Pensacola planning board approves aesthetic review for 50 S. 9th after contested lot‑coverage debate

The Pensacola Planning Board on July 7 approved the final aesthetic review for the proposed 7‑story residential and clubhouse project at 50 South 9th Avenue after a rehearing prompted by a City Council remand. The vote followed a day of testimony and a technical dispute over how to count pervious pavers and elevated building elements when calculating the district's maximum lot coverage.

The board's decision, made by a simple majority after deliberation, accepted the applicant's revised, signed and sealed civil area calculations and the design changes submitted at the hearing. The motion to approve specified that the action related to the aesthetic review only; stormwater design and permitting remain separate processes.

Why it matters: neighbors and the intervener argued the development could exceed the Gateway Redevelopment District limit that caps impervious surfaces at 75% of a site, a standard intended to preserve green area and reduce runoff in a flood‑prone neighborhood. Opponents urged strict application of the code to avoid setting a precedent that would allow future projects to circumvent the requirement.

What witnesses said: the applicant's civil team presented a detailed area exhibit showing the site's total impervious coverage at 74.87%, and civil engineer Paul Battle affirmed he had signed and sealed those calculations. "The total impervious area for the site is 74.87," Jason Reebel, a project manager on the civil team, testified during the presentation of the exhibit.

The intervener's consultant, licensed civil engineer Emmanuel Masindoki, testified that his independent review, which counted building overhangs and elevated pool/deck areas as impervious, produced a substantially higher figure. "Based on my assessment, the total lot coverage is 81.3%" under his methodology, Masindoki told the board, and he later revised his calculation on the record to roughly 80.61% when incorporating materials submitted at the hearing.

City staff told the board that the land development code does not define "impervious" explicitly and that planning practice has often excluded balconies and overhangs from lot‑coverage counts when the ground beneath is open (no foundation or slab). Greg Harding, assistant planning and zoning division manager, said that previous reviews had treated certain elevated elements as not counting toward lot coverage, and that the code's landscape definition includes nonliving durable materials such as pavers.

Petitioner and neighborhood concerns: Dr. Paul Tambura, a long‑time nearby resident who testified for the intervener, described repeated flooding at his property on South 9th Avenue and argued the lot‑coverage limit protects neighborhood investment and flood resilience. "The ordinance limiting lot coverage isn't ... a suggestion. It exists to preserve green space," Tambura said.

Board deliberation and outcome: board members split over whether to apply the plain language of the code (counting any covered structure or impervious surface) or to follow city planning practice excluding open overhangs. Several members said they would defer to staff interpretation and the applicant's signed and sealed civil exhibit; others said the petitioner's engineer raised substantial concerns. Ultimately the motion to approve the aesthetic review, using the applicant's revised drawings and the stamped civil calculations presented at the hearing, carried by a simple majority.

Next steps: the board framed the action as the final aesthetic review; other technical approvals, including stormwater permitting, remain with staff and permitting processes. The meeting was adjourned following the vote.