Avenue that ties into a system that I actually put in years ago that goes down Hogan Road into the pit. Um, the system on Belleview's owner capacity. By the way, uh the Rosewood subdivision met the 25-year design storm requirements of the county at the time,
not just water quality. So, when these uh roads flood in Rosewood, might be because we're using a lower design standard. Um I have a handout that uh probably won't be able to get through it all. I'll wait till the resoning part, but uh I'd like to pass this out.
Chris, explain explain to us what this is exactly that you're that you're u letting us look at here. First p first page is the Florida statutes 2024 Florida statutes 339.157 and it references in the red you'll see uh some stuff that I've added on there referencing your land development code uh divi design standard manual chapter 1 article 1 section one-1.2.
If you look to the other side, that's also DOT standards for a pond in a closed basin. If you want to um I guess accept this as part of the the meeting package, I will uh enter entertain a motion. If if not um we'll continue Mr. Kurb's time.
Certainly let him address what he's he's given us here. Mr. Mr. Chair, I I think we should let him continue with this with this discussion and if we need to submit this to Joy, our engineer, or somebody else, and determine if we need to. I mean, I don't know that we're going to digest this 30 seconds. I can make it real simple. All right, we'll take it. So, the first page you're looking at is Florida statutes 339.157.
That statute was actually put into place in 2022 uh by the state legislation thanks to the American Flood Coalition to push flood resilience in Florida. What do DOT had been doing for six years is referencing two rainfall data sources in their design standards. One is Noah Atlas 14 and the other is their 1979 rainfall data which is what Escambia County allows use of for design.
If you'll see there's two little charts on there. One is the FDOT 1979 data that has been archived by DOT in their 2024 drainage manual. You'll see next to it is archive and it says not for use in design. If you'll add another 30 seconds. So you were stopping and starting with Mr. Kervin. I just want to make sure he gets ample time. All right. I appreciate that. On the other page is FDOT
design standards for closed basins. Hogan's pit is a closed basin. When it overflows and fills up, it floods the properties around it. Scamia County has a basin study done on it. Recently updated, you're looking at 20 to $30 million to give this pond an outfall. That's a lot of money. Oh, it's going to pick up two other county ponds that don't have an outfall either. And the county don't have the money for it. So, if you increase the density, I'll finish.
If you increase the density of this property, you are in effect in increasing the flooding problem. Now, they have a right to develop there. Mhm. But your design standards in your land development code are a lie. Okay. Thank you. Because if it says 100year 24-hour design storm, then it needs to be 124hour design storm. Thanks, Mr. Thank you. Appreciate it. Excuse me, board. Uh if a citizen offers opinions on technical planning matters,
the board must first determine uh by vote whether the individual is qualified to offer expert testimony on that specific topic. I would suggest the board do so. We previously qualified the speaker, I believe, actually twice than this board. I can't remember. So, um for this action, we need to do it for this action. I'd suggest doing on a specific topic. Yeah, I'm just saying previously qualified. So, so if the board would like to to do so, um qualify Mr. Kerb as a expert witness, uh certainly can and
I'll accept any motion um that anybody would like to make and or if there are questions for Mr. Kerr before doing so, you certainly are able to do that. Or if not, we can continue to move on. Motion to accept as an expert. Second. Is there any discussion? Okay. All those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. Okay, motion carries. Um, we did I did see that somebody else wanted to speak on the agreement um from the public. Did we still have anybody from the public that wanted to speak?
Yeah, there should be a couple more speakers um that I handed to him. I um I don't know that I had them marked for the agreement itself. So, I've got for multiple other other items today, but I didn't see for the agreement. Yes, sir. Good morning. Tom Hammond, Hammond Engineering, 3802 North Street. I'd like to be qualified as
expert witness. Yes, sir. Motion to qualify Mr. Hammond as an expert witness. Second. Got a motion, a second. He has the engineer record for uh the PUD. Um any discussion on the motion and second? Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by raising your hand. All those opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Mr. Hammond. Thank you. Um you know, a putt. I've done a bunch of putts and back in the day a put was where we asked for a variance to zoning regulation and then we offered something that wasn't required like sidewalks and
um lighting and that type of thing. Well, in this situation we're in today, I think a pud makes a lot more sense when you actually offer something that's good for the public outside your project. And that's what's happening here. You just heard the people get up here and speak about existing conditions. Water up to their doors, bumpers, fire people can't get in there. You heard it from their own words. This project is asking for a variance for building the lot widths, but in turn, we're
helping and partnering with the county to fix an existing storm water problem. Can you put, excuse me, can y'all put aerial photograph up there at existing conditions and then follow that up with a plan view that shows our grading plan, please? You can see that little square at the southeast corner of Rosewood. That's the storm farm today. You put the other plan up there for me.
You can see that massive storm water pond. It's like 10t deep. When I designed this pond, I backed up, went backwards, see when Rosewood was developed. It's developed between 94 and 98 based on Google Maps because it was there in 98 and it is in '94. and I treated it as if it wasn't there when I did this design. So the pre-development rate was from 1994 when there was no subdivision. You take that in account and then you build both them projects out to today
and that's the difference in runoff from all that impervious from when there was zero impervious. And we're doing that with this pond and still releasing it with less runoff than would be there pre-development 1994. So this is a a a documented flooding area and we're addressing it and partnering with the county on addressing the attenuation. And also if you read through Miss Blackman's statement,
there's other things happening along Belleview to get this water out of the Belleview Road. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board from I was going to ask Mr. Hannah, Mr. Blackman, uh given the emotions of people that live there, I get it. Uh you know, they have a problem. We've had a problem. I've been up here before. I've been part of a an actual development where we built a condominium nobody wanted and it solved the problems of that neighborhood because
we had to pay for the design of exactly what you're doing now. It it worked out well. That was great. Nobody talks about it after the fact. They do talk about the problems, the shortfalls, the fact we don't have any money that that that a problem that is created. How um Mr. Hammond, I'll ask your suggestion first. When you build something like this, how do you hand off this issue and this pond to an HOA and help them maintain it? Because in my historically,
you do our design, we build it, see you later. And then later, horse and them got to catch the arrows for the fact that they have never maintained it. They've never cleared it out. Over 10 years, it's built up. It's nowhere near the capacity it used to be. How do you maintain these things so that they work? And is it your opinion as an expert that this is going to improve what is existing already a problem that exists? I don't know if you know I I don't know to the extent of how bad it is. These folks have obviously expressed it. Miss Blackman, do you feel this is going to help
solve your problems because you know they're going to be back at your door in 5 10 years. I'm sorry. Thank you. Good morning. I'm I'm going to assume you've all read the statement in the background or my memo to the sta from the staff uh review. Um in any design, one of the best places to start is upstream from the problem. Our bigger problems are at Hogan's Pit. We're
going to be upstream of the Hogan's Pit here. And this problem, you know, is is in of itself um a poor design from 1990 whatever. And my assumption with the timeline of that design was it was only water for water quality is that that's the subdivision was minimum standard at the time. And and Chris says that it's 25 year. Either way, it's still uh not adequate. It's min it's below
minimum standards of today. So the best treat best way to work the problem is resolve the problem upstream of where you have flooding. Well, in this case, we're going to start exactly where the flooding is existing in the subdivision and have them redesign as if it never existed and we're designing for two subdivisions at once. This is so when Tom mentions it's pre it's pre-development to the what we're asking for is pre-development to the extent that Rosewood doesn't exist today
and you're developing Rosewood and what is it skyline um you're developing them both today to today's standard Chris will argue the standard is not the same as DOS but the minimum standard that the board approves is what's in our code so We're above and beyond the minimum standard for skyline by addressing the problem in Rosewood. What we'll also have in this design is uh a better outfall
for both subdivisions as well as trying to resolve some problems upstream of there which is Zachary and you've heard that conversation before from Mr. Bler. Those were also designed in an earlier day. So, we're trying to accommodate old issues by correcting them with a new development downstream of this development. Belleview Road had some flooding. We're going to have that crossing upgraded. We haven't modeled all these things yet, but that's the commitment we're getting. We're
going to look at the model and make sure that we can minimize or eliminate completely any flooding or road topping on Belleview. um upgrading the design down Muldune that Chris previously did some work with. Upgrading that, tying into the easement we have for Hogan's and allowing for inlets to to take the water on from the neighboring property. So hopefully minimizing and hopefully eliminating
that flooding too. Hogan's Pit is in design for an outfall. We are trying to expand it. We've got some environmental concerns that are being reviewed at this time. They're under being assessed, I should say, at this time. We started some expansion work and ran into some problems with trying to just expand it because we're not sure um if there was something buried there in the past or what have you. You know, it's just an older area that might have been filled in with some things that shouldn't be in the ground anymore. So, we're trying to work
through all of those issues at the same time. That project's ongoing. M McDonald is under contract to re-evaluate the the original design that Chris speaks to of $20 million. We're not trying to build that design. It's not constructible. It's just not possible. I will have to come up with other ideas and they're they're working through that with county properties. So, we're working upstream Zachary. We're working Rosewood with this project and working for improvements along Mulun
and for the neighboring property to Hogan's Pit. And then the county's taking is already working downstream of that for Hogan's Pit outfall. um defining it as a closed basin is a a little strong but I I understand why it's it is in quotations closed because without an outfall you really are closed. It does outfall through properties which doesn't it's not the answer we want. So
um for all those things those are true statements not the DOT standard exceeds the county's minimum requirements over and above with the except with the um requirements that we're putting on them now um and doing everything we can find in the process to improve anything downstream of that as we go. So, the county wants to we do have some some funds set aside for for this area and that's
what we want to put the money into is getting this resolved. Um, most of the expense towards this um without getting details because I don't have estimates yet because I don't have a model, but our agreement is the county would provide um the the materials, if you will, for the crossing at Belleview. They'll provide everything else for um the work that they need to do on their own properties and and the expansion of the Rosewood pond. The county will be maintaining those ponds.
Just to confirm, Escambia County is fully getting this through dedication for the 1.33 acres and the 62 acres for these ponds. As long as the county's got a plan for, that's a big thing. So, Heard any second back to Mr. Pile's question. You're right. When it's private development HOA, I mean, as the engineer record, we give them maintenance plans required by the state in the county, but how to enforce making that happen when it's private? That's a good question. Um,
when it's public, which developers like it to be public, that's why. because then you got a maintenance entity that's going to take care of it. My apologies, Mr. Pal. U the the since my recent tenure here with the county, we've not really allowed any other private ponds if we can avoid it at all costs. Um, there was a a requirement in the code that said if you didn't have if you had to do a 100red-year on-site retention with no discharge, then you made
had to make it remain private. We took that requirement out recently in our in our work, and we're not we're not requiring that any longer. Um, it's my experience that if it if it's private, eventually it's going to be the counties to maintain. So, we try to go ahead and accept them. Um, and those that are private today, um, there's a process for transferring them to the county and we do everything we can to make that work out and PTO states is a fine example of that because it
was designed back when Chris was reviewing plans and it doesn't none of that works and even though they can't bring it to county standard, we know that it's to the public benefit and public safety benefit to maintain it. So, we're taking it over. There's a process. Anybody get involved with home homeowners associations, feel free to contact our office and we'll help you work through that. Thank you for asking that. Just just to confirm, um both Zachary and um the
other one, Rosewood, are both county owned ponds and county maintained ponds currently. Correct. Okay. I just want they're not priv I just want to make sure that you know everybody understands they're not private. Those are those are county maintained ponds. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Any further questions? Uh Mr. H, I did have a question here on um the the 20 foot drainage here on what would be I guess the west side of the property. So that's a 20 foot buffer
that's allowing for the water to collect and then go down to the pond. Is that what I'm I'm seeing there? in a 20ft buffer from yes the neighboring neighborhood there is water offsite coming from rosewood backyards and that type of thing offsite water and we've got that easement there to figure out how to convey that water to our system our system okay all right thanks yes sir all right um is there anything else that we've got from staff or from the applicant on this agreement
Okay. Uh if not, board um I'll entertain a motion uh one way or the other. And um I will let you know if you to make a motion to approve the agreement. It needs to be uh contingent upon the reasonzoning case. Um that would be later in in the meeting today. Um, and so that would need to be included into a motion if if you decided to um make a positive
motion here for the development agreement. Chairman, I don't mean to interrupt, but um the gentleman in the back wanted to still speak on I'm so sorry. If you please come forward and just state your name and address for the record and my apologies. Sorry to interrupt your the business. You're good. Um, as Joshua Zeller, 6506 Lake Charlene Drive, Pensacola, Florida. Um, so I am I am for the project to be completely transparent. I I I
am part of the church that that is looking to um sell the pro the the the property. Um, I I hear I know the concerns uh of the neighbors and I I've lived in that area. Uh my my parents still live in that area. So I know I know like for example when you when you're driving down um mobile highway and you go to 8 and a half eight mile creek and you see the flooding like I I know I know that that that area has some issues. But at the same time, I think the best way to or the only
way many times to fix the issues is by bringing in new development. And like kind of what what they were saying is to enforce new standards, new codes to be able to fix some of those issues because no not one, but many times it's it's not probable for those issues to get fixed just out of the blue just because it's passed in a budget or just because someone is allocating some money for it. So many times putting it on the developer is many times the the best and the only option for actually addressing some of those issues. Um I know that they have concerns also about about
uh access to the to the neighborhood when when there is flooding. Hopefully with this the flooding will be able to be mitigated or stopped totally. Um and w with with the development of of that neighborhood. I know there's there's other access points that possibly could be added to the neighborhood. Um the other thing is um kind of what they were saying that it's going to be county um county um maintains. Thank you. I think I know I know a lot of times um as far as residents we uh
especially I I've been here since since 01. I know some people have been here longer than than I and I know a lot of times we have the the idea, well, let's just keep everything the way it was. Um, but I think this is a city that is a county that is growing and I think if the only way to to have good growth is to is to fix some of the problems of the past and and with that growth also comes a lot a lot more tax revenue from property taxes that will help maintain some of these things.
So that's like I said, that's my opinion. I'm I'm for it and thank you for letting me speak. Thank you very much. All right. Sorry board jumped ahead there, but uh that was our our last speaker. So if there are um no further questions, I will entertain a motion. Again, if if you're bringing a motion that is for the approval of the agreement, it does need to be contingent on um the approval of a later reasoning case
or if there's discussion that the board would like to have. Please I would also like to suggest the motion contain if it's for approval a finding of consistency with the comp plan as well as the land development code. Mr. Chair, I just like to encourage the the the citizens that came out that regardless of the outcome of this and or the uh other issue coming before us that communication is uh pretty important that you uh don't throw your hands up and say, "Oh, they're they're all realtors and they're in it for whatever." But I'm I'm making light of that. But uh the this board,
I don't know of anyone here who would have any benefit whatsoever from this particular project. But I would say that you need to continue to communicate with the people at the county whether you like them or don't like them. Uh sometimes, you know, horse wants to strangle me and likewise, but I still come back because it's the entity that is responsible as Miss Blackton is sharing. And during the construction phase, if you can't hold hands with the developer, which I hope you can, and hopefully get more out of that development for your benefit, they're going to be gone at
some point in time, and you need to be able to communicate with these folks that we still have a problem. I'm certain Miss Blackman doesn't need any more people fussing about this. Uh, I know that it's not their desire to ruin your day. Uh, I just I I I can't see it changing with us doing nothing. If we did nothing, I don't think anything would change at all. Uh, and you've heard the commitment from the folks here at the county. Uh, and I believe Mr. Hammond. I don't know. It's an interesting issue today. Am I allowed to question?
Well, you'll have some time to speak on some of the other items, but we have closed public comment and the board's going to have a discussion now what they what they've learned. Um board any um I motion to accept this uh agreement.
All right. And I think um if that's the motion that you're willing to make um this county attorney has asked that it be I'm going to let you repeat what the comment you gave us earlier just so I don't mess it up. Sure. Any motion uh to approve should contain a finding of consistency with the local comprehensive plan and the land development code and contingent on the the reasonzoning as well. Correct. Yes.
I'm not going to state everything he just stated, but I motion in agreement with Mr. Schaefer. Understood? Okay. Okay. All right. So, we do have a motion on the table. Um, is there a second to the motion? I'll second. Okay. Is there discussion on the motion that we have on the floor? Seeing none. Uh all in favor of the motion, please signify by raising your right hand.
All those opposed, please raise your right hand. Okay. Motion carries 5 to two. Um, at this time we will move on to uh we will close out for now the regular planning board meeting and move over to the resoning meeting uh which is hereby called to order. Do we have proof of publication? Yes, sir. Do the publication meet all legal requirements? Yes, sir. I'll entertain a motion with to wave the reading
motion of the legal advertisement. Second. All right. Uh, all those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. Okay. Motion carries. The resounding meeting minutes from the previous board meeting dated June 3rd has been provided to the board. Were there any additions, deletions, or corrections? If not, I will entertain a motion to accept the meeting minutes into evidence. Do we have a motion? So moved. Second. A motion second. All those in favor,
please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. Okay. Motion carries. All right. Um the reasoning hearing package for July 1st with findings of fact has been provided to the board members. I'll entertain a motion to accept the resoning hearing package with findings of fact and legal advertisement into evidence. Do we have a motion? So moved. All those second. Second. U all those in favor please signify by raising right hand. All those opposed. Okay.
Motion carries. Uh, can I have the court reporter please swear on members of staff. All right. Do you swear that the testimony will be the truth? The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Um, the board has previously qualified staff to offer expert testimony in
the area of land use and planning. Do any of the board members have questions regarding their qualifications and ability to offer expert testimony? All right, seeing none. Okay. At this hearing, the planning board is acting under its authority to hear and make recommendations to the board of county commissioners, the PCC, on PUD and resoning applications. These hearings are quasi judicial in nature. In quasi judicial hearings are like evidentiary hearings in the court of law,
however less formal. All testimony will be given under oath and anyone testifying before the planning board may be subject to cross-examination. All documents and exhibits that the planning board considers will be entered into evidence and made part of the record. Opinion testimony will be limited to experts and closing arguments will be limited to the evidence in the record. Before making a decision, the planning board will consider the relevant testimony and exhibits entered into evidence and the law. Each individual who wishes to address the planning
board must complete a speaker request form and submit it to the planning board clerk. These forms are on the table in the back of the boardroom and you will not be allowed to speak until we receive a completed form. And please note that only individuals who are present and give testimony today will then be able to speak at the subsequent hearing before the board of county commissioners. No new evidence can be presented at the BCC meeting. Therefore, all testimony and evidence must be presented here today. The planning board will provide a recommendation for each PUD and
resoning request to the BCC which will review testimony documents and exhibits, consider the closing arguments, and make a final decision. All decisions by the BCC are final. Anyone who wishes to seek judicial review of the decision of the BCC must do so in a court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days of the date the BCC approves or rejects the recommended order of the planning board. All written or oral communication outside of this hearing with the members of the planning board regarding matters under consideration today are considered exparte communications.
Expport communications are presumed presumed prejuditial under Florida law and must be disclosed as provided in BCC resolution number 96-13. As each case is heard, I will ask that any board member who has been involved in exparte communication to identify themselves and describe the communication as required by section 2-6.8 of the Escambia County Land Development Code. The planning board's recommendation to the BCC shall include consideration of the following
approval conditions. The applicant has the burden of presenting competent substantial evidence to the board that the that establishes each of the following conditions for the PUD. One, creative planning uses and structures are arranged in a manner that demonstrates creative concepts of land use planning throughout the development area. Residential uses include a complimentary and substantial mix of dwelling unit types or mix with non-residential uses. Two, natural amenities,
clustering, setbacks, easements, and other methods are utilized to preserve to the greatest extent practical the nature natural amenities and characteristics of the land, including open space, topography, natural vegetation, groundwater recharge, waterways, and scenic views. Deficiency and natural amenities are supplemented through landscaping and other enhancements. Three, desirable environment. A more desirable environment in which to live or work is created than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum requirements of
the LDC. Common open space is within reasonable walking distance of all dwelling units in the development. Four, mobility. Internal circulation systems promote both pedestrian and vehicle vehicular mobility, especially between residential areas and local public open space. Schools, retail sales and services and employment. Sidewalks are located on at least one of every street to support safe pedestrian mobility within the de development and appropriate access to surrounding uses. Five,
efficient land use. Inefficient use of land results in smaller networks of streets and utilities as street rideways are proposed to be less than standard width. Easements will provide adequate space to install and maintain utilities. Six, compatibility. The development is compatible with surrounding areas and provide stable conditions and character to maintain long-term compatibility. Then, as required by section 2-7.2 2 of the land development code. The planning
board's recommendation to the BCC shall include consideration of the following con conditions. Um this is for um sorry guys. This is for the reasonzoning requirements approval conditions. The applicant has the burden of presenting competent substantial evidence to the reviewing board establishing that the requested zoning district would contribute to or result in a logical and
orderly pattern. Appropriate surrounding the appropriate surrounding area with in which uses and conditions must be considered may vary with those uses and conditions and is not necessarily the same area required for mailed notification. A logically and orderly pattern shall require demonstration of each of the following conditions. A consistent with comp comprehensive plan. The proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use flu category as prescribed in LDC chapter 2
and with all other goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. If the zoning reszoning is required to properly enact a proposed flu amendment transmitted for state agency review, the proposed zoning is consistent with the proposed flu and conditional to its adoption. Consistent with zoning district provisions. The proposed zoning is consistent with the purpose and intent and with any other zoning establishment provisions prescribed by the proposed district in chapter 3. Compatible with surroundings. All the permit permitted uses of the proposed zoning,
not just those anticipated by the reszoning applicant, are compatible as defined in chapter six with those surrounding uses. The uses of any surrounding undeveloped land shall be considered the permitted uses of the district, compatibility is not considered with potential conditional uses or with any non-conforming or unimproved uses. Also in establishing the compatibility of a residential use, there is no additional burden to demonstrate the compatibility of specific residents or activities protected by fair housing law. D. Appropriate if spot zoning where
the proposed zoning would establish or reinforce a condition of spot zoning as defined in chapter 6. The isolated district would nevertheless be transitional in character between the adjoining districts or the differences with those districts would be minor or sufficiently limited. The extent of those mitigating characteristics or conditions demonstrates an appropriate sight specific balancing of interest between the isolated district and the adjoining lands. E appropriate with changed or changing conditions. If the land uses or development conditions within the area
surrounding the property of resoning have changed, the changes are to such a degree in character that it is in the public interest to allow new uses, densities or intensities in the area through resoning and the permitted uses of the proposed district are appropriate and not premature for the area or likely to create or contribute to sprawl. At the beginning of each case, as long as there are no objections from the applicant, I will allow staff to briefly present the location and zoning maps and photos of the property. Next, we will hear from the applicant and any witnesses
that they may wish to call. And we will hear from staff and any witnesses they may wish to call. And finally, we'll hear from members of the public who have filled out a speaker request form. There are two cases to be heard today. The first case is a public hearing concerning the review of Skyline subdivision, a planned unit development or a PUD. That the board review the development plan for Skyline subdivision, a planned unit development, and confirm consistency of the plan with the land development code LDC requirements prior to trans middle of a
recommendate recommendation to the board of county commissioners to review and consider the plan for a final decision. Members of the board, have there been any exparte communications between you and the applicant of the applicant's agents, attorneys, or witnesses with fellow planning board members, or anyone from the general public prior to this hearing? Have you visited the subject property? And please also disclose if you are a relative or business associate of the applicant or the applicant's agent. No to all. Note to all. Uh, no to all. No to all but except a
constituency in district 2 did reach out asking questions about the whole program for today. Okay. No to all. No to all. No expark day communication but I have visited the site uh as recently as of today. Okay. Uh no to all. uh familiar with the site uh no to everything uh except for SNS acquisition is a insurance client of mine but there's no um no prejudice on on this
uh on this um thank you um staff was notice of the hearing sent to all interested parties yes sir okay was notice of the hearing posted on the subject property yes sir Okay. Um, all right. If y'all are good with it, we'll have them go through maps and photographs, please. Good morning, board. Caleb McCartney, um, ASICP certified planner for Escambia County. First, we have our location map showing the property along Belleview there. This
is our 500 foot radius zoning map. The property is currently LDR. The future land use of the property is mixeduse suburban and the property property is currently vacant. Um, and this shows the surrounding uses between the fairgrounds and the single family residential dwellings in the area. This shows wetlands in the northwest corner of the property and this shows some surrounding
subdivisions that have been discussed. Um, another aerial of the property here. This is our notice of public hearing sign that we posted along Belleview Avenue. This is looking north onto the site grass area. And this is looking east along Belleview Avenue. This is looking west along Belleview Avenue there. And this is looking south across Belleview.
We did also post some public hearing signs at the end of Buckland. That's the subdivision to the north. So this is looking south towards the site and it's actually wooded up that way. This is looking west from the site. Um, this is a stormwater pond on the north along Buckland and this is looking north along Buckland as well. That concludes our maps and photography for this case. All right. Thank you. And then at
this time I'll have the applicant or their representative come forward. All right. And now you are an attorney, so we don't have to swear you in, but if you do bring any witnesses or anything forward, we'll we'll do that at that time. If you'll just state your name and address for the record again for us. Yeah. Bill Mitchum, 501 Commonia Street, Pensacola, Florida 32502. All right. And uh did you receive a copy of the hearing package with findings of fact for today? I did. Okay. And do you understand that you have the burden of providing by substantial competent
evidence that the proposed PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan, furthers the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, and is not in conflict with any portion of the county's land development code? I do. All right. And so we'll let you uh go ahead and make presentation you have at this time. Yes. So, we agree with the the findings. I I'll state that uh first. The PUD uh meets all the requirements of the LDC. Uh its design demonstrates creative concepts of land use planning with the size of lots, placement of
common area and use of buffers. The setbacks, buffers, and smaller lots are an efficient use of the land and enhance and preserve the natural amenities and characteristics of the land. And the putt includes a network of sidewalks promote promoting pedestrian mobility and the proposed density is compatible with the predominantly medium density single family development of the surrounding areas. All of that was borne out in the staff analysis and con comments. Uh in addition, PUDS um are to provide greater public benefits than would otherwise be available.
And those include the storm water infrastructure uh improvements that we discussed earlier with the development agreement. Uh common space and park area available in walking distance to the lot owners, the unimpacted wetland area that is buffered as shown on the PUD, and the 20ft buffer that Mr. Wilson uh discussed. That's a drainage and a buffer between the Rosewood Estate subdivision and any of the lots in Skyline subdivision. So, all of these were uh addressed in the staff comments and analysis. Um, and all of them support a PUD. Uh, as it
relates to the reszoning, uh, the property meets all the requirements for reszoning from lowdensity residential to medium density residential. Uh it's in a future land use category, mixeduse suburban, where the comprehensive plan uh seeks to promote residential development by allowing reszonings up to a higher density. Uh the MDR district is appropriate to provide transitions between low density residential and higher density uses. So, uh, as you'll note from the plat from
the I'm sorry, the uh the map, the property is bordered by, uh, high densities, the has the, um, the fair on the on the right and then medium density on the on the west and then medium density south. Um, medium density residential is compatible with the surrounding uses, which is generally residential. It's not spot zoning as it's bordered by medium-density residential again on the west and on the south and the reszoning would not create or contribute to urban sprawl
and the use of the property as residential development is consistent with surrounding properties and uses and again all of this is u set forth in the staff findings and analysis. All right, thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? All right, I don't see any. So, uh we'll sit down if we need to get you back up here. Thank you. All right, staff, I'll let you go ahead and um take us through your presentation at this time. All right, we're going to provide you with a staff analysis for the plan unit development as it's required by the land development code. Um so
concerning criterion A um a general description of the proposed development um it's located in Esami County currently addressed at 500 Belleview Avenue. The proposed PUD is situated on pro approximately 19.5 8 acre parcel located within the low density residential zoning district. Um shown as mixeduse suburban future land use and the applicant is currently requesting reszoning of the property to the medium density residential district. The applicant in the PUD is requesting
variations. Um, number one, a reduction of the required minimum width at the front building line from 50 ft as required by M MDR to 30 ft for all lots. Number two is a request for the reduction of the required minimum rear setback from 20T as required by MDR to 15T for all lots and a required 5-ft minimum side setback for the individual lots. Concerning criterion B, the limits on PUD, as the
chairman read, um concerning number one, land uses, we found that the proposed single family residential use is allowed by the applicable zoning district and the future land use category. Uh number two of criterion um A is the density, the proposed number of dwelling units does not exceed the residential density allowed by the zoning district and the proposed applicable future land use. category. The applicant is proposed 6.8 dwelling units an acre for a total of 134 dwelling
units. In comparison, the MDR zoning district allows a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre and for a 19.58 acre development. This would allow 195.8 total dwelling units. Number three, other processes. We found that the preliminary development plan of the PUD has been forwarded to the planning board for consideration after review and rent consent by the members of the DRC, the development review committee. Prior to PUD plan review and final determination by the board of county commissioners, the plan must address any remaining conditions of the land development
code compliance not modified by the proposed variances of the PUD and must respond to any conditions of the planning board's recommendation to the BCC. The essential commitments of the development plan and the expectations of the county will be established upon board of county commissional approval of the PUD which includes the preliminary plat and associated documenting plans. The implementing subdivision infrastructure construction plans and the final plat must be in substantial conformance with the approved PUD plans as determined through the established review
and approval processes of the land development code. And concerning number four of B standards, the proposed development will comply with all applicable level of service standards. Uh criteria C, compliance review. The planning official has forwarded the proposed PUD and analysis of its compliance with the requirements of the land development code to the planning board for its required consideration and recommendations meeting that criteria. For D, our criteria for put approval. Number one, as the chairman read, concerning creative planning, we found that due
to the storm water needs within the surrounding community, the applicant will expand the Rosewood Estates retention pond, allowing for additional storm water storage capacity for Rosewood Estates and this proposed skyline subdivision putt. The pond expansion and improvements must be designed in compliance with applicable local and state regulations. Single family dwellings appear to be a sustainable land use for the site. No mix of dwelling unit types is documented in the submitted plans. No non-residential uses other than accessories to the dwelling units are proposed within the subdivision. Our recommendation is that the PUD document
the characteristics of the dwelling units which the PU can't commit such as floor areas, stories, provisions of garage or other parking outside of rightway and any diversity of housing and material. Number two, natural amenities. We found that smaller lots are among the methods used to maintain valuable density while preserving natural amenities and characteristics of the land. A small area wetlands exist in the northwest corner of the development area and are buffered as required by the land development code and no impact is shown as referenced in the applicant submitted
narrative. The enhancements include storm water improvements and modifications. Therefore, this criterion has been met. Staff recommends and agrees that this criterion has been met per the proposed project for the protection of the natural amenities as submitted and will be reviewed further in the next development review stage. Number three, desirable environment. We found that the proposed development will be completed in one construction phase. We note that greater public benefits include the storm water infrastructure improvements for the proposed development and the
adjacent roadwood estate subdivision. Number two, centrallylo common open space and park area available within walking distance of all proposed lots via the constructed zwalks. Three, unimpacted wetlands that is buffered from the proposed residential uses. And four, buffering provided to the adjacent roadwood estate subdivision. staff recommendations. The proposed excuse the proposed development provides public benefits greater than from a typable typical
subdivision within the MDR zoning district. Preliminary plat and construction plans will be reviewed to ensure that those benefits proposed and approved by the county will be integrated into the subdivision's design as required. Number four, mobility. Safe and effective pedestrian vehicle or mobility within the subdivision is promoted through compact upland development and a network of sidewalks on at least one side of every street frontage is proposed for the development. Number five, efficient uses efficient land uses. Smaller lots and the limitation of improvements support
an efficient use of land that results in smaller networks of streets and utilities. easements will supplement proposed less than standard width rightway widths to accommodate utilities. Six, compatibility. We found that the proposed density of single family detached dwellings is compatible with the predominantly medium density single family development and commercial development of the surrounding areas and the constructive improvements of the residential subdivision will provide the stable conditions and characters to maintain that compatible compatibility long term.
other considerations. Finally, in review and analysis of the proposed development, the planning board may include conditions relative to the six LDC criteria for the putt approval to ensure the intent of the process is achieved. Note that the putt approval is contingent on the reszoning of the property to MDR and that the applicant is also relying on the acceptance of the voluntary development agreement with the county for the proposed infrastructure improvements and commitments as shown. That concludes staff's analysis for this plan development. All right. Thank you, board. Are there any questions for staff at this time?
All right. Don't see any. Okay. Yeah. For those members of the public who wish to speak on the matter, please note that the planning board bases our decision on the approval conditions and exceptions described in section 2-6.8 of the Escambia County Land Development Code. During our deliberations, the board uh will not consider general statements of support or opposition. Accordingly, please limit your testimony to the approval conditions and exceptions described in section 2-6.8. Please also also note that only those individuals who are
present and give testimony on the record at this hearing before the planning board will be allowed to speak at the subsequent hearing before the board of county commissioners. Um, Miss Blackman, I see you got something. Did you want to uh jump in before we get to public comment? Just wanted to speak briefly. I have other appointments this morning. So, my statement still stands in your record, of course, but to try to just offer clarification, and I may be repeating myself,
but sometimes I have to. Um, so I remember. So, I'm just trying to help everyone understand this site and my discussions is unique in their approach because they are going to develop this site to the current standards required by the county for both subdivisions as if they're developing from scratch. So, the pond that exists today is terribly undized. We have no additional
property to expand the pond. My hope in the in generating this design or previous to them them coming in the office was to try to find property that I could add another pond in this area. So, this is bringing us the county um the expansion to the pond that we already needed. also any road topping flooding and try to minimize that if if not eliminate it completely because I haven't seen the model. I don't know yet what it's going to do because they haven't invested in that part
of it yet. But at at a minimum, we will need to see that there's no road flooding in Rosewood, no homes flooding in Rosewood. These homes won't flood and that there is a a good outfall for this to the Hogan's Pit Pond. So, that's my and if I can answer any questions, be happy to at this point, but I I'll and I'll come back down if you need me later, but I I need to go to another appointment this morning. Is anyone from the board have any questions?
I'm just curious, Miss Bucknie, how does the uh voluntary uh compliance between the developer engineer of record and yourself, how does that work? Well, in the pre-application discussions with the this developer and and their engineer, we explained that, you know, there's there's just untold flooding in this area. It's, you know, it's we haven't been able to manage it. the the previous applicants that have come in vindicated they would expand the pond into their pond and you know improve the outfall which you know seemed the minimum standard that they would have to do
but they're going above and beyond that. How this comes about is through the conversation that when it doesn't meet when today's standard is not enough or the minimum standard is not enough because we already have flooding. So, we needed more than the minimum standard and they came with this um this suggestion or this this request that we do that and I asked for a little more than that when we talk about Belleview flooding and that sort of thing. Um I ask if they you know
or I indicated I I need I need the crossing I need the outfall to be clean. I need to be sure that Zachary's outfall is working properly. So, we need to upgrade all of that. And they agreed to that. It's it's collaborative effort. Um it's very rare, but I have had some luck with that in the past. Um as as you've heard me say, no engineer was taught to design to minimum standard. I mean, you know, it's it's thrown back at the county. It's not in the code. It's not in the code. Well,
it is in the code that I have some prerogative when I know that there is already existing problems to require more than the minimum standard and there's not engineers don't don't want to hear the word house flood. They don't want to hear the words liability and they understand that well I'm not personally liable. They will be and they're going to give me the assurance that to the extent of the 100-year storm event that we require, it will not flood those homes.
Any further questions? All right. Thank you. All right. Our um first speaker that we've got is David Gibson. If you'll please come forward and state your name and address for the record and then be sworn in and just it's a quasi judicial hearing so it's a little different from last time you spoke so we got to get you sworn in because this is on record. No problem. Thank you. Dave Gibson 68 Yellow Rouge Drive Florida
and Mr. Dr. Gibson, before we get your time started, I will just remind everyone as well with with these cases that we have here, we're basing our decision on the the six criteria that we went through earlier, which I know was a lot. So, staff um if have that handy. So, if you'd like to reference that, we'll be um if you're making your arguments for or against the case today, I would um base them in in one of these six categories why you agree or disagree with with what's being proposed. So, just throwing that out there. Okay. Mr. G,
and if I get sway into not addressing them because I I don't have a copy of that and and a lot of legal ease in there, too. That's okay. Okay. Just just real quick bullet points. U this was compounded this issue we had when the state did their work um 20 years ago uh maybe 25 years ago up on Blue Angel and diverted water from Blue Angel onto Belleview. Uh it was further compounded when they came in on the south side of Belleview and filled the ditches in and diverted all the water to the north side. It was further
compounded uh before that when Zachary Estates was finished and built out and on the west side of uh the subdivision I'm in, the water was diverted into u um Rosewood there. And so and what we hear from the county is well we don't own that right away down through there. There's nothing we can do. So uh it's it's going to be a continued on go ongoing uh issue for us. Uh there's a
clay uh you go down about 3 feet into the uh soil there. There's about a 12 to 14 inch clay u layer uh which was uh mined uh to the east of us. There's a clay pit there. former clay pit and uh the water does not perk uh in the lawns and so there's issues that is there that is natural that that needs to be considered. Uh the uh the ponds that was next to me was when I moved
in there would have water continuously standing in there because the water didn't perk. uh the county came in, it broke through the clay uh uh berm that was there or layer that was there and uh it perks uh it still takes anywhere from 3 to 4 days for it to perk and and go out which means the water is still standing in the neighborhoods. Now the street will clear uh in anywhere from uh 8 to 10 hours but uh there's constant runoff from the uh subdivision that continues to go into that
uh pond. Uh so the ponds are going to have to be deep. Uh the water once it fills the dishes uh once the pond is full the water starts going uh uh back up. Once the dish ditches are full, the burm is not high enough around the ponds and the water starts back filling from the ditch into our pond. So the uh the uh size of the ponds have got to be higher and uh so it's it's it's an issue that's going to be ongoing uh unless uh we can get some
more input into it and um um so with that I yield back unless you got a question for me. All right. Any questions for the speaker? All right, seeing none. Thank you. Mary Kokock, if you'll please come forward and state your name and address for the record and be sworn in.
My name is Mary Kopka. My address is 62 48 Mold Road. I do. Um, somebody said that it was MDR to the south of that property. I I don't see that. To the south of that property, we're all on pretty expanded acreage. The only MDR I see is to the east of that property. Every place else I see
houses built to an LDR standard. So, I'm confused about that. Um, again, developers have worked with engineering to meet minimum standards or just above I have a list of failed areas and it's my tax dollar. It's your tax dollar. Every time they
build and they leave and there's a problem, it's our tax dollar. So when you're talking standards, instead of talking the standards that archaic standards that this county has, let's talk about 2024 Florida DOT standards, not not 1979. Um, the other thing I just found out here talking to the
person that was here for the church is that they're trying to to sell that property cuz they found another property and they want to sell it and make enough money to pay off the property that they bought. That's a little greedy to me. The county records say they got that property for $10. Um, and four units per acre, keeping it LDR. You know, what's the matter with that? And Joy
Blackman would have the land that she needed to develop ponds. I brought up here several times in the past. Let's make it a park. Florida State. We don't have a park in our neighborhood. Florida State will help us buy a park and then the county will have land to do to do whatever they need. And somebody up here said, "We don't want a park. Maybe you guys don't want to park, but we live there. You guys don't live there. We live there. We'd love a park." And that would give um
Miss Blackman plenty of room to design um so that we don't flood. It's not just Rosewood and Zachary Estate that's flooding that that insufficient pond is up there for. It's all the way down Moldune Road. And again, before I get emotional, it's ruining my business, my livelihood.
Thank you. And um I I'll just they did bring the the map up here for Miss Kapa to show you the different zoning area are areas in the around where you're talking about. So it may not be that the um the structure that's on the piece of property is is at capacity for what the zoning is on your on your land, but it certainly has the opportunity to if if you know you or someone else came in and wanted to to do something on that piece of property. So,
you've got MDR HDMU around there. So, I just wanted to to show you that why was the land that we're discussing initially zoned as LDR? I can't recall. I know we've probably asked this before. It's probably a previous zoning um category that was there when they transferred everything over. And yeah, um we can we can put that up for you. Sorry about that. We can pull that up for you,
but more than likely without we have to pull up the map. It probably was R1 or R2 which was a single family dwelling district. And when we had the conversion, it got properly converted over to low density residential which will be similar to R1 and R2 when it got properly we had a we had some conversion back then. So I remember that. Okay. So, so, so, so it was V2A, which was just like R1 or R2. So, it was properly converted though densely residential. All right. Thank you.
Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Tina Lynn. If you'll please come forward, state your name and address for the record, and be sworn in. My name is Tina Lind. My address is 6813 Chicago Avenue. I do instead of just reiterating everything that I have stated prior to it regarding the flooding issues
and the concerns of the people the residents in that area. I'm I don't live in that area but I know them. I go through that area. I see their heartache because I felt it myself to an extreme limit. I've lost faith in a lot of the county themselves because I have talked to many people over the years about who's going to fix this. Nobody wants to ever take responsibility for for things that have been done in the past, inspectors that didn't do their jobs. And it's
it's the the homeowner that suffers that has to put out thousands of dollars to do repairs or to to find a solution. And that's what gets at my heart because I have battled that myself for years. And seeing what's going on with their retaining ponds in that and what it does to their property and their business, that's that's not right. And it's our county tax dollars. We pay those tax dollars from from our pockets and it it goes to benefit everybody in the county
and they need resolution just like everybody else. And putting more people in a smaller area is just going to add more congestion. It's going to add more possible flooding issues. And where is the guarantee to these existing homeowners that they won't have that problem after they build this new section in there? And and there is no nobody can guarantee. So where is their option after that? What do they do? That's that's part of the heart problem.
That's my feeling on this area, but I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Mr. Kurb, if you'll please come forward and state your name and address for the record and be sworn in. Chris Kerb 5999 Somerset Drive, Pensacola, Florida. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? The whole truth about the truth? Absolutely.
All right. Um, those two documents that I provided up on the development agreement, I would like to uh ask that those be submitted in the record for this zoning case. Um, so I'd like to continue on that. Um, all right. So, Mr. Ker is asking that the information provided earlier be entered into the record of evidence for this case um board if that is the wish of this board to do so I'll
accept the motion if not um we will continue on let Mr. her take his time and and speak. And just for clarification, all this is is the Florida statute and it's really all you're submitting to evidence is the existing Florida statute. Correct. With my notations, which is also documented state documents. I'll make a motion to approve and put it
submit this as uh part of his testimony so that he can carry this into the county commission. Okay, got a motion second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please signify by saying I or raise your right hand. All those opposed. Okay, motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Kirk. Um, first of all, I I want to uh express that I'm not opposed to this property being developed. Um, actually I I think uh growth is good as long as it's done the right way. And it looks like
there's been a real big challenge on this property to get it developed because of the storm water issues. Um the plan that was put forward that y'all approved the development agreement. Um, that's a good plan and there's a goodiz pond there and Tom did a pretty good job putting the plan together with the county engineer coordination. However, the fact of the matter is the Hogan Pit Pond is not expanded right now. It doesn't have the
capacity to accommodate the water going to it. And we're still using 1979 rainfall data in this uh memo that Joy wrote. This is key benefits modernized storm water system. Well, it ain't modernized if you're using 1979 rainfall data that's 2 to 3 in less than what it should be. It's also not modernized if you if you're doing a 100redyear 24-hour storm with a 6-in freeboard
because what do has published is modernized. Um in your approval conditions under E it says appropriate with change or changing conditions. Says if the land uses or development conditions within area surrounding property of the resoning have changed the changes are to such a degree and character that it is in the public's interest to allow the new uses density or intensity in the area through
the resoning. Well, I submit to you that it is not in the public's best interest. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kerb. All right. Next, we've got Joshua Zeller. If you please come forward, say your name and address for the record and be sworn in. Joshua Zeller, 6506 Lake Charlane Drive, Pensacola, Florida.
It is. Yes. So, like I like I mentioned before, I think I I agree that this area has a flooding issue. I agree that it needs to be fixed. And I also I also think that since the developer like like I think what Miss Blackman mentioned um the developer has has uh offer to do a lot of this work, right? And the only way for them to be able to justify or be able to finance a lot of this work is to be able to is to change the zoning because if if there is only a low density zoning,
the the numbers will just never not work, right? and and as as far as also the tax the tax burden for for maintaining a lot of this the the numbers might not work right so I know I know as far as the the the developing part if if we if if it is the county's interest to to be able to fix that and put that on the developer um like like they had mentioned this the the reasonzoning is a key to that being feasible because without that um they they won't they they will not I mean I I
don't want to speak for them but but it's very unlikely for them to want to do all this extra work if they are not able to be then develop it to the pot that they have presented and um like I said I think the other thing is that right now this area is is uh we we we have kind of struggled a little bit with with with uh um with as far as housing and I I know I know prices are coming And so if we can create more volume as far as housing being available, it will help also with
the prices. It will help with a lot of things that the county is is that the residents that that are living here are struggling with. So I think this this is not only helping the developer fix the issue, it is also helping the county provide more homes for the the population growth that is happening right now. Thank you. Thank you. And then the last speaker I had was uh Fernandeller. Fairfield, please come forward and state your name and address for the record and be sworn in.
Ferdinand Zeler, 7174 Woodside Road, Pensacola 32526. The testimony you're about to give will be the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Okay. I I'm related with Joshua. uh and we were planning many years ago to build a church there and that's the reason we bought this land but then uh prices went to the roof and uh it was not possible for us to to uh go through with this project and then uh we found another
uh church that was already built and then it was within our budget and I understand all this problems that they have uh with the flooding but as my son said that this developer is going to address this and some people they say it's further down and mold there's a flooding too but in a way it can't be the responsibility of of the de developer to take care of that as well because they take everything around this area and they try to do the best on my opinion they go out
of their way to to make it better if we don't do anything uh as uh my son said nothing will change. The flood flooding will continue and uh it seems uh the the county is not able or or not willing to to invest all this money and uh I understand uh what they say about this uh increasing of houses and increasing of of people coming in. But we came into the the the city uh 22 years ago and we were living up there in nine mile road and this was just a country road and now
uh you go there and there's a highway and uh in a way this part of of growing. I mean, I understand that that there are neighbors there and that they don't like that so many houses come in, but it's a city of of uh growing and and that's part of of the growing pain and um that's my opinion. Thank you very much. All right. I had no further speakers from the public, but we do have the engineer of record for for this. Tom Hammond, if you'll please come forward, uh state your name
and address, be sworn in, and we'll get you going. Tom Hammond, Ham Hammond Engineering, 3802 North S Street. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give the truth? Yes, I do. Then we need to be sworn in expert witness in this. Yes, sir. If you like to, we'd have to do it separately. Yes. Yes, let's do it. Yes. Make a motion to accept as an expert. Second. Okay. We got a motion and second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please signify by raising your
right hand. All opposed. All right. Okay. Thank you. Um, in response to the first gentleman that spoke, he talked about the soils. This lomy soils there. They're very poorly drained soils. So, he's correct on the pond's not perking. So, we have a sand chimney in our design located on the east side. It's a foot lower than the west side of the pond. So, the water will always flow away from Rosewood. and if it does stand up until it's gone in 36 hours to be sitting down on the southeast corner. That's how we address the soils and address perking problems that
he brought up. Um again, we heard, you know, they lost the public in this area, lost faith in the county, and we have existing conditions out there today that if we don't do anything, they got a flooding problem there today. This is a developer partnering with a county asking for a variance and in return improving the problem making it putting infrastructure in
to address flooding issues that are there whether we do this development or not. And thirdly, um, we are using old data. I made this argument in front of Santa Rosa County Board. Made this argument in front of our county board. The problem is that this del our existing data cannot be proven to be insufficient for development today because no one can step up here and point
out a single subdivision I did or any of these other engineers did since 2014 that flooded or failed using the old data. And when I presented that to the board on both counties, they chose not to take up the new data and require it because it's only going to affect new development. You're still going to have Rosewoods and all this old development, Bristol Park, Cordova Park, all the things listed in the 2014 report that the county put out two years later, none of them were
new developments that needed to be addressed. the data we're using is adequate until somebody can prove it isn't. And until that such time, I don't think development community ought to be using Noah Atlas 14 when it can't be proven that what we use now fails. Thank you. Any questions for M Mr. Hammond from the board? Mr. Hammond, I kind of like I mean I work in construction. I know people struggle reading drawings. I think we assume people understand how to look at this
this plot plan. I would call this a plot plan, not really a grade plan, but can you walk us through this image that you've kind of designed here and show some grade and then explain the actual detention pond sizes so we can walk them through that. Is that possible to do? Absolutely. Okay. Okay. So, you can see we're on the west, excuse me, on the south side, which is the right side of my plan incorrectly. Yeah. to the right. So, you see the little rectangle down there on the Rosewood side. If I had a light, I'd show you.
Okay. So, all the way over on the west side off our property is that little square is existing pond. So, we're regrading that pond. We're making the bottom of that pond one foot higher than the bottom on this east side. So that water never stands there. It flows, comes under the road and will go out the same to me on the east side. I would say, and I don't have these numbers in my head, but we're probably two and a half, three times the size of what Rosewood Pond would have been. That's just the portion for
our development. And it's probably four times, five times bigger than it than the Rosewood pond, the whole thing altogether. So you can see that under the old if we use the old code which like I said it went in between 94 and 98 and I think land development code was adopted in ' 87. Yeah. So you know it was a 25ear storm then. I haven't looked at them calculations tried to find them. I don't know that the county would even have that anymore. But that's why I grabbed it and said let's do
this like it's never been developed before. all these parcels and even a part of Zachary that flows on to Rosewood and that's how we had to set up the model. Does that help a little bit? Yeah. I mean, yes. For me, I mean, I know how to read this, but I think just to let the public understand this entire south section of this entire humongous lot is storm retention now. That's correct. Yeah. the entire frontage width of 20 foot drainage on the west side from
the north to the south is that and that's pulling pulling from the water from up north that's also been causing issues as correct yes sir will the elevation change over what it's currently today what uh when this subdivision is built how much will the grade change up down I think I have the top of the pond designed at the same height as the top of the rosewood boy pawn. Okay.
All right. Any further questions for um anybody from the from the applicant or for staff at this time? And if I may, Mr. person. Um um and with and in the plan unit process that we are discussing at this time is uh with we we are very grateful that we can have these type of discussions. So you get into a little bit of the design criteria that they are enhancing. That's the purpose of the pud to enhance to make it better so you won't
get the same status quo. And that's that was the purpose of the uh that was the purpose of development agreement to to make it better to address the specific problems that are occurring and they are volunteering. The part process is not a is not a mandatory process. Ghana, this is a volunteer process where they're going to be adding Yes. They're going to be adding some creativity to make it better and and with and with some enhancement that they are requesting.
So this is the type of development type of project that the county is saying yes this is what we want to make to make it better to partner with through the pub process larger ponds taking an existing pond and making some substantial improvement on that. So, so that's why the county is supporting the creative concepts with the voluntary effort. Not not that we are are dismissing the concerns of the neighborhood. No, because how the county engineer was adamant about that. We know there are
problems. I know there are problems. But sometimes maintaining the status quo is more detrimental than than getting the opportunity to proceed for better development and and and as well as make the conditions better. Some again sometime maintain the status quo sometimes may be more detrimental. I do have a question and I don't know if this can be something get answered at this time or
or not from the applicant but at what point in the process is the retention pond done and I guess my what I'm asking is is that done first before development goes on or is that done at the very end or all at the same time? That's done that's during the construction process with with the pub process. All of these things got to be in place before there's final plat. Right. I get that. But I'm saying when we start to dig dirt, if they get everything that they need from the county to continue on, what at what process does the storm water issue begin? At the end of houses
being built or before houses being built or does that something that can even be answered at this point in time? Um, wait. Yeah, I can answer it. Okay. Ask of the applicant Rodney Sutton, 120 East Main Street, Pensacola, Florida. I do. Um, and so I when we get the uh development order and we've met all of the criteria, we start construction. We finish complete construction of all of the lots and the infrastructure,
the ponds, the roads, everything. We have to get a uh final plat. and that's when home construction can start. So not before the ponds will be completed and accepted by the county before we start any home construction. But I also if it's okay would like to address a question asked earlier about how all this came about. And I you know from the applicant's perspective Joy got up and explained and I I was sitting in that room along with some others uh when that happened in the pre-application process. So from our perspective, we saw this development,
potential development bounce back and forth between this board and the county commission a couple times and every time address the storm water before we're willing to proceed. So we knew when we tackled this that that was the issue that had to be addressed. And so we came to the pre-application meetings and I just want to applaud staff because I feel that staff has represented very well the folks that are sitting here and are rightfully so upset. um because we were on the other end of those if you'll call them negotiations. We were there voluntarily to try to figure out what would work and the solution that
we came up with and we spent a lot of money on geotechnical, spent a lot of money on, you know, uh, too and spent a lot of money on engineering to get it done right. And, uh, and we feel like that staff pushed a solution that took what is currently a problem and uh, and came up with a solution that fixes a good portion of it upstream. We can't fix everything downstream, but if we can eliminate a problem up here, then the Hogan Pond can feel some relief from that downstream. And so
we can do that portion of it. And I just one other thing would like to from a layman perspective. I'm not an expert witness, but you know, I think that a very good point was brought up about the soils in this area. When we did the geotechnical reports, there are we'll call clay layers that sort of block the water from perking. And the sand chimney, you know, that was mentioned, uh, is it breaks through that and it creates a chimney, if you will, through that layer that allows the water that would have perched above clay to get through the sand into the aquifer
down below. And so that's an important component. Not only are these ponds 10-ft deep, you know, and and massive expansion of what exists for these two subdivisions, but that is another feature that's extremely important. The connection of the uh the potential, you know, swale and buffer on the west side of the property, connecting a wetland down to our pond system in addition to all the inlets and, you know, infrastructure that will get water to the ponds is also a big improvement. So, um,
we did this voluntarily. Staff has pushed us very hard to make sure we meet the standards and we've been willing to do it based on this putt approval. So, um, I hope that also answers a question about sort of how all this came about. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right, board. Um, we've had we've heard from staff, applicant, and and the public at this time. So, uh, again, if there's no questions for anyone that's spoken,
um, from up here, then we'll continue forward and I would, uh, entertain any discussion andor motion that would like to be brought forward. We because this is quadra judicial, I I'm going to leave it where we've let people speak and put their testimony on the record at that. Um and I apologize but because of this setting I'm going to continue moving forward. So board um
m Mr. share based on staff findings and compelling information that the developer has the Rosewood uh folks in mind and has extensively invested in improvements to better the drainage. I make a motion to approve. Okay. Can I ask you to make your motion contingent upon um the next resoning case? Yes. Contingent upon the next resoning case.
Okay. All right. So, we've got a motion for approval of the the PUD contingent upon the resoning case that follows. This is there's a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. All right. Motion carries six to one. All right. Next we have got uh resoning application for consideration case number Z-2025-04 which requests reszoning of
Belleview Road from LDR lowdensity residential dwelling units four dwelling units per acre to MDR medium density residential district 10 dwelling units per acre as requested by William Mitchum and Rodney Sutton agents for House of Prayer Up for All Nations, Inc. the owner. Members of the board, have there been any exparte communications between you and the applicant of the applicant's agents, attorneys, or witnesses with fellow planning board members or anyone from the general public
prior to this hearing? Have you visited the subject property? And please also disclose if you are a relative or business associate of the applicant or the applicant's agent. No to all. Not at all. No to all. Not to all except the member of the constituency reached out to me about the agenda today. Okay. No to all. No to all. No exparte, but I did visit the site today. Note to all. Again, no to all. Know the site and SNS are clients, but there's no prejudice. All
right. Uh staff was notice of the hearing sent to all interested parties. Yes, sir. Was notice of the hearing posted on the subject property? Yes, sir. All right. And if we're still good, we'll allow them to go on with the maps and photographs for this case. All right. Thank you, board. Uh, first, these are the same as the plan unit development that we saw a minute ago. This is our location map, 500 foot radius zoning map showing the property low density residential. The
future land use is mixeduse suburban. The site is currently vacant. Um, this shows the surrounding uh wetlands and this shows the subdivisions in the area. Also, we attached the aerial map. This is our notice of public hearing as we posted on Belleview. This is looking north onto the site again, looking east along Belleview, looking west along Belleview and across Belleview Avenue. We
also posted our signs again at Buckland. And this is our photographs looking south from Buckland, looking west from the site, looking east towards the storm water along Buckland, and looking north. That concludes our maps and photographies for this case, reszoneing case. All right. Thank you. Now, I'll have the the applicant representative please come forward. Mr. Mitchum and you've already we'll just have you again state your your name and
address for the record for this case. Sure. Bill Mitchum, 501 Commonia Street, Pensacola, Florida 32502. All right. Did you also receive a copy of the resoning hearing package with findings of fact for this case? I did. And understand still that you have the burden of providing by substantial competent evidence that the proposed resoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan furthers the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan and is not in conflict with any portion of the land county's land development code. I do. All right. Please go ahead. Um I think I actually mentioned this in last
uh case number but I I'll just say again quickly that uh this resoning meets all the requirements from low density residential to medium density residential. Uh it's in a future land use category which promotes residential development by allowing resonings to a higher density. The uh MDR district is appropriate to provide transitions between areas zoned or used for lowdensity residential. An area zoned or used for highdensity residential or highdensity mixed use. The property to the west of our sub property is zoned MDR. The property to the north is LDR and
the property to the east is heavy commercial and light industrial. So it fits in that transition. uh MDR is compatible with the surrounding uses which are generally consist generally residential whether low density residential or medium density. It's not spot zoning as the property to the south and the west are MDR as we saw on the map a little bit ago and the reasoning would not create or contribute to urban sprawl and the use of the property as a residential development is consistent with the surrounding properties and uses.
All right. Are there any questions for the applicant from the board? All right. Thank you, Mr. Mitchum. Uh staff will have you go through your presentation at this time. Excellent. Um again, this resonings from LDR, four dwelling units per acre to MDR, medium density residential, 10 dwelling units per acre. uh consistent with the development agreement. Remember that that item would be capped at 134 acres rather than the 190 something that's
otherwise allowed. Dwelling units, excuse me. Um we found that it did meet auger criteria for the resoning request in particular criterion A. Um we found that the request to MDR is consistent with the future land use category of mixeduse suburban. um that mixeduse suburban does allow for residential development um in accordance with um various comprehensive plan policies. The maximum densities and densities are encouraged in underutilized properties in this future lane use category of mixeduse suburban and it is allowed to propo promote the
efficient use of the existing roads, utilities and infrastructure. Concerning criterion B consistent with the land development code, we found that the proposed amendment to reszone to the MDR dwelling um density residential medium density residential zoning district is consist consistent with the intent of the land development code. The primary intent of the LDR zoning district is primarily detached single family dwellings with a maximum allowed density of four dwelling
units per acre and to preserve the character of the existing established communities when within the LDR suburban area. The MDR zoning district is appropriate to prov provide the transition between areas zoned or used for lowdensity residential and areas zoned and used for highdensity residential and highdensity mix uses. As with the LDR zoning district, MDR allows for single family uses but a higher density of 10 dwelling unit per acre. The property to the west is a platted subdivision with
the same zoning as the proposed MDR. Additionally, the reszoning to MDR is an appropriate transition between the MDR property to the west, the LDR property to the north, and the ACLI heavy commercial light industrial property to the east. The property will be limited to single family residential development due to the previous zoning designation of V-2 as came up earlier. Um, also our traffic and transportation operations staff provided us with me with a memo stating that there's no traffic capacity concerns related to Belleview and vicinity of the projects. There
are existing speed tables on Belleview Avenue. Um, this is solely based on the reasoning application submitt. So there may be additional comments related to the development review process. Criterion C, compatibility with surrounding uses. We found that the proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding properties in the area. The uses are similar to the allowed uses on the requested MDR zoning district, which is single family dwellings within a 500 ft radius area. All
properties are with the LDR, MDR, and HCLI zoning districts consisting of single family dwellings or commercial uses on individual lots. The aboting MDR zoning to the west is a single family dwelling subdivision of approximately 18 total acres. The resulting density of the west is calculated to be 2 and a half dwelling units an acre. The LDR zone property to the north is approximately 10 acres and also single family subdivision with a density calculated at 3.2 dwelling units per acre. And
then we included the subdivision map in our in our findings. Criterion D appropriate if spot zoning. Um we found that this would not be considered spot zoning and criterion E appropriate with changed or changed conditions. We found that the land uses or development conditions within the area have not changed. The development within the area has remained low to medium density residential and with the request for MDR the potential uses densities and sensities allowed by that district
would be compatible with the existing surrounding development patterns. Proposed amendment would not create or contribute to urban sprawl. Further note, reszoning proposal is included with the plan unit development of the property providing flexibility to the land development co- requirements for encouraging benefits to the developer and the public. The applicant also submitted the voluntary development agreement to the county seeking to provide predictability for the community in relation to the property. That concludes our staff's finding for this briezoning. All right. Any questions for staff on their presentation? Mr. Chair. Yes.
From the school district side and and for us know this, we get congested down here on Belleview Avenue on that end. So, it may have to be some modifications by the county to make sure that traffic can still go through because you got two schools that are entering right there off Belleview Avenue. No light on Blue Angel, right? Yeah. During the in during the preliminary plaque phase, we will we will definitely the the the that that proposal got got to go before the school board officials to review for concurrency.
Yes, sir. So, that would be definitely have to be part of the discussion which I know the engineering director is definitely aware of all of those things as well. And for this board to know that is the most active complaint area I have in district one. Thank you, Mr. Adams. Any further questions at this time? All right. Uh, we will get started with our speakers. Um, and I think all of you have already been sworn in. So, if you but we'll just have you state your name and address again. Um, so Mr. David Gibson,
if you'll please come forward and state your name and address. And again, we've got you sworn in already. Thank you. David Gibson, 608 Yellow Rose Drive, Pensacola, Florida. Um, just if and if I get away from what this one's about, just correct me and I'll I'll move on. Um, just correction of some things that were said. The water issue u was stated it was the east side of of Rosewood. It's not as far as backyards flooding and houses flooding. It's on the west side coming
off of Zachary Estates. Uh the engineer stated that he was going to raise the burm uh to level with what's coming off or what's there now with the Rosewood uh catchment pond. Uh one of the big problems with the water issue is the ditch filling up and back filling into the um um the pond there. And so the BM's going to have to be higher uh than uh the current um pond because we'll have the same issue. The pond will fill up from the ditch. It's it's not catching the water from uh Rosewood and
um um and I don't know if it's appropriate. Could I owe my time to uh Chris the rest of my time? We can't do that unfortunately, but I Okay, appreciate that. That's all I have. Okay. I got to leave. I got another appointment. I'm already for Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Mary Kanaka, we'll have you come come down to state your name and address. Uh you've been sworn in, so we'll get you going.
Mary Kopa, 6248 Moldoon Road in Pensacola. Um traffic. I'm so glad somebody brought that up. The traffic counter right now is over 100 feet from Blue Angel. If you'll look at your Florida traffic map, you can look online. Jim Hagrin at traffic can help you figure out all the little icons, but it's not accurate. It's most of the traffic on Belleview is Belleview and Moldune
because as you mentioned Blue Angel doesn't have uh Blue Angel in Belleview doesn't have light so nobody goes out Belleview to Blue Angel to turn left especially in the morning going to work or at night coming home from work. Um the other thing I want to say is yes um Horus said oh you know change and progress and yeah I agree that's good but don't cram everything. I mean keep it at
LDR. The only reason it's MDR is because that church wants more money for that property and the developers can get more money if they have it MDR. It's just a fact of life. It's LDR. Let it build up LDR or apply to the state of Florida for help with the grant to make it a park. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we've got uh Tina Lynn. If you'll just come down, state your name and address
um as she left for the day. Okay. All right. Uh Chris Kerb, you're up next. State your name and address. And you've already been sworn in. If he comes back in, we'll get him up here. Um Joshua Zeller, just state your name and address. Ken, you have been sworn in as well. Thank you. Uh Joshua Zeld, 6506 Electronic Drive, Pensacola, Florida. Like to swear in again or
we got you already. So like I like like um the the lawyer uh for the for the church mentioned that and also I think the uh staff mentioned that it is a transitional property. So, and like I think like I mentioned before, one of the reasons why we were looking for the the MDR as opposed to the LDR like like uh the lady before me just mentioned was be was to be able to address a lot of the issues that that the the area was having. It wasn't just to be because I the the developers we we had talked
to already a few developers we had kind of in in the past and and no one was that willing to do this work at LDR just because by the time you do all the infrastructure and build all the ponds out there's like you're you're going to be underwater as far as your cost. Um, and that's that's mainly the the main reason why we're looking um we were looking for the MDR uh resoning, just be be able to facilitate the the the solutions that we wanted to bring to the area plus bring some
of the housing reliefs to to Escambia County. Um allow allow some maybe some some better pricing for because as as as a volume I mean I don't have to explain economics to you guys. you guys know, but as as the volume of houses goes out goes up, the prices will begin to come down and will begin to be more affordable for people that are looking for housing in this area. Um, and with that, I I that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, next we've got Fernandin Zeller. If you'll please come forward and state your name and address. And again, you we had you sworn in under OS,
so it still applies here. 49 Zelder 7174 Woodside Road, Pensacola. As I said before, I understand the issue of the neighbors. They don't want to have so many houses next to it, but in the other hand, it's a it's a property, as my son said, needs to be developed. And if it's done like like it is now, it's it's not able to to address all these issues.
And uh I see that the the neighbors are are um upset that we bought this uh property many years ago for building a church. But it's a part of of the economy. Uh we have to deal with like any business when when the numbers are not good then you can't do it. And that's the reason we uh moved away from the plan to build a church there and then bought another church that we can afford. And uh now yes, we want to sell it. But as my son said, if it's sold like it is, then
uh the the benefit won't be there for for the neighbors about this storm issue to storm waters. And in my opinion, the the developer really goes out of his way to to make an an effort to to to address this problem and to bring a solution to this area. And that's what I want to share. Thank you very much. And uh I'll give Chris one last try. I don't know if he's left the building, but he said okay. All right. So, that was
our last speaker. Unless we've got anything from the applicant or staff that needs to be added. Mr. Sutton, thank you. Yes, Rodney Sutton, 120 East Main Street, Pensacola, Florida. I'll make it brief. Um, thank you for indulging this process as we understand it. Um the the order is specific so that the development agreement restrictions and the PUD restrictions are accept you know are effectively restrictions on this resoning. I just
want to say we understand that we've signed the development agreement so that with this reasonzoning could could not have a contingency if it passes those restrictions are uh already um signed off on by us and we understand them. And I'd like to add Mr. Mr. Wilson um um yes the there they were willing to to utilize the various tools inside the land code and the comprehensive plan to try to make the situation better as stated by if you see the backup when
we first when this first came they they took on the challenge they wor with staff hopefully to try to make it better for the citizen not to make it worse to make it better with various tools that we have that way show up talk. My name was mentioned twice this morning. I don't have no problem with that. But Mr. Jones is always here to try to listen and try to be as fair and as transparent as I possibly can. I may can't make everybody happy, but I promise you I'm going to
listen to you and we're going to try to make some fair and some and some sound conclusions and decisions. All right. Thank you both. Um, if there are any questions from the board, um, let me know. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion if someone would like to offer one up.
I recommend approval of Z202504 based on staff's findings. Second. We got a motion and a second. discussion on the motion. Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All those opposed. Motion carries six to one. Uh that was our last case in the resoning meeting. Um we will adjourn that meeting. Take five minutes if that's okay, Meredith. And um and we'll get back into the regular planning board meeting.
Switch your legs. Sometimes things That was good. That was good.
I'll send you out. Unless they
[ __ ] I was I mean
not needed. Yes, sir. All right, we're going to start back up again. We're going to run over to the regular planning board meeting for July 1st. Um really just left the zoning. All right. So we're going to start with the smallcale map amendment application for consideration uh case number SS 20254 which requests a future land use change of 4967 mobile highway from C commercial to MU mixeduse suburban as requested by Meredith Bush, agent for Shaun Smith, owner. Staff, was this is the correct one
in order, right? Yes. Okay. Just made sure. Um, staff, was notice of hearing sent to all interested parties? Yes, sir. All right. Perfect. Was notice of the hearing posted on the subject property? Yes, sir. Perfect. All right. Let's go ahead and get into the overview of the presentation. Morning board. I'm Allison Lindsay, Urban Planner Development Services. So this is the SSA 202504 and this is the location map showing the location on mobile highway. This is the 500 foot zoning map
showing the current parcel commercial and the surrounding commercial MDR and wreck. This is the future land use map showing the um existing commercial and then the surrounding commercial and mixeduse suburban. This is the proposed future land use that would change it from commercial to mixeduse suburban um and then the surrounding properties. This is the aerial photo of the site and this is the public hearing sign that was posted on the site at Mobile Highway. And this is
just looking onto the subject property. And these are just another couple of views of the subject property. And that's down the little alleyway or drive of the subject property. And this is looking across Mobile Highway from the subject property. It's looking northeast from the property. This is looking south along Mobile Highway from the subject property.
And that's the maps and photography. Um, if you'd rather me if you'd like me to go into the findings now, I could. No, we'll go. Does applicant Meredith want to come up? Do you have anything for us? Good morning, Meredith Bush, 125 East Tendencia here with the applicant Sean Smith. Um, as you know, the question is whether or not this is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Not have you received a copy of the hearing package from staff with an I have. All right. Um,
And you know to establish consistency with the plan, you looked at the criteria outlined. We've submitted a report that echoes staff's findings and would ask that um you approve the request. Happy to take any questions or address any um issues that you find board. Any questions for the applicant? All right, we'll move on to staff's analysis. Okay. Okay. So this is the uh request to change from commercial to mixeduse suburban. The zoning is commercial. Now this is a smallcale
map amendment requesting to change the future land use of a 2.53 plus or minus acre parcel from commercial to mixeduse suburban. The and the parcel is owned commercial and the surrounded by commercial MDR and recreation. So the state basically has three requirements for smallcale map amendment and this meets those requirements. one, it is 2.53 plus or minus acres, which is under the 50 acres required, and it does not require a text change,
and it's not in the area of critical concern. It already has existing potable sewer, water, and solid waste by Emerald Coast Utilities. there is no um wetlands that uh there's no indications on our national wetland inventory that there are any wetlands on the property. uh traffic and transportation. They provided a comment and they basically have no concerns regarding the proposed smallcale map amendment. And it is noted that their review is solely based
on the smallcale map amendment submitt. And when the um any of the comments above do not apply um to um they'll have additional comments when they go to the development review process. Um so the future language category um in the area is commercial and mixeduse suburban and they do support residential and non-residential development. The change to the mixeduse suburban wouldn't change the area's characteristics while allowing for residential development. Um this
site it appears that the business that we saw in those pictures has been there at least since the about 2020. Um, our records do indicate that this was Bob's trailer court back in the 1990s. Um, the applicant is asking for a change in the future land use from the commercial to mix suburban so they can have residential development. And that's all of staff's analysis if you have questions. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff on this one? Perfect. Move over into public
comment. Uh Sean Smith, you want to come up and speak on this one or question? Okay. Uh Lori Abble Wall, I believe I'm saying that right. Hi, I'm just a concerned We can state your name and address. Oh, Lari Abdawahad, 193 Tallaladega Trail. I'm just a concerned homeowner on the
street of Tallaladega that runs right up. I'm two houses away from this development and I'm here just to get some information and find out what is going on. My understanding if I didn't come to this one, I couldn't come to future. This isn't a quasi judicial so I'm here just to try and get some information on what is going to happen with the property. Okay. Thank you. Uh next speaker is Vicky Evans.
Vicky Evans Spates 199 Talladeigga Trail. Um, my property is right next to this property. As Lori said, we're just here to try to find out what was going to be developed right next door to me. Okay. Thank you for coming up. And then next one is Terry Malaya. Good morning. My name is Terry Millie. I live at 200 Tallaladega Trail and I am
on the south side of this property and I'd like to know is this going to be a mobile home park? It's not going to be park. It's not. Are you going to put mobile homes on there before? Okay. Because it was a mobile home park before and we had all kinds of vandalism from people that lived there. So that's what it's going to be. I am dead against this happening here. So um yeah. understand it. But um they come onto our property. I mean, he's he's done a great job
cleaning it up since he's bought the property. I think there were 30 some odd mobile homes there. He's cleaned them all out but one and he's brought another one in. Um but he's cleaned it up. He's put in sewers. He's put in a fence. So, I can't say he's done any destruction to the property. It's people that come in with that environment that we're concerned about because we have been broken into. they come on our property and and I'm against I'm against this but thank you. Thank you so much. I believe that it concludes public comment. Um all right.
Is there anything further from staff or the applicant on this one? Mr. Mr. Chair, I just want like to clarify that with the change in the commercial to the mixeduse suburban at this particular point, they could they could not do anything except for commercial if it was a commercial predominantly commercial development. So, because it is commercial zoning and commercial future land use, changing it to the mixeduse suburban will allow not only the commercial but it will allow some residential component.
I was just going to ask the applicant if he would like to shed light to his neighbors what intended purposes. I know we can't hold him to that to the or Meredith. Thank you. So, the applicant doesn't have any current development plans. um other than maximizing the value and potential of the property, this may very well increase the um development by four units and he's happy to speak to the neighbors. Um the fact that
it could entail mobile homes is not a criteria for your consideration. So just ask for approval and I'll put it out there for the public. You know, every development in Escambia County for this type of property or what it would be developed into would have to go through the DRC process which would go through planning department and such like that. So there's always other venues when it does come up that you can keep aware of it. And I would like to ask there was one there was one about the about the mobile home. I like to be Meredith just to re what Meredith said that that zoning category it does allow for mobile home parks. Correct. So I want to be clear
that that the the possibility of that can happen along with the other uses that are allowed in that zoning category and that proposed future land use category since some of the neighbors raised that like to be clear for the record. So it was what they told me and could not the possibility is always there. Mr. S said there um if there's nothing else on this board um I'll entertain a motion. Motion to uh accept as uh proposed. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second?
Second. Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none, uh let's go ahead and raise your right hand if you approve. Two, three, four, five, six, six. We have six approval. Motion passes. We'll move on to the next one. Didn't prepare today. So small. All right, we're moving on to the next one, which is a small scale
map amendment application for consideration for case number SS 2025-05, which requests a future land use change of 700 Gane A from C Commercial to mixeduse Suburban or mix mixeduse urban, sorry, as requested by Meredith Bush, agent for Tanvi Group LLC owner. Staff, was notice of the hearing sent to all interested parties? Yes. All right. Was notice of the hearing posted on the subject property? Yes. All right. And now we'll move over to the presentation for you. Okay. So, this is the small scale map amendment 20250.
This is the location map showing the property off of Gei Lane. This is the zoning map showing the current zoning and the surrounding. This is the future land use of commercial and the surrounding of mixed use urban. This is the proposed for the future land use mixeduse urban. And this is the flood zone map. And this is just an aerial site of the property. This is
a public hearing sign that was posted on site. And this is looking east from the site. Looking east onto the site. Looking along the property southern boundary. Looking south along Geese Lane. Looking north along Geese Lane. And this is looking west across Geese Lane from the subject property. And that's the maps and photography. Thank you for the presentation. Any questions on I guess. All right. Um would the applicant or the representative please come forward?
Meredith Bush again, 125 East Indencia. Much like the last case, we're seeking to go from commercial to mixeduse urban. Um, we've prepared a report, submitted it, believe we meet all the criteria of the code and comprehensive plan and would ask for approval. Happy to take any questions. Okay. And also, as well, you received a copy of all their stuff. Yeah. All right. Then uh let's move over to staff analysis unless there's any questions for the applicant at this time with uh nobody here to speak. Do we and staff um agrees to
everything. Do we have to go through the analysis or can we we still have to go through analysis? Perfect. You don't have to we can expedite. I always try to give it a you guys say to do it. I'm going to do it. All right. Well, we'll go ahead and expedate if there's any comments from board. I would like to approve um SSA 202505 as staff has provided. Second. All right, we have a motion to second. Any discussion? Seeing none, go ahead and raise your right hand if you want to approve. Two, three, four, five. Six votes for approve. Motion passes. And that one closes out that case. And then I guess we have any action
items. Let's see there. No one for public. Let's see their director's review. None. Director. No county re attorney's report. All right. Scheduling of future meetings. Next meeting will be Tuesday, August 5th at 8:30. So we'll see you then. I appreciate you all. Have a great Fourth of July.