Report of City Council Action Items

January 9, 2014
Members Present: Council President Jewel Cannada-Wynn, Council Vice President Megan B. Pratt, Charles Bare, Larry B. Johnson, Sherri Myers, Brian Spencer, Andy Terhaar, Gerald Wingate, and P. C. Wu Absent: None CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - - None, REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS AWARD OF CONTRACT RFP #14-004 FOOD & BEVERAGE CONCESSION FOR ROGER SCOTT TENNIS CENTER That City Council award RFP #14-004 to Coastal Concessions, and authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement for the food and beverage concession at Roger Scott Tennis Center The motion passed unanimously. 2. APPOINTMENT AREA HOUSING COMMISSION City Council appointed Phyllis D. Sims to the Area Housing Commission, to fill the unexpired term of Delores P. Curry, ending October 31, 2016. Ballot vote. 3. QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING: APPROVAL OF FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT THE ENCLAVE AT STRONG STREET- MOTION TO APPROVE That City Council conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on January 9, 2014, to consider approval of the final plat The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MARITIME REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - MOTION TO APPROVE That City Council conduct a public hearing on January 9, 2014 to consider the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code. The motion failed 3-6. Council Members Cannada-Wynn, Johnson, and Spencer assenting. PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 01-14 Reading *****PULLED - - FAILED IN PUBLIC HEARING***** AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-2-22 AND SECTION 12-13-3 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA; AMENDING THE GOVERNMENTAL CENTER DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND BOUNDARIES; AND AMENDING THE DUTIES OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD (EAB): REVIEW OF 2013 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND APPROVAL OF 2014 PLAN OF ACTION That City Council approve the Environmental Advisory Board initiated 2014 Plan of Action. The motion passed 8 - 1. Council Member Bare dissenting.

COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
January 9, 2014
LEGISLATIVE ACTION ITEM

Memorandum Number:

SPONSOR: SUBJECT:

Ashton J. Hayward, III, Mayor e-1' Proposed Amendment to the Land Development Code - Maritime Redevelopment District

MOTION:

That City Council conduct a public hearing on January 9, 2014 to consider the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code.
AGENDA: X Regular

Consent No Hearing Required

Hearing Required: Public_X Quasi-Judicial

SUMMARY:

The Land Development Code (LDC) is the principal means of planning and regulating the development and redevelopment of land in the City. The LDC was adopted by City Council in its present form in 1991 pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. From time to time, it is necessary to amend the LDC to provide consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and to respond to community concerns, legal considerations, and changes in development patterns and planning techniques. One of the overlay districts currently contained in the Land Development Code is the Governmental Center District. The Governmental Center District was created on February 22, 1979 upon the passage of Ordinance number 0479 by City Council. It was created as a special district intended to provide for the redevelopment of a centralized area for government related land use and to encourage a coordinated architectural character within the district. The district functions as an overlay district on top of underlying zoning requirements. The Pensacola-Escambia Governmental Center Authority was created as an agency of the City of Pensacola and Escambia County pursuant to Chapter 2001-328, Laws of Florida; with the purpose to acquire, construct, improve, operate, maintain and manage a governmental center complex for the use and occupancy by the City of Pensacola, Escambia County, their agencies and departments, and other governmental agencies and departments. Florida House Bill 0827, which went into effect on January 2, 2004, repealed Chapter 2001-328, Laws of Florida, and thereby abolished the Pensacola-Escambia Governmental Center Authority. Title to all assets and liabilities were transferred to the City of Pensacola and Escambia County. The Governmental Center complex has been constructed as planned and the Governmental Center Authority has been abolished by the State Legislature. This renders the Governmental Center District obsolete as its purpose of redeveloping a centralized area for government related land use has been fulfilled.

Council Memorandum Proposed Amendment to the Land Development Code - Maritime Redevelopment District January 9, 2014 Page Two

The area in question, however, has significant redevelopment potential given the closure of the ECUA wastewater treatment plant and the nearby Community Maritime Park project. Additionally, the area is within the urban downtown CRA which is the subject area of the recently adopted Urban Core Community Redevelopment Plan. With these factors in mind, the continued application of aesthetic controls is needed, as is the expansion of the existing overlay district boundaries to provide consistency of development patterns. The proposed revisions to the existing aesthetic guidelines as well as the proposed boundaries of the renamed District are attached. The revised boundaries would result in the continuation of the overlay district to the western boundary of the CRA ("A" Street), north to Garden Street, and would remain unchanged along Spring Street due to the Palafox Historic District and the significance of the structures within its boundaries. The southern line of the overlay district would run down the centerline of the Main Street right of way. The revisions to the regulations would also shift responsibility for review of developments in the District from the Architectural Review Board to the Planning Board. The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendment on December 13, 2011. On January 12, 2012, a public hearing was conducted by City Council. Council voted to table the issue to allow for ECUA to provide input on the proposed amendment, based on concerns expressed during the public hearing. On April 22, 2013, the proposed amendment was placed on the Committee of the Whole agenda as a discussion item. A Council workshop to review and discuss the proposed amendment was conducted on July 12, 2013. On July 18, 2013, City Council approved the proposed amendment and the City Clerk conducted the first reading of the proposed ordinance. On August 22 2013, City Council did not approve the ordinance on second reading, and referred the proposed amendment back to the Planning Board. At the September 10, 2013, Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board discussed the proposed amendment, voted to table this item until the October meeting to allow for more time to review. At the October 8, 2013, Planning Board meeting, the Board directed staff to make changes to the draft and to schedule a special meeting to review the revised draft and make a recommendation to City Council. On November 12, 2013, the Planning Board conducted a special meeting and unanimously recommended approval of the revised draft of the proposed amendment. The revised draft is attached, with the changes highlighted.
PRIOR ACTION:

Council tabled the item at a public hearing conducted on January 12, 2012. Council conducted a public hearing and approved the item on July 18, 2013. Council referred the item back to Planning Board at second reading of the ordinance on August 22, 2013.
FUNDING: FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None. None.

Council Memorandum Proposed Amendment to the Land Development Code - Maritime Redevelopment District January 9, 2014 Page Three
STAFF CONTACT:

Colleen M. Castille, City Administrator; Sherry H. Morris, AICP, Planning Services Administrator
ATTACHMENTS:

1) Proposed Amendment (Revised per Planning Board recommendation) 2) Map 3) ECUA Redlined Comments 4) Staff Review of ECUA Comments 5) Septemberl 0, 2013, October 8, 2013, and November 12, 2013 Planning Board Minutes. 6) Proposed Ordinance
PRESENTATION:

No.

Timeline of Maritime Redevelopment Overlay District

December 13, 2011- Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the Maritime Redevelopment Overlay District. January 12, 1012 City Council tabled the public hearing to consider the Maritime Redevelopment District. April 22, 2013 Committee of the Whole considered the Maritime Redevelopment District as a Discussion Item. COW request a workshop dedicated to the issue. July 12, 2013 City Council conducted a workshop to discuss the Maritime Redevelopment District. July 18, 2013 City Council conducts a public hearing to consider the Maritime Redevelopment District and approves the amendment to the Land Development Code. Council approved the proposed amendment and first reading of the ordinance occurred at this meeting. August 22, 2013 City Council did not approve the ordinance adopting the Maritime Redevelopment District on second reading. Council instead referred the item back to Planning Board for additional review and discussion. September 10, 2013- Planning Board discussed the proposed amendment, and voted to table the item until their October meeting to allow for more time to review and consider the redline comments received by ECUA at the September meeting. October 8, 2013- Planning Board discussed the ECUA comments, heard from the public and asked questions of staff The Planning Board voted to ask staff to make specific changes to the draft document and schedule a special meeting in November for final consideration and action. November 12, 2013- Planning Board recommended additional changes to the document based on input from the public present at the meeting, and voted unanimously to forward the draft to City Council with their October and November meeting revisions incorporated.

Sec. 12-2-22. - Gevemmental center district. Maritime Redevelopment District (A) Purpose of district. The purpose for the establishment of this overlay district is to provide the promote and encourage redevelopment of-a-centralized ar-a for goventrnent related land use; of the existing urban commercial areas and neighborhoods surrounding the Community Maritime Park and to encourage a coordinated architectural character within the district. The additional objectives of this district are to provide a mixture of residential, office and commercial uses that complement the residential and mixed-use character of the district; encourage quality redevelopment and the renovation of existing structures; promote multimodal transportation and create high-quality urban streetscapes by using buildings, sidewalks, and street trees to form a pleasant, convenient and safe environment designed for pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit, and automobiles; and to promote retail and office uses that serve the surrounding neighborhoods and enhance the existing commercial areas and the Community Maritime Park. (1) (a) Definitions. Awning: An architectural projection roofed with material supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building. Colonnade or Arcade: A covered, open-air walkway at standard sidewalk level attached to or integral with the building frontage; the structure overhead is supported architecturally by columns or arches along the sidewalk. Glazing: The design and placement of windows and entrances with clear glass in a building facade. Stoop: A small platform, entrance stairway at a house door, or both, covered by a secondary roof or awning. The stoop projects from the primary building plane. Principal Streets: Those portions of Government Street, Spring Street, Main Street, A Street, Garden Street and Reus Street within the District. Procedure for review and approval of plans.

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(B)

Submission of plans. Every application for a building permit to erect, construct, (1) renovate and/or alter an exterior of a building, or sign, located or to be located in the district shall be accompanied by plans for the proposed work. As used herein, "plans" shall mean drawings or sketches with sufficient detail to show, as far as they relate to exterior appearance, the architectural design of the building or sign, (both before and after the proposed work is done in the cases of altering, renovating, demolishing or razing a building or structure) including proposed materials, textures and colors, and the plat plan or site layout, including all site improvements or features such as walls, fences, walks, terraces, plantings, accessory buildings, paved areas, signs, lights, awnings, canopies, screening and other appurtenances. Such plans shall be promptly forwarded by the building official to the Planning Board architectural review board. T-14,- building official or his designee shall sepve as secretary to the board.

MEMORANDUM

TO: FROM: DATE:

Planning Board Members Sherry H. Morris, AICP, Planning Services Administrator August 27, 2013

SUBJECT: Staff Review of ECUA Comments Provided at September 10, 2013 Meeting.

At the September 10, 2013 Planning Board meeting comments were provided by ECUA pertaining to the proposed Maritime Redevelopment District overlay. Summarized below is the staff review of that document. The summary is done on a page-by-page basis, and if a comment from the ECUA document is not addressed below, then it was not determined to be a concern or require clarification.
Page 1

Unclear as to why there is a need to remove "and street trees" from 12-2-22 (A). Staff disagrees that Spring Street, "A" Street, and Reus Street would not be considered "Principal Streets". Spring and Reus lead directly into the Community Maritime Park, and "A" Street is the thoroughfare that represents the westernmost CRA boundary.

Page 2-4

The language stricken from the current LDC section was pertaining to Architectural Review Board policies and practices (the ARB issues Board Orders after an approval, for example). Because the review and approval authority was being transferred to Planning Board, the language was stricken, however, any part that Planning Board wishes to retain can be left in the existing language.

Page 5

o The preference would be for the wording to remain "Regulations" vs "Guidelines" as suggested. If the Planning Board has the authority/ability to grant modifications to the regulations (such as is authorized by the Gateway Review Board in the GRD regulations) then the flexibility is preserved. Guidelines are not requirements, therefore, if the Planning Board wishes to relax the language, the aesthetic language that follows are no longer required, but suggested. o Staff would prefer to soften the language pertaining to entrances being required every 150' on street-fronting facades rather than eliminating entirely (i.e., require windows or openings vs. "entrances")requires discussion with Planning Board. Multi-family uses should not be stricken from the front porch requirement because the regulations of the overlay are not applicable to single-family uses. The language can be relaxed to make note of instances when that feature may not be feasible.

Planning Board October 8, 2013 MRD Overlay-ECUA Comments Page Two

Page 6 Staff would prefer that the requirement for "Articulation of Stories" language.

Pages 7-8 The section pertaining to utilities and service areas can be addressed via the Land Development Code's Section on Design Standards and Guidelines should the Planning Board agree to remove this language. Staff does not object to sign materials being removed as long as Planning Board review of signage remains.

Page 9 The district can not be expanded to the Maritime Park Properties, as that area is contained within the Waterfront Redevelopment District (WRD). That district is not an overlay, but an actual codified zoning district with a corresponding future land use designation of "Redevelopment District). It has separate residential density requirements per the City's Comprehensive Plan, and separate aesthetic review requirements (reviewed by the Planning Board) per the City's Land Development Code.

Page 10 The term "variance" has a connotation that implies the need to demonstrate a "hardship" to receive approval. We an add language making note of the Maritime Redevleopment District and the ability to grant waivers/modifications to the regulations. Staff would prefer, however, to include the actual provision in the Section specifically relating to the overlay district, and model the language after the Gateway Redevelopment District that states: (4) Regulations. Except where specific approval is granted by the Gateway Review Board due to unique and peculiar circumstances or needs resulting from the use, size, configuration or location of a site, requiring the modification of the regulations set forth below the regulations shall be as follows:

MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING BOARD MEETING September 10, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Ritz Chair, Kurt Larson Vice-Chair, Chips Kirschenfeld, Scott Sallis, Bradley Davis, David Collins, Nina Campbell Sherry Morris, Planning Services Administrator Alan Gray, AICP Steve Dana, Ken Ellzey, Bradley Odom, Bob Holmes, Wayne O'Hara, Tim Haag, Ron Butlin, John Johnson, Hazel Johnson, Brian Spencer, Christian Wagley, John Griffing, Dottie Dubuisson, Ann Hill, Sherry Myers

STAFF PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

AGENDA 1. Quorum/Call to Order 2. Approval of Prior Minutes 3. Public Hearing - Request for License to Use Rights of Way- Maritime One 4. Public Hearing - EAR-Based Zoning Map Amendments (continued) 5. Public Hearing - FLUM and Zoning Map Amendment for Previously Annexed Parcel 6. Public Hearing - Proposed Amendments to the Land Development Code Parking 7. Public Hearing - Proposed Amendments to the Land Development Code Minor License-to-Use Process 8. Public Hearing Reconsideration of Proposed Amendment to the Land Development Code Maritime Redevelopment District 9. New Business A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair B. Appointment of Planning Board member to Architectural Review Board 10. Old Business ITEMS 1 and 2: Quorum/Call to Order and Approval of Prior Minutes The City Clerk swore Ms. Nina Campbell in as a member. Mr. Bradley Davis made a motion to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by MR. Kurt Larson and it carried unanimously. ITEM 3: Public Hearing - Request for License to Use Rights of Way- Maritime One Sherry Morris explained the request is for Parcel 1 of the Community Maritime Park. The applicant is requesting use of the Main Street right-of-way for stairs, a ramp, and a concrete sidewalk. Mr. Jason Rebol represented the request. Mr. Rebol stated the request is to provide a pedestrian sidewalk, stairs, and ramp to provide a pedestrian friendly access to the new facility. Chairman Ritz stated the Board has approved other requests like this. Chairman Ritz stated he like this request because it incorporates pedestrian access in a new area.

Chairman Ritz called for any speakers and there were none. Mr. Scott Sallis said this is a good example of using the right-of-way. He explained that the right-of-way for this site is extra deep, so it is a better development to use that space. The way it's laid out is a benefit to the owner and the community. Chairman Ritz asked if there was a yearly fee for a License-to-Use and Sherry responded yes and that for a major encroachment the fee is $1,000 annually. Mr. Kurt Larson made a motion to approve. Mr. Bradley Davis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 4: Public Hearing EAR-Based Zoning Map Amendments (continued) Sherry Morris explained the past of the amendments, that they are follow-up to the EAR produce in 2011. She went on to explain that the properties being discussed today are described as follows: 540 E Fairfield DrCurrently zoned M-1, Light Industrial district. The Future Land Use designation is Commercial. Staff is recommending the zoning be changed to C3, commercial zoning district (wholesale and limited industry). Davis Hwy at Texar Dr Currently zoned M-1, Light Industrial district. The Future Land Use designation is Commercial. Staff is recommending the zoning be changed to C-3, commercial zoning district (wholesale and limited industry). Davis Hwy at Leonard St - Currently zoned M-1, Light Industrial district. The Future Land Use designation is Commercial. Staff is recommending the zoning be changed to C-3, commercial zoning district (wholesale and limited industry). Sherry Morris indicated the future land use on these parcels has already been changed, so the proposed zoning amendment is to bring the zoning designation in line with the future land use designations. Chairman Paul Ritz asked if the uses of the parcels were permitted under the proposed C3 zoning. Ms. Sherry Morris explained that the C-3 district is a rather permissive district that and when the uses were reviewed the uses were determined to be permitted under the proposed designation. Chairman Paul Ritz compared the zoning amendments to the regular progression of development and redevelopment and went on to say these sites are no longer used as industrial, they are used as C-3. Mr. Chips Kirschenfeld made a motion to approve the amendments. Mr. David Collins seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ITEM 5: Public Hearing FLUM and Zoning Map Amendment for Previously Annexed Parcel Sherry Morris explained that this parcel was annexed in July of 2012. typically, the future land use and zoning designation follow quickly. This is just the designation of the parcel

since it was previously County. Staff is recommending C-1 to match the remained of the site. Chairman Paul Ritz stated C-1 seemed correct because of the surrounding zoning and land uses. Mr. Scott Sallis stated he was glad to see this as part of the City. Chairman Paul Ritz noted there was no one from the public to speak to this request. Mr. Scott Sallis made a motion to approve the amendment. Mr. Bradley Davis seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ITEM 6: Proposed Amendments to the Land Development Code Parking Mr. Paul Ritz called upon Mr. Alan Gray to present. Mr. Alan Gray stated staffs recommendation is approval of the proposed parking amendment. He went on to explain that the amendment is a reduction to the required parking city-wide, then also an additional reduction within the CRA boundary. Mr. Alan Gray referenced the background data included in the agenda; he highlighted that other communities are doing this with great success. He explained that they are separating the urban and suburban parking requirements and that some other cities are not requiring any parking within urban cores. Mr. Alan Gray then reviewed the specifics of the proposed amendment. Mr. Gray also highlighted the concept that by reducing the amount of required parking, there is additional land available for development. Ms. Sherry Morris stated the historic districts and C-2A areas already don't require parking. She then stated this is the direction things are going. Chairman Paul Ritz stated the amendment is good for redevelopment and good for the built environment. He stated this is mimicking other large, urban cities that he enjoys and that it is normal in those areas to park on the edge of the city and walk where you want to go. Mr. Scott Sallis thanked staff for drafting the amendment. He stated that a lot of the numbers were established in the 70s and that it is a totally different development time. Mr. Sallis also pointed out that they still have minimums, so that helps. Mr. Sallis asked, in retail, for less than 5,000 square feet, what happens when the building is multi-use. Sherry Morris stated that during permit review we can break down the uses and come up with a required total. Mr. Scott Sallis noted that it's a big change to state minimums and that it frees people up to do more with their sites than just build parking. Mr. Scott Sallis stated that when you have 10 spaces or more, then paving is required. Mr. Sallis stated it should be 12 or more or 15 or more spaces before you have to pave. Mr. Alan Gray stated staff could do a comparative analysis to determine the appropriateness of that requirement. Mr. Sallis stated that architectural features sometimes increase parking requirement, kicking them over the limit to require paving, when there is not an actual need for the parking. Mr. Gray pointed out that the new requirements are simpler to compute and should also help to address that concern. Mr. Chips Kirschenfeld added that alternative paving materials are becoming more common. He said reinforced grass is being used and that allows for a pervious surface. He also added that just replacing buildings with rooftops is not helping the stormwater.

Mr. Alan Gray did acknowledge that the space could become a building, but there is the option to provide green space. He stated this is different because we are no longer requiring the pavement, so they will now have the option to do more with that space. Mr. Scott Sallis noted that the County has a stipulation that places of worship are exempt from parking. He stated that is may be an issue that staff wants to review. Mr. Scott Sallis made a motion to approve the amendment. Mr. Chips Kirschenfeld seconded the motion. Mr. Steve Dana addressed the Board. He stated he is excited to see the amendment and to see what the Planning department has put together. Mr. Ron Butlin, DIB, said his board has not taken action on the issue but that he did support it because it encourages an active downtown. He said thank you to staff for the effort. Ms. Nina Campbell stated thank you to the Planning Department for doing a great job and providing a nice overview of the proposal and enough supporting information from other areas. Mr. Paul Ritz also stated staff did a great job. Chairman Ritz called the question and it carried unanimously. ITEM 7: Proposed Amendments to the Land Development Code - Minor License-to-Use Process Sherry Morris introduced the item and explained the background. She stated that last year the LDC was amended to allow an administrative approval process for outdoor seating areas. She stated that the old process took about three months, so the idea is to simplify the process for minor uses. Sherry Morris explained it takes Planning Board, City Council, then execution of an agreement; she stated three months is a best-case scenario for this process. She said out-swinging doors are a common issue on Palafox. Building Code requires outswinging doors but that means the door is often encroaching. She explained that historically, this type of encroachment required the three month review process and the intent of this amendment is to allow an administrative approval. Sherry Morris also explained this new process would be allowed for driveway/parking area encroachments. Chairman. Paul Ritz thanked staff for removing some of the oversight from the Board. He stated that their focus should be the larger scale issues, not driveways and doors. Chairman Ritz also stated he liked the Mr. Chips Kirschenfeld asked if the insurance requirement would apply to a residential driveway. Sherry Morris stated the insurance requirement is for commercial uses and that for residential, the homeowner's insurance would cover it. Mr. Scott Sallis said thank you for the needed improvement to the Code. He then asked if this affects vacating right-of-ways. Sherry Morris stated no, vacations require public hearings.

Mr. John Johnson stated that there were no copies of the agenda for the audience. Mr. Paul Ritz stated he wasn't sure what happened. Sherry Morris said it was staff's mistake, there are normally copies. Mr. Kurt Larson made a motion to approve the amendment. Mr. Bradley Davis seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ITEM 8: Reconsideration of Proposed Amendment to the Land Development Code Maritime Redevelopment District Sherry Morris reviewed the timeline of the Maritime Redevelopment District amendment process. She explained the Maritime overlay district is replacing the Governmental Center District. Sherry Morris then reviewed the proposed boundaries for the district and explained that the overlay is about urban form and ensuring that development is engaging to pedestrians. Mr. Alan Gray presented images depicting the differences between a pedestrian-scaled street and a vehicle-scaled street. Sherry Morris explained that there is a build-to line as opposed to a minimum setback. She said the amendment also encourages active first floors and rear parking. She said there are enhanced screening standards for equipment. Sherry Morris stated that City Council approved this amendment and it went to first reading. She added that at second reading, City Council referred the amendment back to the Planning Board. Sherry Morris stated that Council did not make any recommended changes but that ECUA is here and may have comments. She stated there was a desire to add language that the Planning Board could grant variances to the overlay district and to add language that clarifies that standard development review procedures would be applicable. Alan Gray reviewed numerous examples of other cities that have adopted form-based code. Sherry Morris noted that the amendment is only applicable to multi-family or commercial. She stated that single-family residential is not subject to the district. Mr. Scott Sallis reiterated to the citizens that residents, living in single-family homes, will not be affected by the amendment at all. Mr. Scott Sallis explained that for a City, for Planners, the benefit is to build a better community. He stated that for the affected property owners, mainly ECUA, there is a fear that this will hinder development. We have to balance the need for regulations on growth with the argument that the regulations hinder and slow development. Chairman Paul Ritz stated they would be moving into the public comment section of this item. He stated that each speaker would be limited to three minutes. John R Johnson, 329 W Intendencia, stated it seems the highest and best use of the land is that is will be a big commercial district and the residences will be bought out over time. He then asked who appointed the members of the Planning Board. Chairman Ritz responded that they are appointed by City Council. Mrs. Hazel J Johnson, 329 W Intendencia, and I have been there since 1964. I raised 8 kids there and my husband died there. We complained about ECUA for years and nothing changed. They said it was a harmless smell but many people have died in that area.

Chairman Ritz asked the speaker if she had comments regarding the overlay district. Mrs. Johnson stated that she is waiting to see if people are going to try and take their property. Chairman Ritz stated that is not the intent. Mr. Steve Dana addressed the Board. He stated he applauds this effort. He then brought up a new facility being built in East Pensacola Heights. It's not form-based, it's check-list planning. We get bare minimum with the check-lists. A.K. Suter meets the current LDC but for that large parking lot, there is a 8' retaining wall on Cervantes, so there is not streetscape. The LDC requires parking islands within the parking lots, but doesn't require a number of plants to go in them, so at Suter they're full of mulch. Mr. Alan Gray stated that a number of people have given Mr. Bradley Odom their speaking time. Mr. Bradley Odom, General Counsel for ECUA, and like Mr. Sallis I was at the City Council meeting. ECUA and many others stated their concerns to Council. I believe everyone here wants to make Pensacola better. The guidelines do not scare ECUA but when they become requirements, we have more concern. Mr. Odom stated that design should not be regulated because it destroys creativity. He then added that any overlay needs to be flexible. He also stated that there is already an issue between the flood height regulations and build-to lines. Mr. Odom stated the Planning Board has specific powers but granting a variance is not one of their powers. We think Planning Board should have that power. Mr. Odom then reviewed other changes he would like considered such as hotels as approved uses and that procedurally, other items need addressed. He went on to say that portions are overly restrictive, such as entrances every 150 feet. He said that requiring a porch and dictating the size is too restrictive. Mr. Odom then concluded that he is relieved that City staff is considering clarifying language. He stated that ECUA is trying to start the dialogue to make this more about guidelines and not rigid requirements. He said the rigidity is too harsh when the Planning Board can't grant a variance. Mr. Bob Holmes then addressed the Board. He stated that he has concerns over the proposal. He said he is not opposed to governing the use but that the amendment is just way too much, way too soon. He said that until ECUA is redeveloped, it is too early to say what others can build. He said the proposed amendment is adding 150 acres to the architectural review process. Mr. Holmes said the intent is good but the approach is way off base. Mr. Holmes stated that he doesn't believing regulating architecture will cause development. Mr. Wayne O'Hara addressed the Board and stated he applauded the good work being done downtown. He said he's seen some major improvements and that we're all for a better community. Mr. O'Hara stated he owns land within the proposed overlay district. He stated he owns a construction business but that he may not be able to move forward with his plan because of the overlay district. Mr. O'Hara said he wants to be a good neighbor and that he hasn't always been able to attend the meetings but he does get the intent. He then asked how he can review and comment on the proposed overlay requirements. Mr. Scott Sallis explained that the discussion item today is for the overlay district, not the

rezoning of the industrial properties that has already been approved by Council. Mr. Sallis stated that the Planning Board recommended Mr. O'Hara's parcel be rezoned to C3 whereas staff had recommended C-2. Councilman Brian Spencer addressed the Board and thanked them for their dedication and volunteer service. He acknowledged the Board members often are on the receiving end of negative comments. He said the overlay creates a context of confidence for new development. Councilman Spencer said it is helpful to hear other Board members peaks at Council members; he said it provides clarification and incite that is often missing from their agendas. Councilman Spencer stated he feels the current LDC is not sufficient as redevelopment moves westward. He added that when he hear restrictions, he hears them as enhancements. Councilman Spencer stated that as an architect, he would argue that in fact, when I'm handed restrictions, it absolutely invites creativity. Mr. Christian Wagley, 801 E LaRua Street, stated he's followed this issue since the beginning, three or so years. He listed other cities that have already adopted similar, very reasonable requirements. He said to think about the historic districts that all deal with restrictions and standards that are far more restrictive than what is proposed with this overlay. He said no one would look at those areas and say the standards have hurt development, people would say the historic districts are thriving. Mr. Wagley said it's smart for the City to get out ahead of the development and adopt these very reasonable guidelines. He said that smart communities are doing this. He said Mr. Odom's comments about variances are correct but that's it's easily fixable. Mr. Wagley then said he supports the 150' entrance requirement; he stated the bare walls kill cities. Councilwoman Sherry Myers thanked staff and the Board for their work and creativity. She stated we need to look at how we are developing our downtown areas. She then said she shares some of Mr. Odom's concerns. She said that her understanding when Council tabled this item, it meant staff would have meetings with the citizens to address concerns. Councilwoman Myers said she is from Nashville and lived there for 38 years; she said she is familiar with Nashville and that the redevelopment there is something totally different from what we have here. Chairman Ritz stated that change is always tough. He stated it is the board's job to sift through all the concerns. Planning Board needs to guide Pensacola in its redevelopment. Chairman Ritz said he likes design guidelines; he said it provides solace that developments will be of a certain quality. Mr. Scott Sallis said he likes that they got red-line version of amendments, edited by ECUA, and to really review this, we need more time. He went on to say Mr. Odom's concern over granting variances needs addressed. Mr. Sallis said he wants the overlay to be a helpful, guiding hand, not a directive. He concluded that it is really healthy that we got input directly from ECUA. Mr. David Collins stated he has been a real estate broker since the 1980s. He said he's been a part of numerous developments, many in blighted areas. He said he understands all of the concerns, that being over-restrictive does limit what you can do. Mr. Collins said that Pier Park is an incredible place and I could see the ECUA site becoming something. I don't want to jump too quickly though; we need to make the right decisions.

The neighbors need to be a part of this. Sherry Morris stated that if the Planning Board wants additional time to review and discuss this item, that is an acceptable route moving forward. Chairman Ritz stated they do need to take time but not too much time. Mr. Kurt Larson made a motion to table this item and then come back at the next meeting to make a decision. Mr. David Collins seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Chairman Ritz stated to the audience that this item will be back on the agenda in October and he invited everyone back to give their input. Ms. Ann Hill asked that since this was tabled today, is this being pulled from Thursday's Council meeting. Sherry Morris said it is a rezoning going to City Council on Thursday, not the overlay district. Mr. Scott Sallis said that the overlay will come back to Planning Board, then to Council twice, and public comment is solicited at each step. ITEM 9: New Business Sherry Morris called for verbal nominations. Mr. Scott Sallis nominated Mr. Paul Ritz as chair and Mr. Ritz accepted the nomination. Mr. Kurt Larson seconded the nomination and it passed unanimously. Mr. Bradley Davis spoke to the 'swung and missed' comment made earlier in the meeting and re-iterated that everyone was trying to make Pensacola better. He thanked staff for all of the research and preparation that went into the process so that the Planning Board can make informed decisions. Mr. Kurt Larson nominated Mr. Scott Sallis as vice-chair. Mr. Bradley Davis seconded the nomination. Mr. Sallis accepted the nomination and it passed unanimously. Mr. Kurt Larson nominated Ms. Nina Campbell as the Planning Board's recommended appointment to the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Scott Sallis seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Ms. Dottie Dubuisson stated she is thankful to staff and asked about a charrette that was discussed during Council for the overlay. Chairman Ritz asked if a charrette or neighborhood meeting might be beneficial for all who are involved. Sherry Morris stated that staff could bring comments back at the October meeting and then at the October meeting we could discuss scheduling a charrette. Ms. Nina Campbell asked if the red-line version of the ECUA comments could be emailed out to the Planning Board and Sherry Morris stated she would send them out.

ITEM 10: Old Business The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING BOARD MEETING October 8, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Ritz Chair, Kurt Larson Vice-Chair, Chips Kirschenfeld, Scott Sallis, Bradley Davis, David Collins, Nina Campbell STAFF PRESENT: Elizabeth Schrey, Senior Planner Sherry Morris, Planning Services Administrator Alan Gray, Planner Tim Haag, Wayne O'Hara, Bradley Odom, Phil Partington, Bob Holmes, Dottie Dubuisson

OTHERS PRESENT:

AGENDA 1. Quorum/Call to Order 2. Approval of Prior Minutes 3. Request for License to Use Right of Way - Duh! 511 N. 9th Avenue .1 --: : S.- : 4. ' . - the Applicant This request has been withdrawn by Palafox Place 5. Public Hearing Maritime Redevelopment District Staff Review of ECUA Comments Provided at September 10, 2013 Meeting and Proposed Amendment to the Land Development Code 6. New Business 7. Old Business A) Request for Revision to Previously Approved Maritime Place Project 350 W Cedar Street CMPA, Parcel 2 ITEMS 1 and 2: Quorum/Call to Order and Approval of Prior Minutes Mr. Kurt Larson made a motion to approve the minutes with grammatical errors being corrected. The motion was seconded by Mr. Chips Kirschenfeld and it carried unanimously. ITEM 3: Request for License to Use Right of Way - Duh! 511 N. 9th Avenue Mrs. Elizabeth Schrey introduced the request and explained the applicant was seeking permission to construct three parking spaces in the Belmont Street right-of-way to accommodate the new additions to Duh! Chairman Paul Ritz stated he was happy to see the development and that right-of-way in that area is under-utilized. Mr. Kurt Larson said he liked the new parking layout and that access to the site has been provided from both 9th Ave and Wright St. Mr. Kurt Larson made a motion to approve the request. Mr. Chips Kirschenfeld asked about the loading zone. Mrs. Elizabeth Schrey stated the loading zone was previously on Belmont Street and with the new addition, a loading zone had been provided wholly within the site. Mr. Chips Kirschenfeld then seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. . - - : - - ITEM 4: p.. . - 200 Palafox Place This request has been withdrawn by the Applicant
- - :

ITEM 5: Maritime Redevelopment District Staff Review of ECUA Comments Provided

at September 10, 2013 Meeting and Proposed Amendment to the Land Development Code Mrs. Elizabeth Schrey introduced the item and explained to the Board the two elements of the discussion that needed to occur. She explained that first staff would be reviewing comments received from ECUA and related staff comments. She said that second the Board needs to direct staff how to modify the draft so that a final draft can be prepared and brought back for formal review. Mr. Scott Sallis commented that he reviewed the ECUA comments and staff responses and that the staff responses seem fair. Chairman Paul Ritz stated he also read the comments and responses and he agreed that they seem fair. Mr. Scott Sallis reminded the Board that their goal is to help the City be the best planners they can be. He said because their goal is to help the City as a whole, their perspective will be and should be different from others. Mr. Sallis went on to say the Board is tasked with being fair to development in a way that still creates beautiful, walkable streets for Pensacola. Chairman Paul Ritz stated that they need to be mindful that ECUA is only one of many stakeholders in this discussion. He also reminded the Board that the ECUA is up for sale. Mr. Scott Sallis then began the formal discussion of ECUA's comments and the staff responses to each. Mr. Sallis said he was in full agreement with staffs comments on page 1. He said he is firmly convinced that for this size of development, any investor would want to do it right, but, to make an extreme case, they will still always say they don't want the regulations. He then asked the Board whether they see the proposed regulations as a guiding hand or a slapping hand. Chairman Ritz stated he agreed with the staff response for page 1. Mr. Scott Sallis then asked about jurisdictional issues and whether the Planning Board can grant a variance. Mrs. Elizabeth Schrey directed the Board to the page 10 comment and explained that language similar to what the Gateway Review Board uses to grant modifications could be added to the proposed amendment. Chairman Ritz stated he liked the softer modification language because it allows for better discussion and better developments. There was then general discussion that a variance requires the demonstration of a hardship whereas a modification can be granted under many other circumstances. Chairman Ritz then asked for clarification regarding their proposed role under the amendment. Ms. Sherry Morris stated that for new developments, the Planning Board would be making a recommendation to City Council and for renovations/additions to existing buildings, the Planning Board would have the final say. Chairman Ritz stated he liked that the new process follows an existing review path. Ms. Nina Campbell asked if the regulations applied to residential. Ms. Sherry Morris said they do not apply to singlefamily residential but that they do apply to multi-family residential and commercial developments. Mr. Scott Sallis then went on to say he agreed with staff regarding the entrances. Chairman Ritz also stated he agreed with staff on page 5. Mr. Scott Sallis then said he agreed with staff on page 6. Chairman Ritz stated he liked the requirement for articulation of stories and offered examples of large, non-articulated

buildings in the area. Chairman Ritz then went on to say he agreed with staff on page 7-8, 9, and 10. Mr. Sallis then agreed with Chairman Ritz and went on to say he preferred the modification language to a variance because a variance process is too harsh. Chairman Ritz then called for public speakers to turn in their cards to staff. Chairman Ritz called Mr. Bradley Odom as the first speaker. Mr. Bradley Odom stated his address as 1800 N E Street and that he was speaking as ECUA's attorney. Mr. Odom stated that his first comment regarding street trees was not big deal; he said he thought it was out of place to mention street trees in only one location in the proposed amendment. Mr. Odom then said he was still concerned that staff uses 'requirement' as opposed to 'guidelines' and that the amendment is over-regulatory. He went on to say that requiring porches for all multi-family development is inappropriate. Mr. Odom then addressed the modification versus variance issue. He stated that because the modifications could only be for use, size, configuration, etc. that it is still overly restrictive. He reiterated that the overlay should be guidelines with a process for modifications and appeals. Mr. Odom said it is bad to dictate design criteria and that a lot would be fixed with making this guidelines and not requirements. Mr. Kurt Larson asked that if they are guidelines, how the legal system treats them. He asked how the Board could defend denying a plan if it doesn't meet guidelines. Mr. Odom responded that the Board would have to determine if a project meets the overall intent of the guidelines, and if not, a project could easily be denied. Chairman Ritz thanks Mr. Odom and called the next speaker, Mr. Bob Holmes. Mr. Holmes addressed the Board and stated he is one of the larger property owner's within the proposed overlay district. He went on to say he is normally not in favor of subjective authority, but that in this transitioning area it may be appropriate. Mr. Holmes then stated he was concerned that the regulations would diminish the value of the raw land. Mr. Holmes then said he generally agreed with Mr. Odom. Mr. Holmes went on to say that flexibility is better for growth in this are and that 136 acres is a lot to regulate. Chairman Ritz then stated he has watched development all over town. He said he has seen Dollar Generals and Family Dollars go up and that they will only build a metal building unless they are told they can't. He added that home values in North Hill and the other architecturally regulated districts are higher because people like the regulations and know that things they don't want won't be built there. Mr. Chips Kirschenfeld said he agreed with the Chairman that people like the places that have the heavy regulations. Mr. Scott Sallis added that Old East Hill, Aragon, and many of the other higher property value areas have stringent design regulations. Mr. Sallis concluded that he will always argue that design regulations are great because they increase property values. Ms. Nina Campbell stated she has heard property values around the ECUA site are increasing and the chatter around town is welcoming the regulations. She said the community sees the regulations as insurance, as a level of confidence,

because they will know what the area will look like in ten years. Mr. Scott Sallis referenced some projects he is working on in Gulf Breeze He said he is working on two similar homes, one in a covenant-restricted subdivision and one in a trachouse neighborhood. He said the lots are the same and houses are the same, but that the value of the land in the restricted subdivision was more than the one in the trac neighborhood. Mr. Bradley Davis said that Gulf Breeze passed guidelines a while back and that they were ok as guidelines, until someone built something that was ugly. Mr. Kurt Larson said he believed it will be market driven. Mr. Chips Kirschenfeld made a motion to agree with staff comments and for staff to present a clean draft reflecting the discussed revisions. Mr. Bradley Davis seconded the motion. Mr. Bradley Odom stated he was not clear on the motion, that he did not know how the entrance, utilities, and other issues would be addressed now. Mr. Kirschenfeld said the Board had discussed all the issues and that staff had an understanding of what needed changed. Mr. Scott Sallis asked specifically what Mr. Odom was not clear on. Mrs. Elizabeth Schrey said her understanding was that the Board agreed with the staff comments on the noted issues. Mrs. Sherry Morris added that the modification language is from the Gateway Review Board and it can be modified to allow for case-by-case modifications. Ms. Nina Campbell stated that the plan is to get a rough, final draft to Paul Ritz and Bradley Odom, and then a special meeting would be held to make a recommendation on the draft. It was noted that the final, revised draft would be made publicly available for review and comment prior to the special meeting. Chairman Ritz then called the question and it carried unanimously. ITEM 6: New Business Mrs. Elizabeth Schrey asked the Board when the special meeting for the review of the Maritime Overlay amendment should be scheduled. It was decided the special meeting would occur on November 12, 2013, at 1:30pm. Mr. Scott Sallis noted that the World of Beer item that was withdrawn from the agenda is a case that would have packed the room. He urged the Board that, when the item is before them for consideration, they keep focused on the issue they are being asked to decide and none of the other issues. Chairman Paul Ritz reminded the Board that under the Sunshine Laws they are not allowed to speak to each other about any of the Planning Board cases. Mr. Alan Gray announced to the Board that the City will be holding a celebration on October 24th in honor of Palafox Street being named one of the Great Places in America for 2013. ITEM 7: Old Business A) Request for Revision to Previously Approved Maritime Place Project - 350 W Cedar Street CMPA, Parcel 2

Mr. Philip Partington addressed the Board and presented the revised design for Maritime Place. He explained that the design has gone from a 3-story building to a 4-story building but that the site layout and design are not changed. Mr. Partington added that the height and parking requirements are still met with this proposal. Chairman Ritz stated the previous board reviewed and approved this plan and that he appreciated the development. He also added that he was glad that the market is strong enough to support a 4 th floor now. Ms. Nina Campbell asked about the demand for the 4" floor and Mr. Partington said it would be commercial. Chairman Ritz said it can be difficult to add a floor to a design once construction is underway. Mr. Partington responded that he had a good team on board that was capable of handling the adjustment. Ms. Nina Campbell asked about the square footage. Mr. Partington said the upper floors are approximately 19,000 square feet each, then the area tapers off on the lower floors. Mr. Kurt Larson asked if the necessary fire, plumbing, and other reviews had occurred already. Mr. Partington said they had not yet but are working towards that. Mr. Scott Sallis said the design change is a good thing and reminded the Board that the Maritime Park has an established set of design guidelines. He added that the guidelines supported a 4-story building on this site. Mr. Scott Sallis then made a motion to approve the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kurt Larson. Mr. Chips Kirschenfeld then asked if the building would have a green roof and Mr. Partington responded no. Chairman Ritz then called the question and the motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING BOARD MEETING November 12, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Ritz Chair, Chips Kirschenfeld, Scott Sallis, Bradley Davis, David Collins, Nina Campbell Elizabeth Schrey, Senior Planner Sherry Morris, Planning Services Administrator Alan Gray, Planner Ken Ellzey, Scott Andrews, John Griffing, Sharon Mellette, Donna Johnson, Tim Haag, Wayne O'Hara, Bradley Odom, Phil Partington, Bob Holmes, Dottie Dubuisson, Christian Wagley

STAFF PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

AGENDA 1. Quorum/Call to Order 2. Public Hearing Proposed Amendment to the Land Development Code Maritime Redevelopment District ITEMS 1: Quorum/Call to Order Chairman Paul Ritz noted a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 1:37. ITEM 2: Public Hearing Proposed Amendment to the Land Development Code Maritime Redevelopment District Chairman Ritz stated that the purpose of the special meeting is to make a recommendation on the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code establishing the Maritime Redevelopment District. Chairman Ritz explained that at the October meeting, the Planning Board voted to approve revisions to the proposed amendment and also directed staff to schedule the special meeting to hammer out the final decision on the proposal. Mr. Alan Gray stated that staff wanted to review some of the changes made to the draft. Ms. Elizabeth Schrey stated the main revisions were that language for modifications and appeals was added as well as a few minor revisions to the paragraph on signs and on redevelopment. Chairman Ritz noted that the Planning Board vote is only a recommendation to City Council, not the final decision. Mr. Gray noted that the changes approved at the October meeting addressed most of the comments submitted by Emerald Coast Utility Authority. Mr. Wayne O'Hara stated he owns a number of properties within the affected area. He then thanked the Board for the opportunity to comment and for their efforts to enhance development. He went on to say he had a few concerns. First, he noted that the expansion of boundaries is not appropriate because it is mostly single-family residential, churches, or small shops. He then noted that implementation would cause issues. He explained that the amendment contains references to office, hotels, restaurants, shops, and other uses that are not consistent with what is already there. Mr. O'Hara said that the C-2 zoning allows a long list of uses but does not list the hotels and restaurants. Chairman Ritz clarified that the zoning is cumulative, so the uses allowed in the lower zoning categories

would be allowed here. Mr. O'Hara then asked whether the zoning or the overlay took precedence. Chairman Ritz explained that the zoning and overlay both apply and that the overlay only established additional aesthetic regulations. Mr. O'Hara then asked if a warehouse would be allowed on a C-3 lot within the MRD area. Ms. Schrey stated yes, it would be allowed, but it would be subject to the aesthetic requirements of the MRD design regulations. Mr. Gray then stated the overlay does not affect the allowed uses. Mr. Gray stated this area has a special need for aesthetic review because of it's proximity to downtown and the other review districts. Mr. O'Hara stated the overlay puts a premium on aesthetics that he didn't like. Chairman Ritz said that the citizens of the area were happy when the wastewater treatment plant was moved and that they won't want to see the same move back in. Mr. Gray then explained how aesthetic regulations increase property values over time, which also increases tax revenue for the City. Mr. O'Hara then said there is a reason that hotels and other businesses aren't in this area; he said people don't want to buy there. Mr. O'Hara then asked about appeals if a project is denied and about a timeline for decisions. Chairman Ritz stated that the appeals process and a timeline for decisions are already addressed in the amendment. Mr. O'Hara then asked is chain link fences were prohibited for everyone. Chairman Ritz responded yes. Mr. Bob Holmes then addressed the Board and asked why the property south of Main Street was not included in the proposed district. Chairman Ritz stated that area has aesthetic requirements already. Ms. Sherry Morris noted that the actual zoning designation in that area contains design regulations and any development in that area already goes to the Planning Board for review and approval. Mr. Holmes then said that he understands the intent is to enhance property values, but that he was concerned for flexibility within the review process. He added that the area is in transition and that should be accounted for. Mr. Ken Ellzey addressed the Board and stated he was donating his speaking time to Mr. Bradley Odom. Ms. Dottie Dubuisson stated that Mr. Gray told her that this is changing the waterfront and that she thought the Waterfront Redevelopment Area was doing that. She then stated a transition into these requirements would be good. Ms. Dubuisson stated that the City should consider capping Homestead Exemption taxes for single-family residences in the area so that the existing residences will be able to afford to stay. Chairman Ritz said the Land Development Code could not address taxes. Ms. Dubuisson then said that if the Planning Board would at least give Council the proposal, it would get there attention. Mr. Christian Wagley addressed the Board and stated he had been following the amendment since it was first proposed in 2010. He said the overlay is a modest step towards implementing form-based planning. He said the standards are very reasonable and that data shows the process works. Mr. Wagley said the regulations will foster predictability in the marketplace and noted that the historic districts are thriving under their current, much stricter regulations. He concluded by stating that change is hard but that this is a good step forward for Pensacola. Mr. Bradley Odom addressed the Board and stated there was confusion because there were multiple versions of the draft amendment being circulated. He went on to say that

ECUA still does not support the amendment because it may cause the property to lay fallow for a great length of time. Mr. Odom then stated that a number of concerns such as a need for written orders, regulations pertaining to failure to review plans, no need to review interior layouts, and that the modification language added to the draft doesn't allow enough flexibility. Mr. Odom said that the amendment contains language for regulations and guidelines and that it was confusing to use both words. Mr. Odom said the requirement for porches for multi-family development is not a wise thing to regulate. Chairman Ritz stated that he wasn't sure Mr. Odom was correct because they like design regulations. Mr. Odom said that the amendment decreases the square footage available for development. Mr. Odom noted that the City Council needs the ability to modify requirements. Ms. Schrey asked the Board if she could offer a staff response to Mr. Odom's comments. Chairman Ritz agreed and Ms. Schrey addressed the Board. She stated staff does not have an objection to preparing written orders however meeting minutes are created for every meeting, so it may be a duplication of efforts to do both. Ms. Schrey then stated that there is already a timeline requirement for reviewing projects, so the language Mr. Odom referenced was not needed. Ms. Schrey stated that the amendment will not regulate interior layout and that is why that provision was stricken from the amendment. Ms. Schrey went on to state that the amendment contains both regulations and guidelines and so use of both terms is appropriate. Ms. Schrey then stated that the language added for modifications is already in use in the City of Pensacola and works to allow flexibility in the process. She stated that the Planning Board has heard comments on the porches for multi-family, but that staff had never been directed to change that requirement. Ms. Schrey then also clarified the paragraph pertaining to appeals and issuance and/or revocation of building permits. Chairman Ritz stated that the discussion brings to mind other areas. He said he is almost surprised there hadn't been an uproar from the citizens in North Hill who are regulated down to the color paint. He said change is hard no matter what. Chairman Ritz said he lives in East Hill and 100 years ago it was farmland. He said that now, he can't have cows and goats because the zoning changed. The City codes changes; some people like it and some don't. He added that some of the issues brought forward are legitimate. Chairman Ritz said a timeline for approval is important and tabling is always an issue. He also said that the City Council does not issue written orders on their votes, that they just have meeting minutes. Mr. Chips Kirschenfeld asked two questions. For Section 12-13-2, the question was asked if that section allows for variances and Mr. Kirschenfeld asked for staff to address that issue. Mr. Kirschenfeld then asked about the section detailing first-floor uses. He said that 'shall be only' is too restrictive and wouldn't allow the examples mentioned, a gym or a hotel. Chairman Ritz said hotel is included as residential. Ms. Morris stated the uses listed that were not meant to be all-inclusive but rather demonstrative of the types of active, first-floor uses sought for the principal streets in the district. She went on to say that the language in question could be softened. Chairman Ritz asked if what is allowed for the zoning could be included in the section. Ms. Schrey offered that the sentence could say 'includes but not limited to' and that would give the flexibility needed.

Mr. David Collins asked if a special tax district was proposed for this area. Chairman Ritz said the area is already part of the Community Redevelopment Area. Mr. Collins then asked about fences and non-conforming uses. He said that if a fence is destroyed or if you want to replace more than half, you will have to replace the whole thing under current regulations. Ms. Morris said the fencing is the only issue in the amendment that will impact single-family residential. Chairman Ritz said he would like to add language that if 50% or less of a fence is being replaced, then the fence can be re-built as it previously stood, but that if more than 60% needs replaced, the fence must meet the new regulations. Mr. Collins then asked what other vacant land is in the proposed district. Mr. Gray then showed the Board aerial photography of the area. Mr. Kirschenfeld asked about the Planning Board's ability to grant variances. Ms. Schrey addressed the Board and stated that the amendment allows the Planning Board to grant modifications and not formal variances, so the Board is still within their approved powers. Ms. Schrey then read the modification language to the Board and stated that any formal variances could still go to the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Chairman Ritz said historically the Zoning Board provides variances, not the Planning Board. Mr. Scott Sallis said they will have to have some sort of variance ability. Sherry Morris said ARB does grant variances but that GRB only grants modifications and that in some situations a development may have to go before multiple boards. Mr. Sallis said the Gateway Review Board is the easiest board to put a development in front of. He said that should be encouraging to ECUA and others. Mr. Sallis asked Mr. Gray to show the map of the proposed district. Mr. Sallis said the overlay area is a blighted area of town, but that if you look where the people, land value, and businesses are, you will see that the regulations do really work. Mr. Sallis went on to say that with more regulations come higher values and more density. He said he is no longer afraid to use the word regulation and that he stands behind the amendment. He said he has seen the ARB require people to use certain windows and colors. Mr. Sallis said that sometimes regulations are hard but that they can do great things. He said he is looking towards the day that the overlay area has the highest values. He said he celebrates no new chain link fences. Mr. Sallis then noted a few additional changes he would like to see; he noted language for written approvals need added, that tabling should be limited, and that the first floor language should be changed to be 'includes but not limited to.' Ms. Schrey stated they can't regulate tabling an item. Mr. Sallis said having a timeline for review is appropriate then. Mr. Sall is then made a motion to recommend approval with the changes he just discussed. Mr. Chips Kirschenfeld seconded the motion. Chairman Ritz called the question and it was approved unanimously. Chairman Ritz then said City Council has the final say because the Planning Board vote is only a recommendation. Sherry Morris said this item would either go to the December or January City Council meeting for their consideration. The meeting was adjourned at 2:58 p.m.

PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO BE ENTITLED: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-2-22 AND SECTION 1213-3. OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA; AMENDING THE GOVERNMENTAL CENTER DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND BOUNDARIES; AND AMENDING THE DUTIES OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA: Chapter 12-2-22 of the Code of the City of SECTION 1. Pensacola, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec.

12-2-22.

Governmental

ccntcr

district.

Maritime

Redevelopment District

(A) Purpose of district. The purpose for the establishment of this overlay district is to provide thc promote and encourage redevelopment of a centralized arca for government related land usc; of the existing urban commercial areas and neighborhoods surrounding the Community Maritime Park and to encourage a coordinated architectural character within the district. The
additional objectives of this district are to provide a mixture of residential, office, hotel, and commercial uses that complement the residential and mixed-use character of the district; encourage quality redevelopment; promote multimodal transportation and create high-quality urban streetscapes by using buildings and sidewalks, and street trees to form a pleasant, convenient and safe environment designed for pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit, and automobiles; and to promote retail and office uses that serve the surrounding neighborhoods and enhance the existing commercial areas and the Community Maritime Park. (1) Definitions.

(a) Awning: An architectural projection roofed with material exterior wall of a building. supported entirely from the (b) Colonnade or Arcade: A covered, open-air walkway at standard sidewalk level attached to or integral with the is supported overhead frontage; the structure building architecturally by columns or arches along the sidewalk. (c) Glazing: The design and placement of windows and entrances building facade. in a (d) Stoop: A small platform, entrance stairway at a house door, or both, covered by a secondary roof or awning. The stoop projects from the primary building plane. Those portions of Government Street, (e) Principal Streets: Spring Street, Main Street, A Street, Garden Street and Reus Street within the District. (B) Procedure for review and approval of plans. (1) Submission of plans. Every application for a building permit to erect, construct, renovate and/or alter an exterior of a building, or sign, located or to be located in the district shall be accompanied by plans for the proposed work. As used herein, "plans" shall mean drawings or sketches with sufficient detail to show, as far as they relate to exterior appearance, the architectural design of the building or sign, (both before and after the proposed work is done in the cases of altering, renovating, demolishing or razing a building or structure) including proposed materials, and colors, and the plat plan or site layout, including all site improvements or features such as walls, fences, walks, terraces, plantings, accessory buildings, paved areas, signs, lights, awnings, canopies, screening and other appurtenances. Such plans shall be promptly forwarded by the building official to the Planning Board architcctural rcvicw board. Thc building official or his dcsigncc shall scrvc as sccrctary to thc board. (2) Review and approval by the Planning Board architcctural rcvicw board. All such plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Board architectural review board as established in section 12-13-2 3 and in accordance----t-he I A z =. n- ..14; to the historic zoning districts. The board shall adopt written rules and procedures for abbreviated review for paint colors, signs, minor repairs, emergency repairs, and minor deviations in

projects already approved by the board. This process may authorize the Planning Board to designate one of its members to undertake such abbreviated review without the necessity for review by the entire board._ , provided, however such of thc downtown improvement board and thc staff of the Historic z = ---= it pertains to an abbreviated review by the board designee,
A. NW IP

review board then the matter will be rcfcrrcd to the full board for a decision. (3) Notification and building permit. Upon receiving thc ordcr

applicant of thc board's decision. If the board approves the plans, and if all other requirements of the city have been met, the building official shall issue a permit for the proposed building or sign. If the board disapproves the plans, the building official shall not issue such permit. In a case where the board disapproves the plans, the secretary of the board shall furnish the applicant with a copy of the board's written order, and may at the discretion of t The board may include recommendations for changes necessary to be made before the board will reconsider the plans. (4) Failure to review plans. If no action upon plans submitted to the board has been taken at the expiration of thirty-one (31) days from the date of submission of the application for a building permit and required plans to the board, such plans shall be deemed to have been approved, and if all other requirements of the city have been met, the building official shall issue a permit for the proposed building or sign. (C) Decisions. Every decision of the board, in their review of plans for building or signs located or to be located in the district shall be in the form of a written order stating the finding of the board, its decision and the reasons therefore. The board may at its discretion make recommendations for changes necessary to be made before the plans will be reconsidered. If recommendations for changes are made by the board, they may be general in scope and compliance with them shall only qualify the plans for reconsideration by the board but compliance with recommendations shall not bind or stop the board from disapproving the plans under reconsideration.


that the pr poocd erection, construction, renovation and/or altcration is not compatible with thc built cnvironmcnt of thc govcrnmcntal ccntcr district.
Z.S.

board shall not cxercisc any control vcr land use, such as is governed by thc city's zoning ordinancc, Chaptcrs 12 2 and 12 3 hcrcof, or ovcr construction, such as is govcrncd by thc city's building codcs. (c) Plans for proposed new or altered

following provisions: The board may adopt and promulgate rules and regulations --= --= materials, relating such rules to the number of square feet f business. Such rules and served, frontage, and type
emeu-nc-4-1,-

1.

2.

Within the governmental center district,

roof signs,

.-Z

overhanging the public right of way are hereby prohibited except as set forth herein. February 22, 1979, may remain until the business for which the sign was erected ceases to do business at that location or until the property on which such sign is located is acquired for a public purpose, which ever shall first occur. 4. On application to the approval of the board, rules relating to the number and size of signs may be waived for grand

(D) Regulations and guidelines for any development within the District. In addition to the Design Standards and Guidelines contained in Section 12-2-82 of this Chapter, the following requirements shall apply. These regulations and guidelines are intended to address the design and construction of elements common to any development within the District. Infill development in the District shall follow principles of good

urban design and form, not suburban form. Except where specific approval is granted by the Planning Board due to unique and peculiar circumstances or needs resulting from the use, size, configuration, or location of a site, requiring the modification of the regulations set forth below, the regulations shall be as follows (1) Building relationship to the street.

(a) All non-residential buildings shall have a main entrance facing the street, and first floor multi-family units shall have an individual entrance on the street. (b)The length of street-fronting facade without an intervening opening shall not exceed 150 feet. Additionally, blank walls shall not exceed a length of fifty (50) feet, or twenty (20) percent of the length of the building facing the street, whichever is less, and receive design treatment to increase pedestrian comfort and interest. (c) Sidewalk connections to the public sidewalk must be provided from all main building entrances that face the street. These connections shall provide at least 5 feet of unobstructed width and be aligned to minimize walking distance. (d) Front porches for multi-family uses. a. Residential units on the first floor along a street shall have individual front porches. b. Front porches shall have a minimum surface area of 25 square feet with a minimum depth of 5 feet and a minimum width of 5 feet c. Front porches shall be open and not air conditioned. d. Front porches may only be screened where they are located behind the build-to line. (e) Articulation of stories. The area between the first and second building floors along all street frontages shall be architecturally delineated. (f) Buildings shall define primary street edges with parking generally located to the rear of the building; however parking may be located elsewhere with Planning Board approval. (g) Developments shall contribute to the pedestrian urban experience with buildings fronting streets, build-to-lines of 10' being complied with per the Dense Business Area requirements, sidewalks, commercial storefronts or residential

stoops and details such as awnings, canopies and arcades and create active, urban street edges with commercial storefronts, and residential stoops and porches fronting streets and sidewalks. (2) First floor uses.

(a) Principal streets: first-story uses with street frontage shall include but not be limited to retail, restaurants, office, institutional, or residential. (b) Outdoor seating may encroach into the adjacent sidewalk provided that a minimum clear width of 5' is maintained for pedestrian access and the business shall provide the City with proof of insurance for the subject area. (c) Balconies, marquees, projecting signs, and awnings may encroach into the sidewalk zone up to a distance of half the least required sidewalk dimension, provided that they are at 9' above the grade of the sidewalk. (3) Walls, Fences and Mechanical Equipment. (a) Fences made of chain-link (wholly or in part) are prohibited. Where an existing chain-link fence needs repair, if less than 50% is being replaced, the fence may be repaired with chain-link. If greater than 50% is being replaced, the fence shall not be chain-link. (b) Mechanical equipment shall not be permitted between any building and Principal streets. (c) Screening that exceeds the height of the equipment shall be required if the equipment is visible from the street or adjacent properties. (d) Certain elements of the building shall not be considered as mechanical equipment, such as rain barrels or cisterns but shall be designed as part of the building and with the same materials and colors, and shall not require screening. (e) Chiller Plants and similar utility structures shall not be permitted between any building and Principal street. Opaque walls shall be provided between the chiller and a private or public street.

Rooftop mechanical equipment. All rooftop mechanical (f) equipment shall be screened from public view from both above and below by integrating it into building and roof design. (g) All telephones, vending machines, or any facilities dispensing merchandise, or a service on private property, shall be confined to a space built into the building or buildings or enclosed in a separate structure compatible with the main building(s). All exterior forms, attached or not to buildings shall be in conformity to and secondary to the building. They shall be designed and located to be an asset to the aesthetics of the site and to the District. Sign Regulations in Chapter 12-4 and the following (4) Signs. additional regulations shall apply within the District: Signs shall generally be externally lit but internally (a) lit signs may be allowed by the Planning Board.

(5) Redevelopment opportunities will present transformative opportunities for the District Density bonuses as authorized by Section 12-2-80 will be available for developments that conform with the recommendations contained in the Urban Core CRA Plan.

(E) Disqualification of member from voting. Any member of the

Planning Board who shall be employed to design or construct a building or who shall have any proprietary tenancy or personal interest in such building requiring approval of plans by the board shall be disqualified from voting thereon. Procedure for review of Planning Board decisions. Any (F) person or entity whose property interests are substantially affected by a decision of the Planning Board may, within fifteen (15) days thereafter, apply to the city council for review of the board's decision. A written notice shall be filed with the city clerk requesting the council to review said decision. If the applicant obtains a building permit within the fifteen-day time period specified for review of a board decision, said permit may be subject to revocation and any work undertaken in accordance with said permit may be required to be removed. The appellant shall be required to pay an application fee according to the current schedule of fees established by the city council for the particular category of application. This fee shall be nonrefundable irrespective of the final disposition of the application.

Boundaries of the district. The boundaries of the (E G) govcrnmcntal ccntor district shall be as outlined on Map 12-2.2.
(Ord. No. 45-96, 5, 9-12-96)

ft

5 ft

varies travel lanes

.1_

5f1

10 ff

5orNft Wild to line

sidew alk zone

landscape zone

andscape zone

sidewalk zone

Chapter 12-13-3 of the Code of the City of SECTION 2. Pensacola, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Sec. 12-13-3. (E) Duties. The Board shall have as its purpose the preservation and protection of buildings of historic and architectural value and the maintenance and enhancement of distinctive character of the following district: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Sec. 12-13-3. (E) Duties. The Board shall have as its purpose the preservation and protection of buildings of historic and architectural value and the maintenance and enhancement of distinctive character of the following district: a. Pensacola Historic District. Refer to section 12-2-10(A). b. North Hill Preservation District. Refer to section 12-2-10(B). c. Old East Hill Preservation District. Refer to section 12-2-10(C). d. Palafox Historic Business District. Refer to section 12-2-21. e. Governmental Center District. Refer to section 12 2 22. SECTION 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage by the City Council.

Passed:

Approved: President of City Council Attest:

City Clerk

Legal in form and valid as drawn:

City Attorney

newsy)
Published Daily-Pensacola, Escambia County, FL

T PENSACOLA,"

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
State of Florida County of Escambia: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Virginia Hollingsworth who, on oath, says that she is a personal representative of the Pensacola News Journal, a daily newspaper published in Escambia County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal in the matter of:

Notice of Public Hearing and Quasi-Judicial Hearing

NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING and QUASI JUDICIAL NEARING

On Thursday, January 9, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Half, 222 West Main Street, the Pensacola City Council will conduct hearings to consider the following: " Public Hearing: Proposed Amendment to Section 12-2-22 of the Land Development Code- Maritime Redevelopment District Overlay (formerly Govern mental Center District). " Quasi-Judicial Hearing: Final Subdivision Plat- The Enclave at Strong Street. You are not required to respond or take any action regarding this notice; but if you wish to speak before the City Council on this subject, you are invited to be present at the scheduled public hearing. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, such person will need a record of the proceedings, and that for such purpose, he/she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. For additional information on this matter, please call Plan fling Services at (850) 435-1670. By direction The City Council, Ericial L. City Cleric Legal No. 1816119 1T December 302013

Was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of: December 30, 2013

Affiant further says that the said Pensacola News Journal is a newspaper published in said Escambia County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been published in said Escambia County, Florida, and has been entered as second class matter at the Post Office in said Escambia County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th Day of December, 2013, by Virginia Hollingsworth, who is personally known to me. Affiant Notary Public

RECENE D BY

GILLIAN L. WARD
NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF FLORIDA

COMMISSION #EE835572
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 17, 2016

 PENSACOLA Jo
N

pru. COM

Published Daily-Pensacola, Escambia County, FL

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
State of Florida County of Escambia: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Virginia Hollingsworth who, on oath, says that she is a personal representative of the Pensacola News Journal, a daily newspaper published in Escambia County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal in the matter of:
***TIM FOLLOWING AD WAS MIN IN MINOR ON 1/13/14 P.O. 001.14 DID NOT MOVE FORWARD FOR FIRST INIADMO Al TIM ITEM FAILED IN PUBLIC NUMMI ON 114" NOTICE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE

The Following Ad Was Run in Error on 1/13/14: Notice of Proposed Ordinance

Was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of: January 14, 2014

Please be advised that Proposed Ordinance No. 01-14 was presented to the Oily Council of the City of Pensacola for first reading on Thun3day, January 9, 2014 and will be presented for final reading and adoption on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers on the First Floor of City Hall, 222 West Main Street, Pensacola, Florida. The title of the proposed ordhomoo Is as follows: P.O. #01 -14:

AN ORDINANCE MENDING SECTION 1E242 AND SECTION 12.134 maw AMENDING ma NovOF TIM coos OF INN CITY or PENSACOLk_ 1 : 0 MOIMONTAL MINTER DISTMCT REGULATIONS AND NOUNDA1 inamcieS =::: TIM DUMAS OF TIM onconscrusum RITINEV AAIN DATL FORW MABILIrf; REMIALING CLAUSE; PROYMING AN

Affiant further says that the said Pensacola News Journal is a newspaper published in said Escambia County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been published in said Escambia County, Florida, and has been entered as second class matter at the Post Office in said Escambia County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th Day of January, 2014, by Virginia Hollingsworth, who is personally known to me. Affiant Notary Public

by pubic in the A copy of the proposed ordinance may be \Artist-Mein Street, Penoffice, located on the 7th Floor of City Hall, City Clerk's sacola, Florida, or on-line on the City's website: kiterested parties may http://cityofpensacola.corn/AgendaCenter/City-Council-1 appear at the Council meeting and be heard With respect to proposed ordnences. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or public hearing, sUCNIIIiplio Ir V toed to inrr eict sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, ,,whati includes the testimony and any evidence upon which the appeal is to be based , The City of Pensacola adheres to the Americans with Oliellbes Act and WI make reasonable accommodations for access to city services, pioams and . Reactivities. Please call 435-1808 (or MO 435-1688) for Whir must be made at least 48 hours In advance of the event in order to allow .1e);ttity time to provide the requested services. arr OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA By: Ericka L Burnett, City Clerk
Vleft Csoeoll s were Moot - CAM aeNtedes.

Legal No. 1817230 Tr January 14, 2014

GILLIAN L. WARD
NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION #EEE35572 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 17, 2016

j PENSACOLA

JO PniCOM

Published Daily-Pensacola, Escambia County, FL

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
State of Florida County of Escambia: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Virginia Hollingsworth who, on oath, says that she is a personal representative of the Pensacola News Journal, a daily newspaper published in Escambia County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal in the matter of:

NOTICE OF PROPOSED onomemat

Please be advised that Proposed Ordinance No. 01-14 was presented to the City Council of the City of Pensacola for first reading on Thursday, January 9, 2014 and will be presented for final reading and adoption on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers on the First Floor of City Hall, 222 West Main Street, Pensacola, Florida. Ms Mb of Ms proposed ofdlasomm Is as Mown
MI ORvJICL AMMENNO SECTION 12-1122 ANDAMICTION 1S13-3 OF TIM CODE OF ml CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORNIAAMENDING MI GOVERNMENTAL MITER DISTRICT REGULATIONS SOUNDAIr&DM INI: AMENDING THE MMES OF MI ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR samuunurv; REPEALING mug% FROVERIM AN IPPICTIVI DAM

Notice of Proposed Ordinance Was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of: January 13, 2014

Affiant further says that the said Pensacola News Journal is a newspaper published in said Escambia County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been published in said Escambia County, Florida, and has been entered as second class matter at the Post Office in said Escambia County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13th Day of January, 2014, by Virginia Hollingsworth, who is personally known tome. Affiant Notary Public

A copy of the proposed ordinance may be inspected by the public in the . City Clerk's office, located on the 7th Floor of City Hall, 222 West Main Street, Pensacola, Florida, or on-line on the 's website: http://cityofpentrecola.com/. /City-Count:N-1 . Interested parties may appear at the Council meeting and be heard with respect to proposed ordinances. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or public hearing, such person may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and any evidence on which the appeal is to be based. The City of Pensacola adheres to the Americans with Disrt gitles Act and will make reasonable accommodations for access to city services, programs and activities. Please call 435-18013 (or TOO 435-1688) for further information. Remust be made at least 48 hours in advance of the event in; order to allow %eft; time to provide the requested services. err( OF PENSACOLA, POONA By: Ericka L Burnett, City Clerk

Visit www.oltyolponosodaaam to barn more about City adirldes. Cons' agonies postod onano before mootiags.
Legal No. 1616897 1T January 13, 2014

GILLIAN L. WARD
NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION #EE835572 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 17, 2016

RECEIVED BY JAN CITY CLERK