Approving Developments--Inside the Process Part I--Traffic Study

There is/was a 28.64 acre parcel of land at the foot of the Baars Bridge just north of Perdido Key that has been given a development order for the construction of 325 dwelling units total--to include luxury townhomes.

This project was years in the making, and all the forms were submitted prior to this area becomming a part of District 1 after our once per decade redistricting that happened late last year (and went into effect 10 days after our vote on December 3rd).  

In October of 2021, prior to this area being in D1, the owner of the property applied to our Development Services Department for approval(s) to move forward with constructing this development.  The final approved development order was issued in early January (January 12th to be precise) of this year, less than 30 days after this area became a part of D1.  (I give this timeline to insure folks know it and do not believe incorrect information/misinformation that is being promulgated online by some with axes to grind over the way redistricting went down and other personal issues as well)

Bottom line:  I wasn't aware this process was underway during the redistricting process--most were not---except for the staff that was following existing rules, codes, and ordinances to process a bonafide development request which already fit within the allowable uses of our codes.

The parcel was/is zoned Commercial with a FLU (Future Land Use) designation of MU-S (Mixed Use, Suburban) which allows for such a development without going to the planning board.

The project did, however, go through the vetting required by the Land Development Code--which does include rigorous study of the potential impacts such a development will have on the adjacent area.

A five million dollar piece of property--It is my understanding from speaking with a different developer who "passed" on purchasing and developing this particular parcel--that"Yes, he [current owner] is paying tax on that land every year which is substantial, and he tried to generate revenue to offset this tax bill with various temporary business ventures he started, including adding a shaved-ice truck and even some slides for kids--both of which were not well-received by nearby residents."  He continued "so at some point to hold a property like that--it has to generate revenue to truly be an asset and not a liability--and thus this development."

Earlier this month, multiple residents contacted me in anger and frustration about this project.  Several came to our last public meeting. One individual asked if I would hold a townhall in Perdido so all the

interested residents could learn all about this development and how it came to be--and of course I have agreed to do so.

Residents did not like the kid's water slides and the shaved ice truck--but apparently they are okay with the tin shed constructed self storage nearby and a big open empty dirt lot?  That's what is there now.  The day after the Thursday meeting where this issue exploded--I drove to Perdido Key after work and went to the property to see it.  I understand it will be a radical change from what is there now.  I get it--the residents are concerned.

And one of the concerns I heard loudly and clearly from residents in this area is this:  "What will this type of development do to traffic--which is already bad?"

Since that time I have requested and received every shred of documentation about this development.  All of it.  And I am going to link it here on this site in a series of follow-on posts for interested individuals to read prior to the Perdido Town Hall which will occur on Tuesday, October 25th from 6:00-8:00 PM at the Perdido Bay United Methodist Church.

So now that I have looked very intently into all of the details of how this development came to be, I am going to link the traffic study.  I had some questions about it which I posed to the current director of Traffic Management and our resident Traffic Engineer Chris Phillips (he was not a staff member when this was approved, his predecessor, Christin Fanchi, approved this prior to her departure earlier this year).  I'll be going over my concerns in part II in greater depth, but primarily my questions center on the fact that the adjacent roadways are all graded at a level "D" on an A-F scale in this report--and yet this development was approved.  Why was that?  My additional concern is that somehow the expert that authored this study believes this development will have a minimal impact during peak afternoon commute time, less than a hundred and thirty additional trips generated.  The findings about the adjacent roadways, the turn lanes, and the deacceleration lane coming off of the Baars bridge going north also generated some questions from me.  (I am asking the developer's representative as well as the author of this traffic study to attend the town hall to provide explanations and answers to the audience)

Meanwhile--read the study here, for yourself.  I look forward to all of the questions that will come--and if we need to change our process or modify it going forward--I look forward to having that conversation as well.