 |
| 5th Dimension's Rendering of this proposed development |
In part one of this series we discussed how the process to approve a 325 unit development at the foot of the Baars Bridge in Perdido occurred. The particular focus of the first blogpost was on the traffic impacts of this project and also, importantly, the timeline of this development (this approval was well underway as were the lion's share of all necessary environmental permits, before this was in D1; It had been an in the works project--being planned and envisioned for years in D2 ---and would have happened regardless of whether this parcel remained in D2 or went to D1 after the redistricting). That's #1.
#2 is the Traffic impacts. To drill down on these particular concerns, I linked the traffic study in that post. I also asked our current Traffic Engineer to review the study and provide feedback (he was not employed with the county when this was submitted and the development order was approved by the county--and unlike some of the folks who commented on this topic on part one of the post--Mr. Phillips is a Professional Engineer and an expert on traffic management).
His comments and findings based on his review of the traffic study are below:
"I have reviewed the traffic analysis submitted by Dantin Consulting (Oct. 2021) for the proposed development between Canal Drive and Monterey Avenue. The calculations all follow industry standards. There was a concern voiced regarding the Level of Service (LOS) shown in one of the exhibits. These calculations were performed to show none of the corridors went to a level beyond a D. Several of the sections still meet a LOS C with one being a B. It is important to know these calculations are NOT required for development in Escambia County of the State of Florida as transportation concurrency has been removed from State criteria quite some time ago.
Only two instances are present where a regulation was not met to the letter due to geometric constraints versus perceived benefit. These are explained in number 5 and 6 below.
- Trip calculation was
performed utilizing proper Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
land use codes and entering/exiting numbers. These consider the
development size, general location, and sample size of the data to closely
mimic reality. The PM peak hour (utilized throughout) for trip
generation is greater than the AM peak. The PM Peak Hour calculation
shows 129 vehicles per hour (vph) with 79 entering and 50 exiting during
that time, again in accordance with ITE data. Ten percent of trips
was dedicated to bike/ped uses. The projected trips show that not
all residents of the 325 dwelling units will leave or arrive during a
one-hour period.
- The trip distribution to
the two access points is acceptable with 60%/40% exiting at Canal/Monterey
and 70%/30% entering Canal/Monterey
- FDOT counts from 2020
were used for background traffic on Sorrento, Gulf Beach, and
Innerarity. New counts were taken for Canal and Monterey to record
background and turning movements that are occurring presently.
- The roadway LOS was
calculated utilizing the FDOT Peak Hour Directional Volume chart for
various types of roadway. The rationale for the calculation utilizes
the FDOT count station data, conversion from Annual Average Daily Traffic
to Peak Hour Directional, then compare to a Level of Service on the chart.
The engineer chose level of service D to show that even at LOS D,
there is capacity remaining after adding the trips from this development
to the roadway segment. Many of the segments have capacity at a LOS
C as well with one segment operating at LOS B.
- County Design Standards
Manual requires LT and/or RT turnlane if the turning movement into the
site from the adjacent county road is 30 vph or greater. The
Monterey access did not warrant either left or right turnlanes. The
connection to Canal did warrant a right turnlane (56 vph), however due to
the proximity of the intersection with Perdido Key Drive, there would not
be adequate distance to install the turnlane in accordance with
standard. Also, a 457 Warrant Study was performed (FDOT and National
Standard) that did not indicate the need for this right turnlane on Canal
at all.
- By the same standards, no turnlanes were warranted on Innerarity Point Road and Monterey with counts less than 30 vph. However, Perdido Key Drive and Canal Drive did warrant a left turnlane per FDOT requirements (457 Warrant Study) with current traffic not even counting the additional traffic from the development. Due to the proximity of the Baars Bridge, the turnlane was not recommended because it would be a substandard design and not meet the design standards of the corridor. This was confirmed by a meeting with FDOT. FDOT committed to re-evaluate this intersection after the current FDOT intersection changes (alter the skew and remove the grassed island) are put in place.
A few key points to remember… the nationally accepted
data shows that not everyone in an apartment complex of this type all leave to
go to work or all come home at the same time. Also, turnlanes have four
main components that trip the warrant for installation. They are the
speed limit of the street, turning movements, and the opposing volume and
advancing volume. For instance, a very slow speed road like Monterey will
require a very significant amount of advancing and opposing traffic well into
the hundreds of vehicles per hour to warrant a left turnlane because of the low
speed limit and small amount of turning movements here."
9 comments:
"In part one of this series we discussed how the process to approve a 325 unit development at the foot of the Baars Bridge in Perdido occurred"
Did we? I don't see any process being discussed in that blog, only the assertion that this development company sent a county office a copy of its impact study. Not much of a process. Seems like the appropriate process would be to have a county engineer review it BEFORE it was approved.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that Mr. Phillips' opinion could be colored by the knowledge that by now a public finding contrary to the ones in that study would expose the county to an 8-figure lawsuit from the developers, who are now fully immersed in their heavy construction site on the good faith belief that their study was rubber-stamped by the county a long time ago. Still, the proper time for a review would have been BEFORE the approval.
Better yet, perhaps the county could have commissioned its own study, one that was conducted in a spring or summer month instead of after the tourist season had already ended. I'm sure that timing on the part of the company was purely coincidental.
Maybe the complete lack of oversight here is due to confusion over whether the state or the county should be doing the reviewing. The FDOT says the project is on "Perdido Key Dr" and under county jurisdiction, but the county has so such address in its tax records- probably because, according to the county, that road is part of Canal Road and therefore under state jurisdiction.
One more thing that perhaps should have been worked out BEFORE these people were allowed to proceed with their development. That jurisdictional boondoggle looks like the kind of thing they used to do in south Florida back in the 50s. Hard to believe it still goes on today.
I guess no one around here is surprised to find that the government we're funding has an initial reflexive reaction of leaping to the defense of some out of state developers, but this looks more like a case of CYA because our local governing board didn't actually do its job and apparently wasn't even aware that the primary road involved was under its jurisdiction in the first place.
Anonymous 6:15--The county undertook a detailed review of this development. I will link all the documents in the lead up to the townhall next month. The traffic study is the first of these documnets I'll discuss and link, as traffic has been the number one concern I have heard about this development. Your assertion that the county did not do any due diligence before simply approving this is an incorrect, inaccurate statement. Remember, this parcel was already zoned for multi-family development, it carried a commercial designation which allows for multifamily development in addition to the future land use designation of Mixed Use Suburban--which also allows for multi-family. I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is not accurate.
Commissioner, you saying that the county did due diligence is not the same thing as the county actually doing due diligence.
Asking a county engineer to review their proposal a year after it had been approved is not due diligence either.
Why you are coming into another board member's district to do a town hall is a completely mystery. I guess you figure that if you put up with a couple of hours of abuse, the whole thing will blow over. You're probably right.
This battle was obviously lost before the county even realized there was a "Perdido Key Drive" on the north side of the bridge. And before anyone in this area was given an opportunity to challenge it.
Like I said, no one is surprised that the default setting for one of our board members is to shill for these developers rather than to represent the interests of the people who have been paying his salary these many years, but let's be honest. The county did virtually nothing to study the impact of this development, no matter how many documents you pull together after the fact. And if the county had wanted to err on the side of its constituents and apply a stricter reading of the zoning ordinances or assess impact fees to pay for all of the inevitable roadwork that these people claim we won't need, then it certainly could have done so.
The property values in the Innerarity area, not to mention the quality of life, are going to drop as a result of this. I personally won't be at your town hall to hear you explain all of the work the county did to gauge the impact AFTER this project had been approved.
623 That is in D1, try to keep up.
Just run ECAT. It will be fun.
There has been some confusion about the zoning of the property if you use the mapping tool on the property appraiser’s website. Selecting the property brings up one card showing the property zoned as commercial. Typing in the address brings up a completely different card indicating it is zoned as MDR. I didn’t realize until I read the Development Review Application that there are two parcels involved in this development. The 28+ acres is actually 13400 Blk Perdido Key Drive and the application address is for 13500 Blk Perdido Key Dr. That piece of property is really on Zodiac Drive. The owner on the application is not the owner of either property according to the tax collector’s information. That would be Joseph Holt of Atlanta. Jerry White still owns 13500 but it shows he sold the 28+ acre 13400 to Altura Residences LLC of Birmingham and they closed on that 12/13/21. Maybe they waited to close on the property until they knew the development would get through the county.
Thanks but I’m plenty caught up. North of the canal is still D2. Not surprised you’re confused- apparently the county isn’t clear on whether this property is located in D1 or D2, on Canal Rd or Perdido Beach Dr, or fronted by a county or state right-of-way … or whether it’s zoned commercial or MDR. No wonder the developers were able to drop an urban high density multi-family monstrosity into the middle of a bunch of single family residences without anyone raising a single question.
9:26--Nobody is confused at all except for you apparently. This entire area, all of Canal, and all of the footprint of this development, is now in D1. It was formerly D2, but after December 13th of 2021--it all became a part of D1 post redistricting. This development went through the county's existing processes and procedures and is/was already zoned for commercial which allows for multi-family under that designation and the Future Land Use (FLU) designation was Mixed Use Suburban which also allows for that use. From what I have seen thus far in all the documents and applications, I have not seen anything that varied at all from standard practice in the way staff handled this request and processed it. Yes, It was conceived, planned, and submitted prior to this area becomming a part of D1 so therefore I was unaware until this summer of this project. Nevertheless, I want to be transparent but fair as well to all parties involved in this situation. That's why when asked about it, I asked about it. It is why when asked to schedule a town hall on this topic, I scheduled one. Let me ask you this: If you inherited this property and suddenly realized it was uber-valuable and could be improved and developed into upscale townhomes AND the codes, ordinances, and zoning comported with that use----wouldn't you want the ability to complete this project. (You don't need to answer, It's kind of like a rhetorical and I know your true answer). 3:03--yes, they probably did have that as a condition of the sale, the ability to develop upscale, attractive multi-family. That is very common and I have seen it over and over. It puts the impetus on the seller to insure that what the buyer wants to do is an approvable, allowable use.
Please quit calling the units "upscale townhomes" for the sake of framing it in a more favorable light. They're primarily 1 and 2 br apartments. Yes, there are a handful of 2-story townhomes in the development plan, but the units are overwhelmingly rental apartments, and I've seen nothing to indicate that the townhomes will be available for purchase, which is what will differentiate them from leased apartments in a way that them being nothing more than a 2-story apartment floorplan does not. And the FDOT study done in 2020 will not reflect the true scope and volume of traffic in the area. The key was very very quiet thanks to Covid. Lastly, I've lived in the area for 15 years and there WAS a tiny, dilapidated shaved ice shack on the property at one time, and I NEVER saw it open, nor did I ever see any evidence of a children's slide. You're taking the argument of the property owner to heart over hundreds of nearby residents when he woefully says he really tried to do something else with the land. Not in earnest. Lastly, in your town hall announcement (where you also called this development "townhomes", you mentioned an upcoming marina on the north side of PK drive. Assuming it's the 13500 Parcel of Canal Drive, at the base of the bridge
There are no developmental plans for this online, and again no head's up for the community. Hoping you can clarify the project. Guessing by the name of the LLC and the pedigree that it's going to be a bar/marina hybrid a la Oyster Bar? I shouldn't speculate but when you call apartments townhomes repeatedly it makes me wonder.
Post a Comment