Getting the Future Land Use (FLU) Right on OLF-8 Gives Nearby Residents Greater Say about Future Development....

 

Unlike local zonong designations, The establishement of the Future Land Use overlay for OLF-8 is a process that requires coordination with Tallahassee; for this reason it is imperative that we get it right.  Staff's first two proposals (left two, above) had too much yellow, not enough red.  The one on the far right is the one that will be brought forward for board consideration, as it is just right......

What is a Future Land Use anyway, you might ask?  The future land use is a designation assigned to a parcel of land that comports with a county's comprehensive plan and subsequently filed with the state of Florida.  Once filed, the underlying local zoning designations can be added, amended, changed, or altered via local action-with the caveat being that local designations do not trump the FLU, and incompatible uses between local zoning regulations and FLU designations require an action from the State to resolve.  This just recently happened on a piece of property in District 1 where a FLU change had to be requested of the state to "allow" for the building of apartments by a developer.

So, at the most recent regular meeting of the Escambia Board of County Commissioners last Thursday, the public hearing for transmittal of the staff's proposed FLU maps for OLF-8 were dropped from the agenda.

At least one other commissioner and I objected to the FLU being MU-U for more than half of the map--with only a "tiny" strip for commercial development along the frontage of the property on 9-Mile Road and the northern portion of the property.  This did not comport to the board's vision nor did it comport with our expressed desire to see businesses and amenities (not massive apartment buildings) on this valuable property abuting 9-Mile Road.

So we took the first rendition, the left drawing above, and it got 86'd fast.  It was, and is, a "non-starter."  The middle drawing above was a secondary proposal from staff--but it, too, had too much of this property with a FLU designation of MU-U.

So several other board members asked if I could work with staff to bring back a proposed FLU map for approval by the full board and subsequent transmission to Tallahassee that is more in line with 1.) what the board desired, 2.) maintains the vision for the compromise reached regarding other aspects of development on the field, and 3.)  that could get support from a majority of board members to move this project forward.  

I believe the map on the far right, above, accomplishes this.  In communicating with staff on this, I asked specifically if this FLU would mesh with what DPZ has put forward as the local zoning designations for OLF-8---which speak to which areas of the field can be built with what types of buildings, features and structures---to include commerce, public amenities, "town-center", residential, and commercial.  I was assured that this proposed FLU map allows for all of these things.

WHY IS MORE RED BETTER THAN MORE YELLOW ON THIS FLU MAP?

The difference is nuanced, but important, as to why more commercial (red) is prefferable to more mixed use-urban (yellow).  

While it is true that most of the commerce related aspects of what we have planned for the OLF-8 project could be constructed under a MU-U FLU designation---the critical key for me (and the more important question to consider) is what "CAN'T" be built under a COM FLU designation.  That's more important  and here's what I mean.

A commercial FLU designation does not permit stand alone residential, period.  Regardless of the underlying "local" zoning category.  So having more COM (red) has a protective, prophylactic effect on the rapid growth and sprawl of more high-density, high impact residential construction.  It does this by only allowing residential as a component of a primarily commercial development (e.g. lofts over retail), and only by allowing up to 49% of a project to consist of residential components.

Now, those that push back will proclaim "But the FLU does not matter, if the local zoning does not permit residential!!!"   Well, here's where that argument falls apart.  If the underlying local designation does not permit apartments, applicants can easily navigate the process to rezone locally via the planning board to allow for apartments if --watch for it--IF the existing underlying FLU allows for apartments.  MU-U allows apartments.  COM does not.  Additionally---- there are several "local land use consultants" that help developers navigate the rezoning process locally all day every day.  They have it down to a precise science and they are very fast, efficient, and effective at getting it done.

So having more of the map red, or designated as a COM FLU, adds a second layer of protection against

massive building of giant residential apartments on the field.  This is not to say it can't happen--but the process will just get more difficult--as a buyer or developer would need to have the FLU changed--in addition to a local zoning designation change, which triggers two public hearings and a state review.

So my contention is and was that the majority of the OLF-8 parcel where commercial use is the focus now and in the future should be assigned a FLU of COM, not MU-U--to give us the appropriate time to develop these portions of the property as job creating business developments--- without the fear of a future board just changing the local underlying zoning at the whim of a residential developer and with very little public input.  Put a different way, my view is that ONLY those areas of the field where the board agreed to allow high-density residential or any stand alone residential, along with school, retail, amenities and park property--should carry the initial FLU designation of MU-U.  The upper-right map does this.

 And organizing this FLU map with a majority of the parcel carrying a COM FLU, as the picture in the upper right will do, will give residents MORE say into the future if residential expansion is contemplated by future boards and developers.  

Residential construction was not the reason the county spent $18 Million to acquire this land, It was never something I favored, and it is not something a majority of the Beulah community I represent wants on the field, either.

But we compromised, and this map meets the spirit of the compromise we made, whereas the other ones proposed by staff did not, in my estimation and for the reasons I have expressed here.

Hopefully----- these last modest, nuanced adjustments to the FLU map will be voted forward by the full board as the last public sausage-making in this long, drawn-out process.  This proposed map, upper right, will allow for all the amenities, the parks, the residential, the retial, the town-center, the "live-work" space, etc. etc to be developed on this field--------------WITH the added safeguard of a second requirement if MORE residential is pushed after only a few short years.

And if one thinks about it--there are many residents on the north side of the field that didn't want to see ANYTHING at all built on OLF-8.  Keeping that northern portion of the field with a red FLU of Commercial, knowing it may take years and years to fill that land with good job-producing businesses, should make such folks happy.  More time and more years with only a large green field on the north of OLF-8 should be something these residents favor----rather than a traffic exacerbating 4-story 60 unit per acre apartment complexes right out side in view from their front porches!

We will see how it goes at the next meeting, but I am optimistic.