Planning Commission on 2023-10-04 9:00 AM

coming up the workshop uh is there any changes or deletions or anything that in the agenda

yes sir need to go over yes sir there are three items on the agenda that have had at least some level of ever advertising that may be addressed that's ldpd 2023-22 the dunson self-storage the case has been withdrawn ldcu 2023-36 the farm worker housing is continued to november 1st and ldpd 2023-23 the north us 98 pd is being continued to december 6th okay hold on a second

i just found my paper here now which i apologize can you go back over that again yes sir ldpd 2023-22

the dunson self-storage has been withdrawn i have that on here it's under continued oh okay ldcu 2023-36 the farm worker housing is being continued november 1st and ldpd 2023-23 us 98 north pd is being

continued december 6th anything else any questions okay we'll reconvene at nine o'clock thank you okay at this time i'd like to call the the planning commission meeting to order can we have a roll call for determination please brenny heath here david dalton i'm present mike hickman here tommy

addison mike schmidt and angel simms here mr chair we have a quorum okay great thank you if we can all

stand for the pledge of allegiance please okay at this time i'd entertain a motion to adopt the minutes

from the august meeting or september meeting i'm sorry so moved second you got a motion in second all in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries thank you at this time we need to discuss in the condition

or the revisions of the agenda yes sir ldpd 2023-22 dunson self-storage has been withdrawn ldcu 2023-36 is being continued to november 1st and ldpd 2023-23 is being continued december 6th

is that it yes sir okay at this time i'd like to entertain a motion to accept the revisions to the agenda second the motion second all in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries thank you at this time if we could explain the general procedures to the audience please yes good morning general procedures

the office of planning and development will introduce the case and disclose any responses to the notification which were not already provided to the planning commission in their packets the office of planning and development will present their staff report and recommendation anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case will be sworn in the applicant and others in support or opposition of the case will be given the opportunity to speak the applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to any opposition testimony the commission will discuss the case and vote on the matter expedited hearing procedures expedited hearing procedures may be used by the planning commission under the following circumstances there is no opposition to the case present at the hearing and the recommendation of the office of planning and development is for approval and all of the commission members present wish to use this procedure level three reviews pursuant to section 906 of the polk county land development code on level three reviews the planning commission may approve the applicant's request deny the applicant's request or approve the request with additional conditions pursuant to section 921 on the land development code the applicant or any substantially affected interest may appeal the final decision of the planning commission to the board of county commissioners by filing a formal application with the land development division and paying the application fee the appeal must be filed with the land development division within seven calendar days of the planning commission hearing the board of county commissioners shall set a date and time for a de novo hearing if a party decides to appeal a decision made by the planning commission with respect to any level three review he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made the record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing each person or party that qualifies to file such an appeal must independently exercise the right of appeal in order to preserve that right a party cannot and should not rely on their right to appeal being preserved by someone else filing an appeal on the same matter please be advised that a party may withdraw their appeal to the board of county commissioners prior to that de novo hearing if one party withdraws their appeal and another party fail to file an appeal there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the board of county commissioners the application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal please also be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the board of county commissioners to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition you must either file the application for a de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application and they have agreed to waive their ability to speak during the public portion of the de novo hearing level four reviews pursuant to section 907 of the land development code the planning commission's decision on a level four review is a recommendation to the board of county commissioners the board of county commissioners will ultimately decide the matter mr chair would you like for me to swear in the witnesses for the cases today yes please if you're going to address the planning commission on any case please stand up raise your right hand and answer out loud to the following question do you swear or affirm the testimony and evidence you provide today is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and just um housekeeping i just need to have uh ask the commission to admit county's land planners as experts um their resume has been provided to you and we've admitted them in the past but if you'd like to for dire them as to their background or expertise you can do so at this time um so if we could just have a motion to accept staff as experts

in the field of land planning so moved the motion second all in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries thank

you and then if we have any land planning experts or any other types of experts of applicants you can tender them at this time or wait until your case is called and then just real quick let me go through quasi-judicial hearing procedures and then i'll be finished mr chair all right today's agenda includes quasi-judicial land use hearings which means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific land development application in a fair and impartial manner the commission's review is limited to two areas consistency and compatibility regarding consistency the commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the conference of plan and the land development code and the staff report and presentation provides you with expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria and a recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria regarding compatibility the commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area the commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing both written and oral by law the only evidence the commission can consider is competent substantial evidence which means evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept is adequate to support a conclusion the following items are competent substantial evidence evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria staff reports and staff presentations citizen testimony can be competent substantial evidence so long as it is fact-based and can include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise such as aesthetic incompatibilities of a project with surrounding neighborhoods however popularity polls petitions testimony that is hypothetical speculative based on fear or consist of generalized statements that do not address the land development code criteria are not competent substantial evidence for example fear that the project will cause increased traffic in crime is not competent substantial evidence lastly when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic engineering drainage wetland impact school and utility capacity light and noise pollution or the application's impact on property values citizen testimony is not competent substantial evidence unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area

that's all i have okay thank you um at this time we're going to start with the first case but however if i can ask everyone to please turn your cell phones on silent or off depending on which way you want to do it also remember when you come up to speak for or against the case up to the podium name and address for the record keep in mind we have a timer three minute timer is a limit for everybody to state their case and we are very strictly adhered to that so keep that in mind when you come up okay thank you at this time we'll start with the first case

all right first up is ldcu 2023 33 the african is requesting conditional use approval for a 4200 square foot religious institution in a residential low 1x land use district subject site is located west of west boulevard east of park road north of davenport boulevard south of the city of davenport in section 4 township 27 range 27 the record seven or 25 mailers were sent to area property owners on september 14th one sign was posted the property on september 19th and a legal ad was published in a ledger on september 15th staff has logged no opposition and melissa celestine is your planner good morning i need to be sworn in please

please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony testimony and evidence that you provide today is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thanks okay good

morning for the record melissa celestine presenting ldcu 2023-33 staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request to construct a 4200 square foot religious institution located west of set of us 1792 and north of davenport boulevard the site is approximately two acres in size within the residential low 1x land use district of the northridge selected area plan here is a context of the subject site in this close-up you can see the vicinity of the proposed religious institution and the location of an existing one although they are within 500 feet it is not uncommon to see this using close proximity to each other here is a site plan um access to the site is going to be along north boulevard a rural minor collector roadway a waiver ldwa 2023-27 was granted in may of 2023 as the road frontage is only 33 feet wide and a road classification requires a minimum frontage of 150 feet the structure will be set back 50 feet from residential uses and services will be held on sunday mornings between between 10 a.m and 12 p.m and sunday evenings from 7 p.m to 9 p.m the applicant anticipates 30 cars traveling to the site when services are underway staff finds the waiver approval to be appropriate for the proposed development because the request is modest in size and intensity staff recommends approval the request meets all standards in section 303 for conditional use approval and the request is consistent with a comprehensive plan in ldc with that i thank you and i'll stand for questions any questions of staff okay

thank you is the applicant here would like to come up present their case name and address for the

record please sir my name is anthony joseph um my address is 105 king henry court davenport florida 33837

that's my home address okay so you agree with everything that the staff had to say in their report yes sir okay thank you at this time i'm going to open it up to the public is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case seeing none bring it back to the board for a motion or

discussion mr chair i move to approve ldcu 2023-33 got a motion a second any further discussion roll call please running heath for the motion david dalton i'm for the motion mike hickman tommy addison mike schmidt and angel simms for the motion mr chair it passes six oh okay thank you

all right next up is ldct 2023-12 this is an applicant initiated request for a land development code text amendment to add to use car wash full service as a c3 conditional use in professional institutional land use districts in the northridge selected area plan this amendment will also allow self-storage facilities to be permitted through a plan development and to remove requirement for outdoor storage courtyard requirements within the northridge sap on september 15th the legal ad was published in the ledger and amy little with no responses and amy little is your planner good morning amy little with land

development ldct-2023-12 is an applicant initiated land development code text amendment to add full service car washes to the northridge selected area plan in professional institutional x land use districts as a c3 use the text amendment also allows for self-storage facilities to exceed the current 10 cap in picks and employment center x land use districts with a plan development and the requirement for outdoor storage at self-storage facilities to be contained within a courtyard has also been removed from the northridge sap staff is recommending approval and we are requesting a recommendation from the planning commission the board of county commissioners will hear the case on november 21st for the first reading and december 5th for the adoption date there are three types of car washes defined by the ldc this one is a car wash full service they're usually their own entities they operate independently from other businesses drivers generally get out of their vehicle and services include washing waxing detailing this use is currently found in the northridge sap which is in the northeastern corner of the county and is a permitted use in three land use districts a level two within rm rh ecx and nacx this amendment adds the use to picks land uses which are designated to provide office and professional use but also support of those uses currently within the northridge sap self-storage facilities are limited to 10 of development within picks and ecx land use districts this would allow that 10 cap to be exceeded with a planned development so it would come in front of you and staff would have the opportunity to review it and make sure it's compatible with surrounding uses the selected area plan also has modified conditional use requirements for self-storage facilities that require outdoor storage within a self-storage facility located within a courtyard and these existing requirements for outdoor storage there are in section 303 and sap they're required to be screened from off-site use already so it's kind of super superfluous and to have it is redundant and market trends in this area don't lend themselves towards facilities that have those courtyard designs they are required to have the appearance of an office space from the outside as well so there's some external design that's required in this sap staff feels that their existing compatibility standards in the ldc that ensure they're compatible here's the changes visualized here it's just adding c3 for car wash full service in picks and here you can see the proposed text amendment change that planned development to get rid of that 10 cap and that allows staff to actually review the compatibility with surrounding uses so staff is recommending approval and we have surveyed multiple counties in florida and found that car washes and self-storage facilities are in very similar non-residential districts and zones the ldc has those sufficient standards to deal with compatibility between those uses and others and the addition of the requirement for the plan development let staff review that on a on a case-to-case basis so we can request additional buffers if we feel like it needs it for that compatibility the request is found to be consistent with both the land development code and the comprehensive plan and with that i thank you and i'll stand for questions okay thank you any questions of

staff okay thank you is the applicant available like to come up good morning commissioners for the

record bart allen i'm a lane use attorney with peterson and meyers law firm my address is 225 east lemon street lakeland florida i'm here this morning on behalf of the applicant elevation ridgewood llc i have mr owase kanani in attendance with me and if mr mike rich is listening or watching online i hope you're starting to feel a little bit better um otherwise we really appreciate working with miss little she's done a tremendous job um evaluating the proposed changes we agree with her staff recommendation and her comments in her staff presentation we'll stand for any questions any questions the applicant okay thank

you at this time i'm going to open up to the public is there anyone in the audience that would like to come up and present or speak for or against this case saying none i'm going to close the public portion

and bring it back to the board for a motion and discuss or discussion mr chair i move to approve ldct 2023-13

we got a motion a second any discussion roll call please renee heath for the motion david dalton i'm

for the motion mike hickman for the motion tommy addison mike schmidt and angel sims for the motion mr

chair it passes 6-0 okay thank you next case please all right for the record enhanced land development staff recommends approval of agenda item number three ldcu 2023-35 request for a drive-through restaurant and a commercial enclave district in kathleen subject site is located at 63 17 kathleen road south of kathleen pines avenue west of cheatwood drive and northwest of lakeland in section 21 township 27 range 23. for the record 38 mailers were sent to area property owners on september 14th three signs were posted on september 7th and the legal ad was published on september 15th staff has logged one phone call in opposition here's the site on the southeast corner of kathleen road and kathleen pines kathleen elementary and middle schools or to the east being kathleen this is an older region of the county with many of the surrounding uses non-conforming to today's development standards is within the commercial enclave land use district which is mapped to recognize area of commercial development from when the comp plan was adopted that wouldn't conform to other commercial land use categories normally restaurants would be permitted in ce with only administrative review but a drive-through is required to undergo a public hearing as they are generally more intense and ce districts are located next to residential areas such as in this scenario the site has been developed with commercial uses since 1964 and the current building on site was constructed on in 1984. the plan is to remove the existing 6500 square foot structure and replace it with a 1700 square foot drive-through restaurant access to the site will be from kathleen road and from cheatwood drive though existing through existing entrances off both roads this request includes variance to increase impervious surface ratio from 0.6 to 0.7 the request meets the criteria for granting these variances essentially the reasoning is this site is in an urban area even if it's not mapped as such with most public services readily available the site plan meets all conditional use standards in the land development code and meets or exceeds compatibility standards so it will be landscaped with a six foot opaque fence between the proposed restaurant and an existing single family home to the east within the public right away there will be approximately 100 feet of separation between the restaurant and the nearest home and here is a site plan over the area there's a gas station to the north and a vet clinic to the south again this application meets all the standards in the ldc and comprehensive plan with a layout and proposed buffering the site meets or exceeds compatibility standards it's a prime location for a restaurant such as this with sidewalk connectivity through the surrounding neighborhoods staff recommends approval and i'll

stand for questions any questions of staff so you know okay thank you if the applicant would like to come

up present their case really quickly any ex-party communication site visits to disclose none good

morning for the record sarah case next level planning and permitting 3825 south florida avenue in lakeland and i'm representing gad and associates in this matter um we've worked well with staff we feel that the staff report was extremely thorough um and um we agree with the conditions including the variance that was included as as one of the conditions and we'll stand for any questions that you have any questions

of the applicant so you know okay thank you at this time i'm going to open it up to the public is there anyone in the audience that would like to come up and speak forward okay please come to the podium name and address for the record again keep in mind you got a three minute time limit don't take but a minute

daniel hutton daniel hutton uh 3730 kathleen pines avenue i'm the one house that this thing is going to affect uh i'd like the commission to take into consideration for today's decision and future decisions uh it i'm just one person it's just my house but the fact is is that traffic is going on that little road is going to uh increase dramatically if there's any changes to that road it will probably end up flooding my garage because the way the old road is designed now to carry water away future changes would probably affect that uh it's going to create a danger to the additional traffic on that intersection and although i'm just one person it's uh not happy for me okay thank you anyone else in the audience

that would like to come up and speak for against this case seeing none i'm going to close the public portion bring back to the applicant you want to address anything i do thank you mr hutton um we know

that you are the adjacent property owner on the other side of cheatwood and um looking at the site plan we do have a secondary ingress egress um that we actually wouldn't prefer not to have it but that was something that engineering um in the drc requested um and it's we wanted to include it for the conditional use we can always take it off at level two but the way that the site is designed um we really don't need it so um where is your secondary access yes right there well that's

again where i i still don't see where it is did on that bottom right okay and in addition to that

we will have a fence um i see it now along the the the property line adjacent to cheatwood that would

buffer visibility okay any other questions of the applicant what type of fencing are you talking about

it would be um opaque an opaque fence and buffering pardon me headlight sweeping the neighbor's

house it'll be a six foot ready so what was uh why was staff recommending that second entrance from

what i understand from engineering there's an agreement to the property owner to the south that has rights that access to so we didn't want to just go cut it off right now but it's entirely likely and we've gone through this process knowing that this entrance is probably going to be eliminated when we get to level two and do a little bit more work on the engineering side so it's if you come back if you have it in there now we can take it away without having to do a modification but if for some reason they come back in and want to add another site we back in here for modification but so that's

not a condition on this thing i'm sorry it's not a condition no sir yeah i don't see the point of

that it would just dump more traffic onto that street and affect these neighbors that are nearby but if

we don't show it now on the binding site plan like ian said we'd have to come back before you after level

two okay mr chair yes question for staff uh did you hear anything in the public testimony that changes your

view on the case no sir it still meets all the standards of compatibility and uh land development

code okay thank you any other questions of the applicant where would the additional ingress egress

be there wouldn't be one so it would all be off of kathleen road correct nothing off kathleen pines

nothing why well this is a binding site plan so um we just the site circulation did not work the way that it's designed right now um there's plenty of um room for you have to when you when you can you do to the south you go around the south of the building and in order to get through the drive-through window you have to go around so kind of loops there's probably ought to speak into the mic a little bit closer sarah there we would not meet um driveway separation if we did have a driveway on kathleen pine because of kathleen road and cheatwood we would not meet the driveway separation and the circulation

would not work for a quick serve restaurant the traffic coming out is going to be but what's the

hours of this operation can i ask that well so we're just trying to get permission to have a quick serve restaurant um the user is not um known at this time they'd essentially be doing a big loop around the

building any other questions um i have one question what other sorts of businesses could go in there

right now well okay commercial enclave you could uh use the building that's existing for a restaurant without any sort of approval there's um any number of things it's tough with commercial enclave because what could go there on our chart the site might not allow this is a small enough restaurant that we could get in there potentially gas stations i believe are administrative review and there's most of your commercial um uses would be allowed there that aren't you know industrial or something of that

nature thank you any other questions okay thank you i'm gonna bring it back to the board for a

motion or disc and or discussion mr chair i move to approve ldcu 2023-35 i got a motion a second roll call please running heath for the motion david dalton i'm for the motion mike hickman tommy addison mike schmidt emotion and angel sims for the motion mr chair it passes five one okay thank you

next case please all right again for the record in answer land development staff recommends approval of ld spd 2023-3 requested expanding existing mobile home park from three units to five the site is located at 5371 kathleen road north of spivey road southeast of decent road west of gallery road and northwest of lakeland and section 28 township 27 range 23 on september 14th 38 mailers are sent to area property owners three signs are posted on september 7th and a legal ad was published in the ledger on september 15th has logged no opposition mr chair i'd like to make a motion to expedite

i got a motion in a second to expedite is there anyone in the audience i would like to speak for against this case actually against this case seeing none i got a motion to expedite all in favor say aye

aye opposed motion carries expedite please okay not a lot to unpack here this request is to use the spd tool to increase the number of units on site by two in doing so the site plan will bring the park up to modern standards request meets all comprehensive plan and ldc standards is compatible surrounding uses and i'll stand for questions any questions of staff did the applicant available like to come

up present their case name and address for the record please sir sir mr chairman lee saunders 5529 us 98 north lakeland florida 33809 i know we've been expedited so i just wanted to thank staff for all

their help okay thank you or any is it was there any questions of the applicant okay seeing none i'm going to open the public portion is there anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against this case please come to the podium and present your name and address for the record and keep in mind

a three-minute timer minute daniel hutton 3730 kathleen pines avenue i was just wondering if anyone knows if they're going to put a traffic light in that area because with it already needs a traffic light now and when you add that it's that much more dangerous there's a lot of wrecks there i can answer that

they're they're working on signalizing decent road and kathleen right now just when it's warranted they're under underway right now from what i understand was that right okay any other questions

okay i'm going to bring it back to the board for a motion or discussion mr chair i move to approve ld spd 2023-3 got a motion a second roll call please running heath or the motion david dalton i'm for the motion

mike hickman tommy addison mike schmidt for the motion and angel sims for the motion mr chair it

passes 6-0 okay thank you next case please good morning shauna bennett for the record now it starts your conference of plan amendment section of your agenda today the next case is ldcpas 2023-16 it's a small scale conference of plan amendment it's changed the future language designation from residential low to residential high on about 0.22 acres it's at the southwest corner of avenue y northeast and cd street northeast and south and west of the city of winter haven in section 16 township 28 range 26 property owners are cmtg real estate enterprises inc it's in the transit supportive development area staff is recommending approval and in terms of the advertisement 73 mailers were sent to area property owners on september 14th two signs were posted to the property on september 15th a legal ad was published in the lakeland ledger on september 15th no responses and opposition were received and

mark bennett is the case planner morning board members for record mark bantley and development this slide here is a summary of the request from residential low to residential high staff does find the request is compatible and consistent this is a this slide shows the general location of the property it's long 544 east of 17 north avenue t there's a more detailed location map of the site this is an aerial photo of the site from 2020 it comprises two lots and it's currently residential low specifically in a rl4 land use district and the request is for residential high the reason for a request are an understanding is that the applicant wishes to construct two duplexes on the property in order to meet the density requirements to build two duplexes the land use change was necessary this is an aerial photo of the site shown in red i wanted to show this site also because one of our reasons in recommending approval is that there have been other duplexes constructed in the area specifically i believe a duplex here a duplex here and then i believe last year the board uh approved a conditional use for a duplex here so because those duplexes either built or soon to be built in the area we thought it was appropriate for this land use change to allow for more duplexes this is another view of the site looking west and then then also looking south avenue y cd street and then 544. these are ground views of the site looking across avenue y and looking southeast you can see the convenience store in the background looking northwest at the site from avenue y or i'm sorry cd street to summarize the request uh it's from rl to rh residential high meets our criteria in addition to our usual policies about growth management consistency with the rh land use this area is also in a redevelopment area we have a section in our land use element section 2.124-f that speaks to redevelopment areas in our redevelopment areas we encourage multi-family to provide for a mixture of housing types and you'll see the chart in terms of impact assessment the last line of urban sprawl this is definitely not urban sprawl on the contrary it's in field development and it's appropriate and therefore staff recommends approval and i'll stand for any questions any questions

any questions this time hey mike sure hold on tommy hang on just like are are those uh duplexes currently under construction

um yeah my understanding is that a permit has not been issued yet and i'll defer the applicant about the exact status of what's going on in terms of construction development there but i in my research i did find out that there has not been a permit issued yet seems like they got a little ahead of

themselves didn't they okay tommy go ahead yeah um based on residential high they could you develop 15 units of the acre right based on the two point or 0.22 acre size of the site that would only be 3.3

units our policy in our comp plan allows to count um half the right of way on a local road and avenue y is a local road therefore that gives them the additional square footage to achieve the four i'm sorry

okay any other questions to staff okay is the applicant available like to come up present their

case one of the members of the planning commission tom woodridge with cdw land planning representing the client for our case this morning this is a bit of a explanation i'm sure everyone scratching their heads saying how did we get here we kind of did too when we first started this endeavor with a while back earlier in the year actually i think last year but actually getting underway we had a conditional use approval i'm sure if you all remember that for duplexes on this site and i think there was a bit of a miscalculation i think on everyone's part or maybe just it was it was missed that the lot size is a consideration when you have a duplex for construction so in this area the lots are a little bit smaller than what that lot size allows for duplex which precipitated us to request a land use change which has smaller lot size allotments in table 2.3 of the land development code so it's a bit of a mechanical switching of gears to make sure that we have the underlying allowing lot size which is a little bit smaller in rh to allow for the duplex units in the presentation that i have uh you got the wrong guy trying to do stuff here yeah that's all uh in the presentation i'm going to show you the uh approximate size uh based upon the survey that we have of the units that we're constructing and how both the urban form of those units or the architectural form of this consistent with the surrounding scale of the single family and duplex units in the area so staff has considered this for its compatibility in terms of whether a duplex is appropriate here as mark mentioned we have numerous duplexes both recent construction and former older construction in the area so i'll show you a little bit about what we're talking about real quick i won't belabor this but just to show you and point out a few other things mark mentioned that it is in a redevelopment district this is in an area also i want to point out that is in the transit service development area we are actually on transit line number 60. why is that meaningful uh you know it gets people to here to there um there's been you know sometimes people are concerned with traffic or how the the how are we going to serve that increased density uh so definitely we're not just down the street from it too far we're i think within about 200 250 feet of that transit stop so that's good news for supporting this requested use and the densities which is what we're really talking about today is rh but just to point out some of the highlights of the community and the infrastructure that's available that supports rh residential high density which is tsta transit service nearby actually active transit on our street we're in the redevelopment area we are within a short distance of the community center which provides community services and things that support higher density or just general community needs we have water and sewer we're not on septic for example there's plenty of road capacity there's schools and parks within a walkable distance there are sidewalks within this community so all the types of infrastructure that is needed to support residential high is actually available in this location despite the fact that it's been labeled as a redevelopment district we actually have the critical infrastructure necessary to support what we're requesting on the ground at the site so i think that's a good place to start just to highlight what we're looking at here mark pointed out the uh nearby uses and some of the duplexes i won't go through that we're of course just requesting rh in that location i was also going to point out this i'm not going to hide that uh the construction did occur i'm sure there's been there were some questions about this uh when we got started uh it looks like we were going to we got started with building permitting and i think that's where we hit the snag of wait a minute why is the lot size how did these get approved and so here we are kind of remedying that but i wanted to show that the lot layout in red is the overall site and then the uh middle is of course the got two lots here each of them having a duplex on them so this is the scale of the units that are proposed very much in character with they're not crowding the site they're not too big or feeling like they're on top of neighbors we're meeting setbacks for meeting the standards of the code and so they fit in and then lastly i want to get back to of course the comprehensive plan residential high characteristics and not just residential high but tsda the redevelopment district that mark pointed out we've gone through and had a thorough vetting of is this site appropriate for residential high land use and yes staff found it to be and we've shown in our both in our application our impact assessment statement our demonstration of need how our proposal meets the infrastructure and the demand uh requirements of residential high for the use of this location um i'll stop and get through all the technical speak and stand here for any questions

that anyone has any questions the applicant may not okay thank you thank you at this time i'm going to open it up to the public is there anyone in the audience i would like to speak for against this case i mean address for the record remember there's a three minute time limit faye bellamy

2213 ninth lane northeast winterhaven florida representing representing the northeast association of winterhaven the balgie bottom community the citizens of balgie bottom oppose the building of the duplexes on avenue wire which is item number five we want balgie to remain a community to determine what should be in it the apartments will not be appropriate for that lot it's too small and the duplex that he is referring to is one that i built and i had to go through procedures in order to get it approved it was me who called and stated that these apartments are being built without a permit and if you take the time and examine the history of that property there has been some dirty politics going on and i can share with you at a later time some of the things that have transpired excuse me excuse me ma'am yes were you sworn in i i don't swear but no i was not sworn in was anybody else sworn in yes yes ma'am i'll have to swear you okay well i'm sorry well you need to back up and swear them in too

yes if you're gonna go ahead and do it now if anyone else needs to speak for the remainder of

the meeting please stand up raise your right hand and those who have spoken need to swear because they they have not told the whole truth please raise your right hand please do you swear or affirm that

testimony and evidence you provide today is the truth i'll tell the truth yeah i'll tell the truth

that's what i'm about god and the truth okay thank you uh-huh but they need to examine one the history of that lot because the transaction did not take place properly and our community has been working with mr beasley and dr martha san niago to become a part of the comprehensive plan so we can decide those things we want to see in our community i was born and raised in the neighborhood and i still have an interest there and this is why we have that neighborhood association and unfortunately too and when i mentioned the dirty politics their policies been changed for these investors to come in and invade our neighborhood and i don't think it's fair i would like for the board to reconsider uh uh to consider opposing this particular project until you get more information about it number one the lot is too small and when i got ready to build my duplex it was not i was not allowed to build but one they would not even allow me to build a triplex and here this lot please wrap it up ma'am okay

this lot is definitely too small okay thank you thank you good morning my name is sharon bell and i'm a resident of um beesville florida but i've maintained property there your address ma'am 2710 sam hicks road in city florida thank you um the lot well i was raised in one haven the lot itself is too small but two duplex apartments apartments and i have property right there at the lot at where the apartment's being built i knew nothing of the um apartments because from what i'm told there was no permission given to build the apartments but it's right there on my lot at 325 ulrich avenue and then there's no yard space of where's the garage for the cars to be parked i mean it's just it's too small of a lot for two if there was only one two bedroom house or so right there one house and it's too small for two apartments and it's going to draw trouble especially if you bring the wrong people in there to live to rent thank

you thank you anyone else in the audience would like to speak for or against this case are you coming up ma'am okay at this time i see nobody else i'm going to close the public portion bring it back to the applicant if you'd like to address any of the concerns again tom woodridge tdw land planning

representing the clan i have my client here with me today who's here to answer a couple of the questions regarding some of the permitting i just want to be clear uh to address some of the concerns from the the owners the property owners from around the area to say that the to be clear it's one duplex unit per lot just similar to all the other lots that are north and east of us so a similar layout they don't have garages either so i think we're consistent with what's around in terms of you know what's being built those duplex units are just two doors and two units so we're similar to what's being constructed around and i'll the applicant wanted to or the client want to address the issue in terms of permitting but we did apply for permits and to proceed on route it's just like i mentioned earlier in my presentation the lot size was discovered later in the game so so to be clear for the for the

audience those are that's two lots correct so you're putting one duplex on one lot yes sir yes

that's the red the red each of the red lines represents one lot two lots so this is the corner of cd and avenue y and this is the next lot over so this blue boundary it may have been unclear so i apologize if i didn't explain it well but each of these red boundaries this is one lot okay there's one duplex unit which is two homes one in the back one in the front let's say same here one two so

one building two homes on each lot hi my name is melissa by so with cmtg real estate we are the owners and developers of these lots so can you get your address please uh the office address for the company is that's fine five one two nine south lakeland drive suite four lakeland florida three three eight one three um what i did want to address the size of the units they're about 800 square feet per unit so about a 1600 square foot single family home would be comparable on this size lot and then i also wanted to address that we did have approved building permits and that's why we were we started the process i think we were through stem wall approval foundation approval and i don't know what happened between the building department and land development for them to get approved when the zoning was not correct but that's kind of like tom said why we're here to rectify this and um we had responsibility for not knowing that the county also had responsibility for approving the building permit so um this is you know i think our compromise and fix between the two to be able to let the um approved building permits that were already started continue to be uh built and completed okay any other questions to the applicant parking it will be all along the front so there's um we've we've built several of these models in the city of lakeland sorry for my voice i'm a little sick um on the same 50-foot lots and so there's like four parking parking stalls all along the front question to the applicant

i see two concrete driveways will there be parking between the buildings um in front of the building so

i'm not sure why it's drawn with only part of it i think maybe just they showed the one to the side but there also will be one directly in front of the building with parking stops as well

the alley open in the rear there's no alley in the rear no it says north half of valley it's not open no

sir not open so there will be no driving through no um i believe there's a walkway on the each side of the building that goes to the back unit so yes no driving between the units or between the lots um i don't i don't believe uh sidewalks are required in this area are they there now i don't think so no

if you could pull that microphone closer to you yeah yeah sorry so we do have sidewalks um right in front of the site um yes i'm sure it was a little confusing about the rotation of the building but yeah they're already in place so we'll be constructing those and repairing anything that needs to be

repaired during construction so does the parking allow for not parking on the sidewalk is there

adequate setback for there i saw like 15 feet you see here it's 21.1 feet hard to read yes sir sorry i just want to clarify that okay it's a property line back of the sidewalk correct okay any other

questions mike so just for my own education on this you were issued a building permit to construct both these buildings that's correct two building permits yes and and then what happened somebody alerted the the land development that they were on too small a site or what i mean and then you were notified that you they were rescinding the building permit is that i'm sorry back in may back in may okay any other

questions of the applicant okay thank you i'm going to bring back to the board for a motion or discussion

and discussion this is to go from r rm to rh rl to rh okay mr chair just a quick question for staff

if we if we could um can we possibly pull up the staff report and uh just to be crystal clear about lot size here and specifically page 33 which shows the site itself okay bear with me a minute i don't have the staff report readily available oh okay perfect it's kind of hard to see there but uh on my side report on the computer i can see that the red box outlines yeah two parcels so we have one duplex on the left parcel one duplex on the right parcel correct correct okay thank you that's all i need

a question i have is the there's a duplex caddy corner that is in its spot because the lot was bigger

and there was no need to change right the designation my understanding is it did obtain a conditional use

though okay the public portion is closed ma'am any other questions again looking for a motion mr

i'd move to approve ldc pas 2020 2023-16. got a motion and second roll call please renee heath for the motion david alton i'm for the motion mike hickman for the motion tommy addison mike schmidt against the emotion and angel simms for the motion mr chair it passes 5-1

okay great thank you next case please next case is ldcpas 2023-18 a small scale conference of plan amendment shepherd road residential high land use change from community activity center and residential medium and preservation to residential high on 14.58 acres parcels located south of shepherd road north of imperial lakes boulevard north of village court west of imperial parkway east of sundance boulevard west of state road 37 north of the city of mulberry south of the city of lakeland in section 27 range 29 sorry section 27 township 29 range 23 property owners are ggi i5 investments llc and for the advertisement 77 mailers were sent to area property owners on september 14th four signs were posted to the property on september 15th a legal ad was published in the lakeland ledger on september 15th no responses were in opposition were received and eric peterson is

the case planner good morning planning commission eric peterson site is located in south lakeland area this is actually a mulberry address if you're on the south side of shepherd road your zip code is for mulberry your north side your zip code is for lakeland the site is part of was part of the imperial lakes dri which was determined to be essentially built out several years ago it's in the staff report the request is as you can see there's a number of different uses on the property the applicant owns the in the entire site they're holding out the corner parcel here for community activity center to remain and then on the rest of the site they're going to go from residential medium community activity center and preservation all to residential high currently they're able to do 164 homes or units on this property multi-family this change enables them to go to 15 units per acre on the whole property taking it to a 218 maximum amount of residential development that they could have to the uh immediately to the west is uh huntington at sundance uh this is 18 units to the acre it's 242 units uh apartment complex gives you an idea of the intensity that would be on this side it would be slightly less than huntington and abuts of course the public's on the east side and to the south is some townhomes in the on village court in the imperial lakes dri this is the project uh one key thing about this site going back the preservation essentially outlined this small drainage creek that uh runs from the north area of imperial lakes and the golf course under culverts beneath the imperial lakes boulevard into a pond system that they share with publics uh when the pond reaches a certain level of flow continues to the north underneath shepherd road into a county uh maintained drainage facility and then off northward to reach polly creek and then come back south and connect to the alify river and then that takes you to the gulf of mexico um this is uh the site and once again their access will come mainly from shepherd road uh that is the best point to access and they will most likely share with the community activity center piece so you have a commercial uh piece sharing with the multi-family for one joint access point as you can see there's a current driveway or a median cut there that would have to be reshaped but it would remain there uh tying in here at this cross access would be difficult because that's where all the culverts are that run that connect the creek underneath the road and form a major underground drainage section there so they would have one primary access point another access point could be on imperial lakes boulevard however it's only about 40 feet of land there it would only really suffice for an emergency access this is looking at the site a little closer as you can see it's very limited there's drainage culverts going underneath here and of course the the pond cuts into it a good amount it would be difficult to have any substantial access there so emergency access is probably the only uh outcome to get to the 15 units per acre they're going to have to come back to you with a binding site plan rh only allows you to go to 10 units per acre to get to the full 15 the 218 in which they're seeking would need a level three review approved by the planning commission so in summary this enables a more cohesive uh use of the land with the three different land use categories it's not really uh easy to map out or or our site plan uh that way this gives them one homogeneous residential category it's clearly compatible you've got more intense residential on one side you've got commercial on the other side it's it's uh clearly compatible land use wise uh it doesn't change the drainage function removing that preservation the preservation was there kind of as an indicator of what was on site but it's not going to change it preservation really isn't the right category anyway preservation you need large amounts of land if you're gonna because it's supposed to be protecting something this is a drainage canal or drainage creek really uh it's going to have to be worked with however they develop the site uh changing the land use on it doesn't really affect anything uh there's ample infrastructure and services in the area uh it's clear it's mapped out in the staff report and uh we find it consistent with all the objectives and policies in the comp plan without us down for questions any questions of

staff see not okay thank you is the applicant available like to come up present your case

either one any address for the record good morning john mcveigh 6700 south florida avenue lakeland florida 33813 um thank you for hearing this today we have reviewed staff's recommendation and their comments we concur with everything um one of the things i wanted to say was is that the preservation through the center creates some problems as far as being able to modify the creek put in bigger ponds those kind of things so we said it would be better to make it all rh and leave the commercial in the northeast corner it's a good transition from rh to commercial you know within those areas we have a transit stop uh for busing 700 feet on shepherd road it's in an open drainage basin and we've been in discussion with county uh roads and drainage they're looking at doing some drainage facilities within imperial lakes complex to relieve some of the flooding along the boulevard we anticipate enlarging the ponds and the i call them ponds lakes whatever on the site to handle additional storm water and also to accommodate the overflow from what the county is designing within the imperial lakes basin so i'll be happy to answer any questions uh it's a it's a net gain of about 50 units but there's a lot of work needs to be done on the site in preparation okay any questions of the applicant say no no okay thank you thank you

at this time i'll open it up to the public is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case name and address for the record and remember there is a three minute time limit

larry benarowitz 1845 village court mulberry 33860 thank you very much for hearing me um i've been an owner in that property since 2011 and we're totally opposed to the high residential the principal reason because of the amount of parking space that you need to to develop to you know accommodate cars and stuff since i've been there since 2011 the imperial boulevard floods when it really gets heavy rain they built the huntington homes which increased the pressure again and more flooding this last flood it came all the way up to the sidewalk and if you look at imperial the village village court community it come came all the way up to the sidewalks and over the sidewalks to our community if they continue to develop that it's going to put a much it's going to put a huge stress on that pond and creek and stuff that runs through the prop property so um right now and stuff the 37 homes in village court would send an opposition to that development if you need me to go get the entire imperial community belmont pine run you know right down the road uh right across street from us is double eagle they're totally opposed to only because of the flooding that's going to be a major uh cars were parked all the way down imperial boulevard with this last flood they were parked in public's parking lot and people had to walk home for a couple days so does there anybody have a question for me does anybody have

a question for him no no okay thank you well thank you very much for the time okay good morning bill

gisa four four five eight fairway oaks drive mulberry i'm a little further south and the one objection would be any access any increased use along imperial lakes boulevard the flooding is being attempted with a solution by the county which we appreciate but that is a that is still a one road in and out of that entire community so several thousand individuals only have that one way in and out so i object to any sort of additional access to imperial lakes boulevard because that will immediately impact and increase our traffic trying to get in and out one way to go north to shepherd road to keep all the construction all improvements on the property off of shepherd road a positive move but definitely as mentioned by the previous individual even though the county is working on the flooding to the south closer to my subdivision there would still be concern of how that would impact even as the county tries to work

on it thank you for your time okay thank you good morning michael valdez 4021 sundance place loop mulberry florida 33860 i am opposed to this uh development i do believe that it's going to increase the traffic on shepherd road i've been living there since about 2016 and i do see that there's additional development uh we've seen storage units in that same shepherd road area as well as other housing um along the shepherd road area road section um traffic has increased shepherd road is a major connection between county line road and southward avenue no one really goes down to 60 in turns they go to shepherd road um having these additional units is going to increase that traffic and as well as everybody else has mentioned the flooding on imperial lakes i did have a camper parked in the imperial lakes rv storage unit i've had to move it because it's been a nightmare to access especially when the flooding does happen but that's pretty much all i have to say thank you okay thank you anyone else in

the audience seeing them we're going to close the public portion bring it back to the applicant to

address any of the concerns thank you uh one of the concerns in the area we know is drainage uh this side has been sitting there since it was i guess developed as a as a phosphate mine or remnants of a phosphate mine to the south from years ago when you develop a property within the guidelines of polk county or swift mud or army corps those you have to do drainage structures such and it's kind of hard to understand but when you develop a property in an area you normally and almost always increase the runoff capabilities by putting in larger pipes bigger bigger canals uh bigger ponds bigger lakes we're on the south the the downhill side of the drainage problem we're on the north side of the property and the flooding is occurring back towards the intersection by the clubhouse the county has purchased land to dig another pond there to as a surge pond to hold the excess water and then discharge it they're going to be discharging it through to the north probably through this property and with the developer here and the county there will be a a increase in the drainage capacity within that existing ditch so development is in some things and drainage is usually a good thing we talk about traffic uh if you look at the county staff report shepherd road has a level service of c we're talking about an additional 54 units and there's almost 900 vehicle trips per day that's excess capacity on shepherd road based on the traffic analysis then there was a talk about the entrance on to imperial lakes boulevard that would only be designed as an emergency entrance for the fire based on the fire marshal it will be gated locked and only the emergency vehicles or if there's a catastrophe inside then that would be on that would be open there is a sensor you put on the gates that the fire trucks the police the ambulances they have a blaster they can blast that and the gates will open so it's not a everyday use this would be an emergency entrance only used in emergency conditions again it's this is basically infield it's the only piece of property left basically along shepherd road on the south side and the only piece left almost undeveloped within the original dri of imperial lakes so it's kind of the last thing that will create uh completion of the project but would also help in the drainage the traffic and the uh vehicular movement we don't anticipate putting any traffic on to imperial boulevard we would come out on 37 shopping center most of the shopping center stuff could be walked to within the development so it's it's it's a capture rate that will diminish some of the traffic within our development that may

not be going somewhere off site so i'll be happy to answer any questions john i i got a question so to clarify for the audience typically when developments go in it they have to match the pre post development for drainage in other words you can't discharge any storm water off of your property that is not already happening currently right now and in most cases almost 100 of the time the drainage is actually

improved correct correct there's two large culverts underneath shepherd road those will determine the amount of flow going through the through the ditch that cannot exchange we cannot change that right we will have to put in larger ponds bigger lakes we have to capture that water we have to hold it back and instead of being a retention pond it's a redemption i mean it's it's a i'm trying to think of the word detention detention pond not a retention it's a detention pond you're holding it back so that you can store the water until you can relieve the downstream and that's controlled by swift mud in this case the county and d-e-r or d-e-p okay uh john uh how much of that land is actually buildable of the 14 acres probably 12 and a half the only thing that's not buildable is the little creek running through it and you can redirect that we don't plan to redirect it we we we plan to enhance it and make the lakes bigger so we can or the ponds bigger so we can hold back our water so we don't we clean it out within the parameters of swift mud and d-e-p we don't we don't plan to redirect it

because it's a natural flow okay and uh and so your designated preservation area that's that's still buildable space no that's wetland okay it's defined as a wetland and how much acre so that's a acre and

a half then maybe maybe that but that's controlled by d-e-p and d-e-r all right thank you any other

questions yes sir the paving i understand this is not a site plan obviously but there will be paving i'm comparing to adjacent properties that paving will divert a good bit of water that is currently being held on the property and percolating or whatever but what load will that impose on the county that additional detention retention whatever it ends up being what will that impose on the county across the road over here what do we have on this side i'm looking at the tip end of it right there but

what will that what or do we have the the structure to receive that in the permitting process you have to retain or detain the runoff from your site you hold that in ponds to either a 25 or 100 year storm and then you're allowed to release it based on the pre-discharge rate so what happens is is that let's say you get a storm and you're holding it in your ponds and then it's got to fill up until it gets to an overflow where while it's filling up and getting to the overflow where the creek itself is running water through so you're not you're not surcharging that real quick into the you're holding it back giving it a chance to recuperate to a point so once that's done then your water starts flowing out and you can only flow out pre-post match so if you've got 20 cubic feet a second flowing into the creek now once you develop it no matter what you do you can only flow 20 cubic feet into the creek you can't enhance or or enlarge the runoff problem you have to basically hold it back and then release it and that's what i was talking earlier about once you develop it it relieves some of the drainage scenarios

yes sir but it's still a matter of timing for the water on this side of of uh shepherd road

it won't that won't be a timing because the water on the north side of shepherd road will receive the same flow that it flows now it won't i can't increase that flow i understand that that's what i'm asking is so you got to have your pond big enough to hold that back so you can increase the flow let me

interrupt for just a second this is a comp plan amendment so we're just trying to determine land use here today the drainage issues will be handled either either through the level three or level four obviously it'll be heavily at a level two yeah and we're working very close with the county

to try to make sure everything is done that doesn't impede their chances of improving the uh drainage in

the area any other questions of the applicant okay thank you thank you at this time i'd like to bring it back to the board for a motion i have some comments i'm sorry i have a comment yes sir um the drainage

project they're referring to is in our cip for this year it's 15.1 million dollars phase one for drainage improvements for imperial lakes and in my opinion from a compatibility standpoint you might want to get closer to the microphone in my opinion from a compatibility standpoint the land uses that are already on this site are more intense than i would like to see based upon what the soils uh on this site indicate so i don't i don't support going to a more intense land use on this property any other

discussion okay do i have a motion mr chair i move to approve ldc pas 2023-18 second motion second roll call please runny heath for the motion david dalton i'm for the motion mike hickman tommy addison mike schmidt against the emotion and angel sims against the motion mr chair passes

which three three it'll go to the board with a three three vote okay thank you so there's no

recommendation actually to the board okay thank you next case please next case is ldc pas 2023-19 a small-scale conference plan amendment 34th street ce cpa it's a request excuse me just say can you all please take that outside and talk okay thank you request to change the feature language designation from residential medium to commercial enclave the property is located on the east side of 34th street northwest north side of avenue w northwest east of 31st street northwest and south of havendale boulevard northwest east of the city of winter haven in section 13 township 28 range 25 brisbane capital llc is the property owner the parcel is about a half acre in size it's in the urban growth area and the transit centers and corridors overlay it's also within the inward redevelopment area in terms of advertisement 66 mailers were sent to area property owners on september 14th two signs were posted on the property on september 8th a legal advertisement was published in the lakeland ledger on september 15th and no responses in opposition were received and robert bolton is your case planner good morning robert

bolton with land development excuse me pardon me the applicant is requesting a future land use change from residential medium to commercial enclave on approximately 8.52 acres in the urban growth area and the transit corridors and centers overlay specifically the corridor there is going to be just south of havendale the commercial enclave land use designation is for concentrations of commercial uses which are located outside of activity centers or linear commercial corridors and are the result of legitimate mapping error the subject site was developed prior to the zoning ordinance which was adopted on november 4th 1970 section 2.111 a3 allows for a land use change for mapping errors one example of mapping error is that the site was developed prior to april 19th 1991 the commercial enclave is to recognize the legitimate mapping error in the original mapping process the land use change will allow for the subject property's existing improvements and operated uses to be become conforming use any redevelopment or changes to the property would likely result in a level two review of that activity at the time the redevelopment or changes would need to meet the land development code and comprehensive plan standards at the time of that request the sites currently developed and the requested land use change would not significantly impact public services the request is consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan and staff recommends approval the subject site is located south of havendale boulevard between winterhaven and auburndale and on the northeast corner of 34th street and avenue w northwest this is a 22 2020 aerial with the urban growth over here in auburndale and also winterhaven and the winterhaven airport gilbert field to the northeast havendale boulevard is approximately 800 feet north of the subject site north of the subject site on northwest 34th street the havendale and 34th street intersection right up here is a signalized intersection with a bus and transit stop on both the east and westbound sides of havendale havendale between xerxes avenue and hickory street is a linear commercial corridor there other uses on 34th street going down here include a church duplexes parcels with multiple housing units on it this is a close-up of the site and the existing infrastructure that was built in the late 60s 1970 time frame to the south is right here is parking and a knights of columbus that have been there it's been there for the same type of time frame as the subject the exists this the existing land use map showing the current land use of residential medium in this area as previously mentioned the site was developed between 1968 and 1970 prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance in 1970 with that ordinance the zoning became residential originally in 1971 the zoning ordinance was amended and it became residential three and the site was not recognized so therefore it was basically a non-conforming use there's been no uh i looked i couldn't find where there's been any uh requests for a land use uh recognition or change and that i have not found where this has been asked for previously and if it had been asked for could it have been denied it hadn't been asked for so what the request is doing is changing it to that says cc it should be ce for commercial enclave i apologize for that uh to recognize that commercial that has been there since 1968 1970 type time frame this is the site looking northeast 34th street and avenue w you can see the uh time frame of the the buildings there this is looking across 34th street toward the east toward the east with the existing buildings there this is looking north from the knights columbus parking lot across avenue w northwest this is avenue w northwest looking westward with the subject on the right and knights columbus parking on the left and this is 34th street looking uh south the uh impact assessment for the site with the the requested uh commercial and enclave land use would not have a significant impact on public services uh non-resident land use would not impact the school system one thing of note is that this is in the tcco specifically the corridor which gives the ability for very high intensity use or high density staying as residential medium the analysis that you saw in the staff report reflects i believe it's 12 units the acre for a density as the residential medium and a far of 1.5 within c e that can be a little potentially alarming when you hear that but the property is serviced by the city of winter haven for water but not for sewer it is on a private septic which by our own code will have a lot of self-limiting factors for any redevelopment and any redevelopment of this property would most likely result in at least a level two review for this site and like i said before uh it's pre-existing uh buildings that existed prior to zoning the zoning codes there have been no cases where they've asked for a change they're asking for it now for redevelopment there is a history long-term history of ownership by the same family um and it is just being looked at to correct a mapping error so that they can uh as the new owner goes forward be able to progress forward with a commercial land use for what is already there with that i'll stand for any questions any questions of staff be none okay thank you is the applicant

available to like to come up present their case name and address for the record please nathan

mandelbaum 22 28 winterwood boulevard winter park florida representing brisbane capital thank you mr bolton for your comments commissioners um basically what we're asking for is just to give a little bit of legitimacy to the property we're not developing it we're not changing it but right now as a mini storage or self-storage the lease rate or the the per unit rate per square foot does not accommodate the commercial property tax we pay the cost of upkeep etc so we're not able to bank any money to do improvements to the property such as landscaping painting you can see it's kind of like dingy looking and we just it's not generating any income and it's actually running at a loss right now and we'd like to improve that but beyond that other than cosmetics we're not going to do any developing or changes in traffic or whatever basically our tenants would be able to be licensed oh excuse me would be able to be licensed there now there are some small businesses there that use it for storage and they would prefer that to be their business address but they're not able to do that because of the zoning

that's that's where we're at okay any questions of the applicant see none okay thank you at this time i'm going to open it up to the public is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against this case see none close the public portion bring it back to the board for motion or discussion

mr chair i move to approve ldcpas 2023-19 second motion a second roll call please bernie heath for the motion david all nine for the motion mike hickman tommy addison mike schmidt or the motion and angel

sims for the motion mr chair passes unanimously okay thank you next case is ldcpas 2023-17 it's a change in the future language designation on 1.92 acres from residential low to residential medium in the ronald reagan selected area plan its property is east of west side boulevard south of ronald reagan parkway west of champions gate boulevard north of interstate 4 north of haynes city and davenport in section 5 township 26 range 27 property owner is jnt estates incorporated it's also in the transit supportive development area for advertisement 61 mailers were sent to area property owners on september 14th four signs were posted on the property or as you can see the two sections of the property on september 8th a legal advertisement was published in the lakeland ledger on september 15th no responses and opposition were received and jp sims is the case planner mr chair i'd like to make a

motion to expedite i got a motion to expedite i have a second second okay is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this case i actually bring it back to the board i have a motion uh got a motion in a second roll call or all in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries

sorry about that uh so the future land use as mentioned before is being changed from residential low to residential medium and the ronald reagan sap on ronald reagan parkway uh this is a suitable use as ronald reagan sap does allow for more intense usages uh and the rest of the parent parcel will not be impacted just the two pockets along ronald reagan the rest of the site is mostly wetland but

the two sites are not any questions of staff okay is the applicant available like to come up present

their case good morning mr chair commissioners my name is sam sabali i'm with florida engineering group my address is 5127 south orange avenue orlando florida we concur with the staff recommendations and i'll be glad to address any questions which you may have we have any any questions to the applicant

so you know okay thank you because we're under expedited procedures i'm going to bring it back to

the board for motion and discussion or discussion mr chair move approval ldcpas 2023-17

second motion and second roll call please bernie heath for the motion david dalton i'm for the

motion mike hickman tommy addison for the motion mike schmidt and angel simms for the motion mr chair passes unanimously 6-0 okay great thank you uh last case please this is a county initiated small scale

conference plan amendment ldcpas 2023-13 it's a change in the future language designation from phosphate mining to agricultural residential rule property is east of state road 37 north of us highway 98 south of county road 640 west of the pool branch road east of the city of fort meade in section 25 township 31 range 25 property owner is miranda trinidad the parcel is about 18 and a half acres in size it's in the rural development area and in terms of advertisement 27 mailers were sent to area property owners on september 14th four signs were posted on the property on september 8th a legal advertisement was published in the lakeland ledger on september 15th no responses in opposition were received and robert bolton is the

case planner mr chair moved to expedite second we've got a motion second expedite is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak to speak against this case say none bring it back to the board we've got a motion in a second all in favor say aye aye aye opposed motion carries sorry jp is the case planner i know i'm gonna let you guys slide on that one struggle with the names don't i just turn around

and look look at me sorry so ldcpas dash 2023-13 is correcting uh on the map what was designated as phosphate mining land to its appropriate usage of agricultural rural residential there is currently a house there that was constructed in 1900 a mobile home that was placed there in 2012 and another mobile home they pulled the permit for in april of this year the 18 and a half acres will allow them in the arr to get up to three dwelling units because it's one dwelling unit per five acres so that will max out the amount of dwelling units allowed on site any questions staff okay thank you applicant

available would like to come up and present their case oh it's the county okay i'm the applicant any questions of the county thank you we're going to bring it back to the board for a motion move

approval of ldcpas 2023-13 second and a motion second any discussion roll call please running heat

for the motion david dalton i'm for the motion mike hickman or the motion tommy addison for the motion mike schmidt or the motion and angel sims where the motions chair passes six oh thank you any other

cases any other discussion i wanted to apologize again for the name we will i feel really bad i'm

duly noted i have a question sir yes sir i've noticed on the last three uh that have come up they were advertised in the ledger when the properties are in winter haven hayne city and davenport considerable distance removed from people that would typically subscribe to the ledger

um is there a reason for that or i think what they do is is they run the legal ad in the publication

that serves the the entire area it also has to do with um the amount of people subscribing to the paper and those papers aren't large enough by law so okay good answer thank you i guess nobody reads

them they do they do well they do advertise quite a bit in four corner sun in the north in the northeast corner well they do i mean that's davenport stacks it up having said that uh move to adjourn

so moved second all in favor say aye aye adjourned see you later