Planning Commission on 2024-01-03 9:00 AM

have everyone's attention we'd like to call the workshop to order chandra what do we have oh no major changes to the agenda the only rule note or agenda items one and two the graceway thornhill cases will be presented together okay so all the cases on the agenda will be presented today for those of those of those of you in the audience i am also going to ask the audience if you're here today please make sure you silence your cell phones um and so that we can have an orderly conversation with that anything else to discuss as far as the workshop goes yes sir all right call the workshop to close thank you and we'll start at nine o'clock thank you call the meeting to order today uh roll call robert veltron present david dalton i'm present tommy addison mike schmidt angel sims and linda schultz mr chair we have a quorum all right with that we'll stand for the pledge allegiance okay with that uh can i have a motion for the adoption of the minutes second roll call uh robert veltron uh approve david dalton for the motion tommy addison mike schmidt angel sims and linda schultz mr cherry passes unanimously thank you all right so uh any confirmation revisions to the agenda mr nance no sir no changes to the agenda just uh items number one and two will be presented together all right thank you all right miss voss explanation of general procedures good morning 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 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 of 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 to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition you must either file the application for 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 comment 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 on the witnesses for the cases today yes please so if you're going to address the planning commission on any case today please stand up raise your right hand and answer out loud to the following question do you swear or affirm that the testimony you provide today is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth okay and just a few housekeeping items we need to admit the county's land planners as expert witnesses they've been accepted as experts in the past but in your packets or resumes of staff who will be who will be presenting today if you'd like to go ahead and review those resumes and if you want to ask them any questions you can do so at this time so not seeing anyone wanting to or dire them if we could just have a motion to accept staff as experts in the field of land planning so moved roll call robert veltron for the motion david doll and i am for the motion tommy addison mike schmidt for the motion angel sims and linda schultz mr chair passes 60 thank you and if we have any experts of applicants you can tender them at this time or wait until your case is called and if you'll just indulge me for a few more minutes i want to go over some quasi-judicial proceedings since we have some quasi-judicial cases today 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 comprehensive plan and the land development code and the staff report and presentation provide 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 confident substantial evidence which means evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept as 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 can include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise such as aesthetic incompatibilities of a project with the surrounding neighborhood 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 and crime is not competent substantial evidence lastly when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic engineering drainage wetland impacts school 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 concludes my comments thank you mr chair thank you mrs voss i'm going to ask everybody before we get started today please make sure your cell phones are silenced also i understand we have maybe a bunch of people today to talk on a number of cases i'm going to ask you all to please uh consolidate comments if possible if you have similar comments with that your neighbors may have if you can have one speaker or designate one speaker uh we'll be willing to give you a little bit more time if we want to do that if not everybody's comments will be limited to three minutes also i want to remind you guys and ms voss just read to you the procedures we'll be following that we're all here to try to do we can as volunteers up here on this board and we expect everybody to have a dialogue debate and discussion but to be respectful of each other and so with that i appreciate everybody's indulgence in my comments and we'll get started with the new business first case good morning chairman commissioners for the record my name is shonda bennett with the land development division again i'll present the first case and the second case together and ask that you render a vote on each separately these are ldcpas 2023-20 and ldct 2023-21 this is a future land use change on 5.86 acres from residential low neighborhood activity center and business park center to institutional it's also in the transit supportive development area the legal notification for the conference plan amendment is 62 mailers were sent to area property owners on december 14th two signs were posted to the property on december 15th a legal ad was published in the lakeland ledger on december 10th i'm sorry december 19th and no responses were received and the text amendment to land development code ldct 2023-21 legal ad was published in lakeland ledger on december 19th i'll explain the land development code text amendment in just a moment um the location is just obviously west of eagle lake in the greater area of winter haven eagle lake area it's on the south west corner of thornhill road and spirit lake road it's not at the exact corner just a little off but in terms of being at a non-residential intersection it certainly has that uh provided for it with the not with the commercial uses to the north of it it's surrounded by residential as you can see by this aerial photograph lots of residential to the north into the south and west more sparsely populated to the i'm sorry to the east and more sparsely populated to the west but that's certainly growing and as you keep moving further to the west you interact with 540 and the polk parkway polk parkway is coming down certainly with an extension down this way to go to state road 60. this just gives you a general land use pattern in the surround greater surrounding area you can see that the thornhill spirit lake road intersection is certainly a non-residential node in the greater community the light beige is residential low the one is the land development code district one basically it's one house per acre you can achieve higher densities with planned developments you've got residential medium certainly surrounding the site close by you've got neighborhood activity center and business park center office center institutional to the southwest that's part of the county's utility property for the central system and then of course as you go down spirit lake where there's some other non-residential uses and some variety of residential densities in the greater community the property owner is a religious institution and the property owner also owns the neighborhood what will be the remainder of the neighborhood activity center to the east what i need to mention is some of you are familiar with what we call it's not a legal term a conditional comprehensive plan amendment and the state changed the law several years ago to allow the policies in the comp plan to be amended saying for a specific parcel we're going to limit the intensity for a variety of reasons the business park center was included in one of those applications in 2017 and the parcels were different in 2017 than they are today and a smidgen of that about 30 feet of the southern portion the portion of this parcel in this nac again and again the property owner owns all of this was removed out of that parcel that was part of that comprehensive plan amendment and the text part in the land development code in appendix e limits hours of use or daytime operation no weekend operations it's to limit the intensity of that business park center the applicant at the time wanted to do that as you can see there were no business park centers in the greater area so we were fearful in terms of compatibility and how intense that would be so the property owner at that time agreed to do a text amendment to limit their intensity however for institutional use for religious institution we don't want them to not be open on weekends so that's one of the reasons why we needed to remove that's what this text amendment is doing as well as this land use amendment it's taking a portion of that out of that text amendment so it's to clean that up so they have more freedom to behave in the way that you should behave in an institutional land use classification in terms of the impacts uh certainly that there's schools in the area that have capacity not that we anticipate institutional generating um any need for that um at this time in fact uh religious institutions can actually become schools um sorry that park is inaccurate um the sheriff uh response times uh are appropriate as well as the fire and ems response times are appropriate in this particular part of the county it's the central regional utility service area for the county for water and sewer and there is available capacity the projected current and projected level of service is level of service c for thornhill and spirit lake roads we do not consider this urban sprawl it's certainly infill and then with all of the um expectations from the extension of the polk parkway and eventually it's um swinging around up to i4th so there's lots lots of references made in the staff report in terms of transportation improvements going on in the area and drainage improvements as well this is standing on thornhill looking southwest this is the driveway into the subject site standing on the driveway going into the dollar general that's on the north side this is an aerial photograph here looking northerly you can see there's a gas station right there at the corner dollar general the residential subdivisions surrounding the property and then further south on spirit lake road are some more warehouse type facilities this is looking south again this this is a slide talking about that land development text amendment that i talked about earlier you can see here it's kind of what it looks like we actually put the legal description in when we do these text amendments because parcel numbers change and this is the perfect example of how parcel parcels change shape but the legal descriptions don't and that's what that's actually what we're fixing with this text amendment is the description so staff does recommend approval we consider it compatible with the surrounding uses and consistent with location criteria for an institutional which is being on a collector road meets that it's just an extension of the neighborhood really of the non-residential activity and it being in the transit supportive development area the policies in the comprehensive plan will require interconnection so that um somebody who's attending the church um can not have to get on thornhill to get to the commercial whenever that gets developed i'll stand for any questions any questions for staff that's what was for down here in the business park center because that's what they were interested in doing was manufacturing and that's what we needed to limit the intensity of but this is a religious institution so i don't believe they own the business park center no that's why the text amendment is needed so that they don't so that they don't have to be prevented from using this 30-foot strip on sundays etc commercial use no sir no that was just for the business park center the business park center is the same owner but not the same owner as the applicant that they're different any other questions for staff and the board all right is the applicant present if you can come up and either agree or present additional evidence hi my name is chris young i'm the pastor of graceway community church and we are the petitioner and applicant for this and no sir the staff has done an amazing job working with him has been a privilege and an honor and i have no further concurrence to go and approve yeah we just need your address as well oh i'm sorry chris young address is 14 aqua lane drive winter haven 33880 excellent thank you sir all right with that is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this case that we're hearing seeing none we'll close the public hearing portion of the item and with that we'll turn it back to the the board any discussion or motion second roll call please robert beltran for the motion david dalton i'm for the motion tommy addison mike schmidt angel sims and linda schultz mr chair passes 60. we are taking both items one and two concurrently together so can i get a motion for the other one second roll call please robert beltran for the motion david dalton i'm for the motion tommy addison mike schmidt motion angel sims for the motion and linda schultz mr chair passes 60. thank you all right moving on to the next case staff can you please present that your pleasure sir did you want to read it in oh chandra tricked me because she did both of them from there so now she's right position right time right yes ma'am okay the next case is small scale conference plan amendment ldcpas 2023-27 st matthews conference plan amendment jp sims is the case planner it's a future land use designation change from residential medium to institutional on 29.34 acres property is located south of state road 542 east of carl floyd road west of us 20 yeah west of us 27 and north of countered 550 east of winter haven city limits in section 25 township 28 range 26 the property owner is the diocese of orlando it's in the urban growth area and then in terms of the advertisement 148 mailers were sent to area property owners on december 14th in 2023 four signs were posted to the property on december 15th a legal ad was published in lakeland ledger on december 19th and no response was received second roll call please robert beltran for the motion david dalton and for the motion to me tommy addison mike schmidt angel sims and linda schultz mr cherry passes 6-0 is there anybody in the audience to speak against this case seeing none go ahead and please expedite mr sims okay uh so as miss bennett mentioned this is the change land use from residential medium to institutional uh this would allow the current church that's on site to operate within the right land use designation and to expand with a cemetery while religious institutions are allowable in the residential medium land use they do not allow for a cemetery to be placed on that land use so changing this institutional will allow them to do so any questions for staff from the board seeing none i know i asked earlier there's no one here to speak against this case or for this case are you the applicant or are you here to speak against it well hold on for a second because we were under expired procedure so okay so come on up and the applicant here and is the applicant here okay go ahead let's have the applicant speak first and then we'll you go ahead and sit behind them and cue it up a little bit uh good morning and happy new years my name is nathan milch with kimley horn uh 200 south orange avenue orlando florida 32801 we agree with staff and drc recommendation and i'm here to answer any questions thank you ma'am go ahead and proceed with we're gonna put the public hearing part of this i'm danielle solomon i'm at 1850 emily drive winter haven 33884 um i never actually received proper notice for this meeting i actually received notice from my next door neighbor and then i asked other neighbors that was in the area um i think it was no doubt like december 14th but with the holidays and everything i don't really believe that a lot of our neighbors actually was able to attend the meeting but there's actually a lot of people that's actually against the meeting and um i believe the president of our hoa association was supposed to get a list of names of who was against the actual use of this property land okay thank you anybody else here to speak for or against the current case with that we'll allow the applicant to come back up and address any items you'd like to address again i would just agree with staff recommendation and we believe the the use is compatible with surrounding area and consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan thank you any questions for the applicant from the board if that i'll take it back to the board for discussion or a motion mr chair i moved to approve ldc pas 2023-27 roll call please over beltron for the motion david adult nine for the motion tommy addison mike schmidt for the motion angel samms for the motion and linda schultz mr chair passes 60 thank you very much all right can we introduce the next case the next case is a large-scale conference plan amendment ldcpal 2023-9 it's a text amendment to the rule cluster center policies in the comprehensive plan specifically objective 2.110-b and policies 2.110 j1 and l3 those record those are regarding activity center establishments and expansions there's no location however it will impact properties within the rural development area as the rcc land use is only permitted in our rural areas of the county in terms of advertisement a legal advertisement was published in lakeland ledger on december 19th and mark bennett is the case planner mr bennett welcome good afternoon commissioners happy new year for the record mark bantland development division um as shonda just mentioned this is a text change to our comprehensive plan that addresses primarily our rural cluster center land use category and it also proposes some changes to two policies that are involved with activity center expansions and activity center plans you can see in the bullet points here brief summary why are we doing this because we've received inquiries about an interest in placing commercial uses in the rural area specific you know the rural development area our comp plan is limited in this regard we only have two land use categories that allow some type of commercial one is tourism commercial centers and that's sort of self-explanatory as to what kind of commercial goes there our other land use category is a rural cluster center rural cluster centers were originally designed and intended to recognize um rural communities alturas homeland etc etc these land use categories primarily are residential but do have some commercial component to them um careful my drink man okay all right uh where was i oh yeah land use categories so the problem is we don't have a land use category that's just for commercial we do have two kinds of what we call specialized uses uh convenience stores and village stores but they're very limited in nature as you can see there small size small square footage and and restrictive distance criteria that was done because originally the comp plan when it was passed back in the 90s had a heavy emphasis on controlling urban sprawl things have changed over the past 30 plus years you know more traffic on our arterials developments and new kinds of commercial uses so what's the solution staff is proposing to modify the rural cluster center policies to allow for standalone commercial as you can see at the bottom here i won't go through each line here but this is a general summary of the proposed changes the intent of the first policy is to recognize that we would allow additional commercial nodes without any residential second policy includes a provision that recognizes again allowing just commercial this policy i want to highlight in particular um the location criteria and that's important i'll explain why further in a minute the first criteria is that there has to be 2500 people within a three mile radius these can only be located at intersections of arterioles and collectors and cannot be within three miles of another activity center or another rural cluster center we also have criteria that outlines how big they can get with the intent of them not getting too big being limited in size this map here let me explain how this map came about as we're putting the policy together we figured we better test it to see if it's functional or was if it's applicable if it could actually be used this map which was done by our gis staff identifies potential locations in the blue dots there where an rcc could possibly go emphasis on possibly and i say possibly because and i don't know how if you can read it there but it says subject to locational criteria consistency or in other words it has to meet the rules of having at least 2500 population can't be three miles away from another one here's an example of how this rule would apply these are possible locations of rcc's this is us 98 us 27 just as a reference point if one were to locate here then another one could not be within a three mile radius well someone could say well okay you can put one here but remember one of the criteria is you've got to have 2500 population support and in this case we would still recommend denial because they were trying to be using the population here that's accounted for with this in other words we would not consider double counting a population so the reason why we put these criteria in is is as a growth management measure so we didn't have isolated commercial rural cluster centers popping up everywhere so to summarize we're amending our policies for rural cluster centers the reason why is you know we've identified a need we've received inquiries about having isolated commercial without residential our proposed solution is to amend our rural cluster center policies let me look through my notes to see if there's anything else and pending that i'll stand for any questions any questions for staff in this case the applicant is staff so yes anybody wish to speak for against what's being proposed here today please come forward yeah no that i think that's it i think that's it yeah that's it i think i named it that i apologize no problem this one thank you okay i apologize um my name is sue nelson i'm a former polk county planning commissioner from 2006 to 2011. thank you for volunteering i have never seen such big staff reports in my life coming through um i am a current member of the american planning association strictly for access to literature this rural cluster center text amendment is terrifying to me the need for this text amendment and i'm reading right from your staff report on page 62 the need for this text amendment change arose due to the oddly shaped rcc at the intersection of boy scout road and state route 60. the staff report mentions dollar generals in several places this amendment will allow these rural commercial nodes to be located where commercial uses are supported by a wider market range and captured drive by trucker and tourist traffic and at first glance when i read it i thought okay that makes sense i'm looking at state route 60 type thing and then you go to this map and and mr bennett had a better map because i was focusing on lake buffum which is in the middle of the map towards the bottom and that's exactly what the map that he pulled up it's great if it's if they stay on us 98 not anywhere near the rural roads near lake buffum or any of the other rural development areas this text amendment is too big it's great if you could centralize it on arterial roads only or like have a maximum or minimum traffic requirements for them to place this here thank you for listening thank you miss nelson staff would you like to come up and address any comments or questions i guess my only thought or comment is that by putting in the provisions for minimum population support the locational criteria of intersections and also the distance criteria we felt we put in adequate measures to ensure that they're properly located so so it sounds like what you're saying is staff's feelings are with the population and other criteria that you'll get you'll probably get them more on the higher density roads and not necessarily on localized rural roads right and and and i'll say let's use a little bit of common sense if i'm locating commercial business i'm going to put it on a roadway so i can get as much passerby traffic as possible okay thank you any questions for staff go ahead i spent about half a half a day reading through this trying to understand what we were trying to accomplish right with this what is specifically um i even asked this morning when i got here can i see what specifically can go into these locations what are we trying to accommodate here bear with me here i'm gonna i've got a slide here that lists all of the uses allowed in a rural cluster center they show up just gonna put in a presentation there you go okay is that better but yeah maybe a little bit go ahead okay so the short answer is the uses listed as level one and level two are allowed in a rural cluster center with some sort of staff approval permitted uses of course as the name implies you just go get a permit and those are allowed and then a level three and level four uses are uses or activities that either get reviewed and approved by this board through the level three process or require approval by a county commission as a level four so to answer your question what could go in an rcc the answer is these uses i i also call staff to see what the protocol would be to have a work session or something regarding this so we're not just up here voting blind on what all that includes okay and of course it was a little late by the time it came up and there wasn't time to schedule anything like that but i i was to the point i was going to ask if we could table this until we can have some time to understand it i've researched it i looked up all kinds of other things that are that happen in other communities and uh it um the the commercial part of it just seems awfully open-ended and that they can just pretty much land anywhere they and i understand they'll have to come back here for a for a review in some cases right in some cases but not all cases and and to that point remember this is a text change and what that means in the simplest terms is we're changing the rules the map i showed you doesn't automatically grant approval of an rcc right to your point a map amendment would still have to be done go through a public hearing process recommendation by this board and ultimately approved by a city commission i'm city commission i'm here 10 months now so county commission sorry about that um so yeah this is just an option a a way to to how can i say this um allow for consideration doesn't automatically grant approval any other questions or comments from board members um i just want to say for me this is way too broad we've got you know alcohol packaging next to farm worker dormitory religious institution you know vehicle sales it's so broad that it just doesn't get to the heart i think of what we're needing you know i live out in north auburndale and it is rooftops and dollar generals galore and i think that if we're going to do something like this it needs to be much more strategic and targeted toward you know what communities on and people are looking for can i have an example of what these i mean i i get this but where are these you obviously noted some of them already what do they now include here's one and this was one of the cases that came up that brought this question that raised the question raised the issue of why we need to look at these okay we received inquiries from the property owner at this corner wanting to add to the rural cluster center we thought it was appropriate because the whole concept of the comprehensive plan is to have commercial clusters at nodes as opposed to just anywhere or strip commercial looked at the rules and the rules didn't allow an expansion because a lot of the land is still vacant plus it's under two different ownerships so the rules didn't lock so that was part of the reason for the change getting back to your question what's um allowed here what's here right now this is a dollar general this is a restaurant um if you're familiar with this area boy scout road is the name implies the camps down there this road goes out the camp mack road and there's a lot of fishing camps out there there's a lot of traffic which is why we put the provision in to consider tourist commercial and locating these so to answer your question of what's out there what's typical this is an example of our one rcc that managed to develop with just commercial i guess my biggest concern is that this is such a big basket of things that can and typically when it goes to staff staff comes back most of the time with recommendations to approve and i don't like to fly in the face of staff but but i i just don't see the compatibility and when you have such a huge conglomeration of things that could possibly be included i don't know that staff has much much alternative but to recommend it to us and i i've just i got a problem with that as a as a yes ma'am good morning good morning shonda bennett with land development division i i wanted to point out two two things for your consideration that rcc on the south it's really undevelopable for commercial purposes it's just not deep enough um which uh we should have thought of that more when that case came through years ago um but you just you don't see commercial that thin office off of any kind of arterial collector road that on that's that long east-west one it's just not deep enough the one to the south it's so far south you're not going to get a commercial on the southern end of that rcc it's just not far it's too far away from say road 60. um but the policies for the activity center expansion said you can't expand one unless it's 80 percent developed that'll never get probably won't ever get 80 percent developed the second thing i wanted to point out is today you can put rcc's our the location criteria for rcc's today don't even have a population support for its initial establishment it just has to be at the intersection of arterials and collectors so today there's a lot more opportunities for establishing rcc's in the county this actually restricts it the one key difference between this activity center and any other activity center we have is under the development criteria so you can establish an rcc without a population support today but our convenience centers new activity centers community activity centers those all have population supports to establish first but those are more urban suburban populations rcc's are then subjected to those more suburban urban population supports when someone's ready to put a building in it so it's it's somewhat odd in that the population support comes after the establishment of it and that establishment of that population support for the development of the rcc is only a mile it's what the ever the equivalent is to the ccnac cac so it's actually a smaller search ring or support ring this is widening it to a three mile ring so i don't know if it's really increasing something that people don't have the ability to do right now it's mixing it up a little bit it's recognizing something that we've already done and mark mentioned that rcc's were meant to be residential and commercial there's no residential on this one so but these property owners have rights because it does have the rcc today so we're trying to go back and recognize how people buy differently these days they didn't we didn't have amazon prime in 1991 when we adopted our conference plan living in a rural area is now more of a choice than it is a need for your your sustaining your job so the rcc is recognizing this these changes recognize more the change in lifestyle and shopping patterns that we have the other criteria in the policy also talks about taking in population support traffic but also being in an area where there's clusters of residential coming to it and so this as mark mentioned has camp mack road they're going to come out at this intersection you're going to see a case coming in march i believe near fort meade that had the cluster of residential coming from the north down to us 98 just east of fort meade so there's more factors that we're looking at than just being at the intersection of a collector which is all that there is today thank you for the explanation i thank you for that and that's the very reason that i was suggesting maybe we need to have a a workshop or something so the general public and everybody else is not having to sit here and wade through my questions or anybody else's and and uh i i just that was that was the main reason i was asking about that specifically but um i'm decided thank you i appreciate it go ahead a couple thoughts um first you said that they can already do these sort of things in all sorts of places so i don't really see the need to through a land use amendment i should say um you showed one example are there a lot of examples of pieces of property like that or are there a few isolated incidences where we've got a narrow i don't but and i when i said they can do that today i mean request the designation of their property to rcc and mark showed that map of all the blue dots right so under the current criteria there'd be a lot more blue dots on that map because the criteria is only at the intersection they would need to come in and request yes ma'am through a land use change yes yes and we're avoiding that request by broadening this no ma'am no still would have to this is just changing the location criteria so that someone that has property at the intersection of two collectors or an arterial and collector can come and request it based on the revised location criteria and i put the location criteria up to further expound on shonda's point right now the only location criteria is what is shown without the underline the only criteria is located at intersections of arterial and collector roads the proposed text which is in underline adds additional locational criteria intersections main vehicle trip route areas of 2500 people within three miles can't be within three miles of another activity center rcc so that's why staff's emphasizing the point that at the end of the day we think these are better policies because they provide more criteria to where these types of land uses should go i appreciate that i see the need for that for me the categories are just too broad farm worker dormitory i don't see how that's you know not just picking that one out but they're it's just way too broad in terms of what what we're putting a stamp on can anyone tell me if in the code that there these designations that are permitted um don't these applicants have to fit into those designations i mean aren't they isn't there some sort of definition for what dormitory would be no yes there's a definition for um dormitory and farm worker housing and again you can't do that this doesn't allow you to do that if you have agriculture residential rule in the rural development area you have to request rural cluster center and we take in the consideration of what uses are allowed in that bag of you uses to determine compatibility that's part of the any recommendation that we have for any land use change that's brought before you we consider that bag of uses in the land development code just to make sure we're all clear basically this can happen today through a land use change and those same classifications that you showed are available to people with property if they go through this this lane use change amendment today and the blue dots are actually being reduced by this text change correct okay all right great great discussion at the board any other comments or questions would you say that again i want to understand what you just asked her sure i just tried to clarify what i thought i heard as summarizing is essentially what i'm understanding is that uh today an applicant come in through a lane use change and still get all those allowed uses that were listed by mr bennett assuming approval recommendation from us and to the board right that could happen all today there would be more blue dots on that overall map because what this is doing is actually limiting where those blue dots could go or reducing the number of blue dots that could be put on the map based on the gis analysis that was done through the state through the county that fair yes sir so with that on oh sorry because it's increasing from one mile to three mile that's right and it has the population element to it and some other restrictions that you're seeing there so with that i'll entertain a motion mr chair i'll move to approve ldc pal 2023-9 all right roll call please mr robert beltron for the motion david dalton i'm for the motion tommy addison mike schmidt angel sims and linda schultz mr chair passes 6-0 thank you thank you staff for indulging our questions thank you thank you for asking the questions i think it's appropriate yes all right next case introduce please so ian's doing it from there all right all right good morning ian nance land development staff recommends approval of this application ldct 2023-14 to amend the use table in the us-27 selected area plan who had full service car wash and self-storage facility as c2 conditional uses in the regional activity center land use district for the record a legal ad was published in ledger on december 19th with no response this is 11-4 review with board date scheduled for february 20th and march 5th the racx district in the us-27 sap is located in the four corners area of the county along us-27 and us-192 most of it has been built out with high density residential commercial uses as of right now full service car washes and self-storage facilities are not allowable uses as they are elsewhere in the county full service car washes are those that are generally automated but have other washing facilities they are different from the single stall incidental washes often found with gas stations this use is required to connect to reuse water and most modern establishments use car wash recycling systems these are better for water usage than people washing their cars at home saving water and preventing chemical filled wash water from running off in the storm drains the self-storage facility is another use common near areas of higher density development or smaller smaller lot sizes and apartment units limit where people can store their belongings on site these are typically conditional uses that administratively approved throughout the county us-27 sap though provides stronger standards for approval than elsewhere including requirement that the facility should be multi-tenant with at least three leasable storefronts and be designed to have the appearance of an office or retail building again staff recommends approval this request is consistent with the standards in the land development code and comprehensive plan these uses are widespread and common in racx districts throughout the county and with that i thank you we'll stand for questions any questions for staff is this just for one single or is this just for this one location it's going to apply for everything you see here in kind of this reddish color okay specifically though the applicant is looking to develop parcels along this piece of property it's five i'll let the applicant speak to how many out parcels are there but it's part of this larger development that's currently being constructed actually for the northridge sap this is for the uh us-27 sap yes okay thank you with that can we have the applicant please come forward good morning for the record logan ops all lounge law firm 215 north eola drive i could be with the commission this morning uh really just want to introduce myself and stand for any questions uh we are in agreement with staff i work closely with ian and and staff in general um yes this is a the market's really pushing towards these car wash and self-storage i know that there have been come before this body and the county commission um and other activity centers so in line with the staff report we're seeking to allow this to be a conditional use of course in your staff report as well we outline extensive uh additional performance standards which we would need to abide by but to answer your question sir directly uh we have commercial out parcels in in this particular property location um and so what this would do and there's a kind of related application request as part of this that relates to the pd would just allow this to be an option for for the out parcels of that pd within the racx activity center are any other questions for the applicant from board with that we'll open up the public uh hearing portion is there anyone here to speak for against this case seeing none we'll close the public hearing portion return back to the applicant i don't think there's anything else you'd like to mention at this point and with that i'll bring it back to the board for a motion or discussion move approval ldct second 2023-14 we have a motion and a second roll call please mr dalton robert beltron for the motion david dalton i'm for the motion tommy addison mike schmidt for the motion angel simms for the motion and linda schultz mr chair passes six oh all right fantastic all right introduction of the next case mr knee all right number six on the agenda is ldct 2023-15 this is an applicant initiated request for a ldc text amendment to appendix e section e105.e cpa 16 co2 subsection 3 to add additional defined area to the boundaries depicted for construction aggregate processing and storage area on december 14th 167 mailers were sent to area property owners two signs were posted on december 17th an illegal ad was published in a ledger on december 19th 53 responses in opposition and a petition with 251 signatures and another petition with 32 signatures were received and amy little is your planner good morning amy little with land development ldct 2023-15 is a land development code text amendment to appendix e of the land development code to add additional area to a previously approved conditional comprehensive plan map amendment to allow the applicant to apply for a conditional use approval for construction aggregate processing and storage in 2016 a conditional comprehensive plan map amendment was completed to change a portion of the property from business park center 2 to industrial land use at the time of review staff requested a condition to limit the location where construction aggregate processing and storage could be located on the southwestern most portion of that parcel the applicant has since sold the majority of the property that was included in that legal description in appendix e but is seeking to develop the use on the site this text amendment adds additional property to appendix e of the land development code to allow them to apply for the conditional use and staff is recommending approval the items on the slide have been entered into the record the site is located north of the polk parkway east of highway 98 and east of south cumby road as shown here on the left the aerial shows the location of the site in relation to combi road and highway 98 to the left is a i'm sorry to the right is a closer look at the outline of the parcel in question here you can see the split between the land uses on the parcel the western portion of the site is industrial and the eastern portion is still business park center too this text amendment does not change any of the underlying land uses table 2.1 of land development code notes that construction aggregate processing and storage requires a level three conditional use in industrial and is not permitted in business park center too further the conditional comprehensive plan map amendment limited the use to only the southwestern portion of the original parcel here you can this is the map that was provided with the 2016 conditional comprehensive plan map amendment you can see the diagonal hash marks indicate the area that was changed to industrial and then this is the section of the property that was indicated in appendix e that where the corner the construction aggregate could be located the area in yellow is the the subject parcel in red this is kind of a depiction of where the construction aggregate at the time in 2016 could be located the app the owner has since sold most of that property it's under different ownership so they still seek to place construction aggregate on the subject parcel and this is the general depiction of where they would like to place it it's the southwestern most portion of the parcel it's 2.23 acres of the um it's almost 22 acres of the the subject parcel so again here is in red this is where the construction aggregate in appendix e was located this is the subject parcel and this is the general area of where they're wanting to put it so they're still placing it um to the far southwest of the site as far as they can and you'll note that the to the north the closest home is 820 feet or more and to the east it's 450 plus um to those homes and if you'll look at the original outline that is actually closer so if they did develop in the area that they wanted to develop initially they would be closer to the home so they're actually restricting themselves a little bit more and pressing it as far to the southwest as possible staff is recommending approval this is just the first step in order for the applicant to develop the site with this this use staff is requesting a recommendation from the planning commission the board will hear the case first reading is january 23rd and then the adoption hearing would be february 6th if approved they would still have to come in front of you for a conditional use that would be march 6th so there's there's another three meetings that this would have to go through in order to get that approval at the time of the conditional use they will be required to provide a binding site plan they have to meet all the standards of section 303 of the land development code which includes all processing activity being set back at least 200 feet from residentially used property and in the previous slide you could see that they were more than that considerably they also have to do a type b landscape buffer around the use along with a six foot high opaque fence there's further restrictions on height they'll be required to incorporate dust prevention measures at the time of the condition conditional use application staff will look and make sure that they are meeting all of those standards this is just the first step in what they need to do to get to the conditional use application staff is recommending approval and with that i thank you and i'll stand for questions amy can you pull up the county's gis data viewer and overlay wetlands on it please i don't know if i have the link on here but i can try so this is ae flood zone and there are no wetlands shown on that site this is wetlands over here and to the north west the blue you can see that there any other questions for what is what is to the would be to the west right there immediately adjacent to the property line what is that this property here that is a salvage yard yes and all the uses along here are industrial in nature there's warehousing um there's commercial vehicle parking uh so we would expect there to be truck travel down this road okay any other questions for staff setback for dust and et cetera this is aggregate i understand this is processing has to be 200 feet from from the property line from residentially used and it's it's over 800 to the north um it would be over 400 to the east any other questions for staff with that the applicant can please come forward present your case obviously name and address for the record uh good morning mr chairman planning commission members my name is dave carter professional engineer 137 5th street northwest winter haven uh with me today is mr tom and patrick his son patrick mims the owners of the property uh this case has some complications to it as you heard um we were in front of you are going to be in front of you last or this past september for the conditional use permit uh review by the planning commission uh prior to that meeting uh after consultation with staff we understood that the appendix e had a limitation on the property that we were not aware of we were not uh the on the original design uh team on the on back seven years ago when the project was brought forward originally not aware of it and it was just missed it was an appendix e is a kind of a a very tiny part of the very back of the land development code and it doesn't get looked at very often frankly but the um the site itself was looked at by the planning commission and of course the board of county commissioners and the land uses that um staff described were approved by by both bodies back at that time there was a limitation however the um industrial zoning that was applied on the property there were a number of limitations that were put on that um i'm going to go ahead yeah the drawing you the the exhibits you see in front of you uh was part of the staff report back seven years ago and there's a lot of information on that can you see my cursor moving and you might want to put it in presentation mode so you can see the picture a little better bottom right sorry technically challenged my apologies no problem problem there we go okay thank you i still think you can move the mouse okay so there's a lot going on on this property and i you know all the notes on the right hand side were uh uh condition recommendations that were done by staff back seven years ago the overall site was about 50 acres the the eastern side and northern side as you saw with the gis information that was uh exhibited a couple of moments ago is flood plain and wetlands and so that area is unlikely to be developed it's currently forested and provides an excellent existing buffer between the uses any uses that are proposed on the site to the the adjoining uh mobile home park the north and the crystal hills development on the east so at that time it's my understanding the that northern and eastern strip was uh land use was bpc the center area was listed as industrial and then and then with uh very specific conditions again shown in appendix c uh eliminating hazardous waste uh treatment and storage facilities uh explosive manufacturing springs railroad yards particularly intensive uses were eliminated from that sort of core area uh you will note on the bottom of that staff recommendation it was very clearly shown that construction aggregate was anticipated or at least allowed to be considered on the southern section that's the area here and that and that area was construction aggregate was allowed it as staff indicated though it does require a full hearing in front of the planning commission where all the the traffic the noise the dust all those issues are considered by by your group and then potentially if appealed ultimately to the board of county commissioners but this map was approved back seven years ago with the outline i'm going to try to jump ahead here this is a simplified version of that map and i think it was one of the exhibits you saw but again this southern area the mine and mill road there's a cul-de-sac right here and that's as you can kind of look at this drawing that cul-de-sac is furthest away from any of the residential areas around it and it's um oh i don't know a thousand feet probably from the cul-de-sac to the nearest residential area something like that but that that's sort of the the the most distant point on this development from any of the surrounding area i'm going to show you this drawing with an aerial similar to what staff showed you this was the original uh construction uh concrete aggregate area is about 15 acres some of this area is uh old phosphate slimes and unsuitable for development uh the the distance that was approved by both the planning commission and the board of county commissioners back seven years ago the separation from the crystal hills area was 275 feet and we had estimated about over a thousand feet to the north so that area was originally approved again by both bodies what we're requesting today and again today is not a site plan approval request it is simply a request to amend appendix e and adding this area it's about two and a half acres you will know it is is right on the cul-de-sac again it's furthest away from any of the residential areas around it uh it's about two and a half area acres we we kept the footprint of what we expect the site to be as small as possible and and again keeping it as far away from the residential areas as possible mine and mill road if you're familiar with it has a number of very intensive industrial type uses it spills out on the combi road which is a has a class c or a c capacity so it has sufficient capacity for the development in fact for any even heavier development than what what would be proposed once again all those considerations the design considerations of the facility will come before you in a couple of months today's request is simply this geographic area on on our property if if we can expand the the construction aggregate processing area in that two and a half acres and i want just for the record i know we have a significant opposition from from the mobile home park to our north and some residents to our east there's a number of those and you're well aware of that um the crosshatch area are landowners where we have letters of support in the file for the project and you'll note we completely surround the site uh the area to the northeast of course we own but the area of the southeast the north and northwest uh we have area of letters of support from each of those property owners in support of the project uh we we think the our our opinion is that the industrial area to the north and northeast will unlikely be developed that that area's got as you saw earlier has got flood plain and some wetlands on it it's old some old phosphate areas so unlikely to be developed i won't ever say impossible but highly unlikely so this forested area that you see a natural buffer is already in existence we do have to comply ultimately with both the county and the florida department of environmental protection regulations as far as runoff the air and emission standards all those standards have to be addressed and will be addressed in the actual engineering design of the project that that information will come to you hopefully in a couple of months where you can you know view our our site plan and plans at that point and make a judgment as to the acceptability of the plant and the and the engineering design work on that um mr chair that's all i have this morning i would be happy to answer any questions you might have mr carter any questions for the applicant hearing none we're going to go ahead and open up the public workshop i know there's probably a number of folks here to speak for or against this case so i'm going to ask you guys to come up uh you'll be limited to three minutes please cue yourself down the middle aisle if you could so we can get through this and listen to your comments and go ahead and come on up please make sure to name state your name in good morning my name is ted harms i live at 1506 blue lake drive lakeland florida and i am the president of the hoa for skyview estates skyview estates is 208 homes senior it's a senior mobile home park upscale with um double wides and it's very nice uh 400 plus residents about 10 of which are on um have respiratory issues again it's a senior mobile home park 10 of the people have respiratory issues they're using ventilator breathing and we're very very we have a strong objection to the text amendment because of the dust even though it's a half mile away maybe from from south blue lake drive the dust from just dumping of aggregates is going to cause more breathing problems for those residents the just from the dust no matter what when they unload the truck and they'll have an excavator or something to to push the rock into that two acre area that will cause um breathing problems for our elderly residents which we already have a number of um in in the park right now who live on that south side of of our uh development and so we're very very worried about that the prevailing winds in polk county during the spring and summer come from the south to the to the north that's how the winds blow in in polk county during the spring and summer and so as they're unloading that dust is going to come right across our entire community so so our people who have breathing problems will be aggravated they won't be able to go outside the um the dust on our homes will will have to wash more often and so so it's a very concerning issue to us and to our entire community 208 homes 400 plus residents every single one opposed to this text amendment thank you appreciate your time and thank you for coming up and expressing the concerns of multiple citizens good morning my name is derek bag um and i feel strongly i'm also uh live in the same area um if this amendment for the record please oh sorry uh derek bag at 1926 blue lake drive lake land 33801 thank you uh if this amendment passes it will pave and i don't mean uh anything funny by a pun but an aggregate facility which will be adjacent not just to where i live but probably thousands of people it's a case of what is for the greater good for the residents of poe county as opposed to the profit for a select few so it's people versus profit as far as i'm concerned and i don't think anybody in this room would want to live adjacent or close to an aggregate facility it's not just dust it's noise uh anxiety people worried about their health and so on and so forth so i please i ask you to give lots of consideration as to would you want to live beside this even if you dot all the i's and cross all the t's and say well we've done all due process it's not the right thing to do for people thank you thank you for your time good morning my name is bonnie shalloff i live at 1626 blue lake drive 33801 i'm here to talk a little bit more about what ted said we know that in fact all the codes have been satisfied for building this facility but in fact no matter what is there done compared to today all of those negative things will be worse than they are today and that includes everything the um uh the air quality the dust pollution the trucks the property values the truck traffic on combi road which is combi road is at a standstill most of the time now anyways and the question of whether the county has enough resources to assure that all the codes are monitored and enforced so i really think about the environment part of it we have a lake right there and and even though they say that um they're going north well we just happen to be to the northeast side of that they've taught done all the talking about the crystal hills uh area and yes it is better for them and i'm thankful it's better for someone but it's really the betterment is for the as uh my neighbor said uh mr bags is the money that's involved and i really think that uh saying that and this is a quote that it is simply a geographical area change well it might be simple to the people that are doing this but it's not simple to us because it ends up closer than it was in the original definition and the other question is why is the owner allowed to ask for this change because he decided to sell some property why wasn't this thought about in 2016 the other unfortunate part of this for today is that we did not get the notices sent out till i think it was december 16th most of them were in uh received until the 17th it's christmas we have a lot of our residents that go with to be with family and we also have a lot of residents from the north who haven't come down yet so it's a very opportune time for them to have this first hearing and yes i do understand that we have lots more opportunity to talk about this but we want to get it established that we would be a bigger force right now than there are here if we had had time to line up all of our soldiers and make known to people that this is wrong so i thank you for the time and uh i hope as uh mr bagg said that you um do more than think about what codes are going to be there think about how different it's going to be for us in the future thank you right on thank you good morning my name is robert shepherd i live at 1546 dogwood drive and skyview estates uh i've been a property owner there for 29 years i've lived there for 28 years year-round my wife has a somewhat of a serious breathing problem she's an expensive or she's an expensive medication and my concern is the dust that has the potential of coming into us what that is going to do to her uh will i have to move uh what is this going to do to our property values i know you don't want to hear this word but we're already have a noose around our neck where we live there for bs ranch which is very close to us i know you've heard all you want to do with that but the potential here is could be devastating to many of us uh my wife and i both are 90 years old and we're not nearly as old as many of our residents in fact wednesday we're celebrating a lady who will be celebrating her 102nd birthday so we are an aging community and these kind of things uh the dust bs ranch all of that could be very detrimental to us thank you for listening to me thank you for your comment sir and coming today my name is janice moore i live at 30 40 ardmore way skyview estates i'm not as old as some of our residents but i do have lung conditions um i've had a double lung reduction surgeries and it's not just the dust it's the smell of that diesel and new year's eve when the fireworks went off the place was so smoky you couldn't even see and i just i am totally against this tax amendment and i hope you consider our problems and our complaints and think of us as your family what would you want thank you thank you need to hit a button or anything nope oh my name is robert bolin live 1930 blue lake drive uh in that picture right there i'm on the very south end so i would really be probably one of the closest to this you know all i want to do is be able to breathe enjoy life and not have to deal with this i'm i wouldn't wish this on any of you to have that move into your area thank you for your comments sir anyone else please go ahead and cue yourself up or come up closer to the podium if needed good morning my name is michael branch i live at 2411 crystal hills loop west if you look at the image up there you see the sea in crystal my house is just to the left of that sea so i took a measuring tape out there and measured to where they have cleared all the property and it's less than 300 feet from my back door i have two children one is 11 and one is three i grew up in this neighborhood and had the opportunity to live in a safe healthy environment and i would like for my children to grow up in the same way i along with three of my neighbors in the community had also put together a petition opposing the construction of this facility i turned it in this week to miss angela kaufman the signatures i have over 238 signatures on this all from my neighborhood all opposing the construction of this facility as well just the main four reasons on the petition where the noise level of the construction aggregate facility being so close to my house crushing rocks all day there is a school located to the south oscar j pope elementary school i believe it would be less than a thousand feet from this facility as well the air quality as most of the other people have mentioned would be degraded by this facility and when it was first presented staff said that there was no wetlands located on that portion of the property i do have pictures of wetland tags in my backyard which go along that whole section of the property it is designated wetlands and i do have pictures if you want to see those um the runoff from the storm or from the facility trying to keep the dust down would inherently go into those wetlands which drain from the lake at the north to the lake in the south um in the cumby settlement area down there so um we are all strongly opposed and i hope you have time to check out the petition and uh thank you for your time and just for your knowledge the petition is part of the official record and we do have it thank you so anybody else wish to speak for against this case come on up do we have a microphone or thank you my name is susan johnson i live at 3018 crystal hills drive lakeland florida 33801-9700 um i'd like to first of all give each one of you one of these this will show you um oscar j pope elementary is on main avenue um in all the information that we received uh they're presenting it like um where this is going to be is nine tenths of a mile away from there that's if you get on mine mill road and travel down the road and take a left onto um combi and then when you get to main avenue take a left there near oscar pope that's if dust travels down a roadway that's the way it would go if dust travels the way the crow flies it's three tenths of a mile that's been misrepresented here there are a lot of things that have been misrepresented and everything that's gone on here they're acting they um they're saying that they could um stack rock the minimum of 75 feet in the air because there's a lot of uh high buildings there there's not um maybe one of or two of them might be 30 feet high uh so that's misrepresented there too um they uh there is no source of water that on the property to be able to um wet down the dust that will fly around and everything that i've ever heard is that's supposed to be supplied and it's not um this kind of dust is very harmful to people that have breathing problems and we know that and they don't address anything like that there either and um um the noise level that would produce it would be um very harmful to children too that are trying to study at oscar j pope and also if they're trying to play in the in their playground um anything the dust the noise and everything is going to affect them too um i i would really think that you should consider that in everything because if if things can be misrepresented with one thing like that that should be simple this should not have even have come up because of a school being there i've talked to other people and other planning commissions oh i'm sorry that's okay go ahead and wrap up if you like you got a couple seconds you good all right thank you for your comments any other comments for or against with that we'll turn the floor back open to the applicant to address some of the questions you may have heard uh thank you mr chair for the opportunity to respond uh just wanted to point out that the separation distance between the crystal hills development to our east and the project is actually almost twice uh what it was in the original approval and again it's about twice what the code requires as a minimum we are a little bit closer to the sky view site to the north but again that's just shy of a thousand feet even at the current location we will have to comply with both the county and the dep regulations concerning air emissions i would remind you we're going to have employees on that site they have to be protected as well the the sky view project as you'll note on the the slide that's in front of you that's the southern end of it uh the the sky view project is a long slender north south related laid out the centroid of that is about a half a mile away from the site and then i would agree with the the individual that spoke earlier about that so we are closer to some of the residents on the south side but the lion's share of the residents are more than half a mile away the pope elementary school to our south this site actually is further north and further away from the from the school than what the original approval that was granted by both the planning commission and the board of county commissioners seven years ago we're actually further away we understand the concerns the residents would have about dust we have compact put the site on a layout as compact as we can and as far away from residents as possible uh we have uh letters of support from from all our adjoining property owners uh and we we intend to be a good neighbor and comply with this both the county and state regulations as far as our emissions and our water discharge we have to do that by code so um with that mr chair i'll conclude my remarks and again stand for any questions you might have any questions for the applicant david okay let's go on to tommy go ahead are you going to be stockpiling material here or are you going to be processing uh old concrete typically uh the large chunks of concrete come in and they're deposited those that are picked up go through a machine and then the fines are created those are on a stockpile and then those are trucked off the site so you'll have both materials some incoming and some leaving going down mine and mill road and then hitting cumby road but you'll be regulated by osha osha and dep particularly i you know this is not the first concrete aggregate site that's been proposed in the state of florida there are very strict regulations on all the the environmental concerns and we need to and we will comply with those again we will be coming back to you assuming an approval today we'll be coming back to you for a full hearing on the site layout where many of those conditions will be addressed where will your water come from for dust mitigation what's the either either well because as you you can imagine that water is not potable so we can either use well or county water but i think because the volume probably looking at a well system a small well system your proposal or what i read offered a minor traffic review i didn't find anything in the entire proposal that was what i would consider a traffic review what kind of truck traffic i'm an industrial engineer i know what you're doing and what is going on but what kind of truck traffic are you anticipating how many loads a day tonnage if you wish the the exit for the facility is on mine and mill road which ultimately hits combi road which north and south combi road is rated as a level c i think when i looked at the available pm trip counts it was a something like 130 or 140 trips that's normally considered about the five o'clock as you all know that's when traffic's highest it's sort of the road system is sort of flat throughout the day higher in the morning higher in the end of the day our traffic would be probably early morning throughout the day steady it would not be the five o'clock rush traffic that that pm trip number is looked at but um we have not we i'm trying to remember from memory what the numbers were but i do know the staff when they looked the staff report on the conditional use that came before you in september that was continued indicated there was plenty of capacity on combi road and that in fact the capacity was there for even a much higher intensity use than what we were proposing i i can't give you that number standing here sir i apologize i'm certain you've done certain feasibility studies for this for the sake of your client the minor traffic study was done in relation to the original submittal i just don't have those numbers in front of me sir i'm sorry um protecting groundwater uh from this will this be a liner facility with a liner or how do you propose to prevent water from escaping i mean i see where it can drain to but that's not going to be allowed i'm certain right um we we've done some design work on concrete plants which you can imagine have very similar issues with silica and very fines typically you would design a hundred year no discharge pond area around where the the materials are and and those ponds they do clog up eventually you've got to go in and and clean up just the fines out of the bottom but typically we would do a hundred year no discharge pond and that that way you're not uh transmitting that water to the wetlands which you you're well aware are north and east of us that area's low as floodplain there are all wetlands there as as the individual mentioned earlier but is there a liner for the site is it an entire line it's like a secondary contentment anything it would depend if the area is a high perk rate the answer would be yes if it's a very low perk rate if there are already clays and fines there now a liner would not be necessary this area is old phosphate lands so i suspect the soils there are not very permeable so that water would not transmit naturally and so why a liner may not be necessary if the permeability rates are so low that water can't go vertically downward anyways the liner would not be necessary so it depends on the soils the materials are inert anyway it is but there are silica sands in the in the uh broken concrete it's still inert it's a natural substance yes for staff do we have any sort of um noise abatement i understand the dust issue um do we have noise abatement that we are requiring for a site like this there's nothing in section 303 um that that speaks to noise abatement there are just things in the code about noise abatement um that they would have to abide by um and that would go through code enforcement if they were to go above those decibels okay any other questions for the applicant i've got a quick question well there's nothing else there's no requirement in industrial period is there not for industrial no and this this entire area to the the west of it is also industrial if any of these properties wanted to come in and do uh construction aggregate they could because they're not part of the parcel specific condition any other questions i have some questions for staff mr chair uh did you hear anything in the public testimony that changes your view on the case no sir and to be clear this request today is compliant with the current version of the land development code and comp plan yes it is okay thank you mr carter i have a quick question for you um this is an expansion for the appendix c as you've mentioned that's all we're doing here today anything else you're going to come back with and a specific plan and and other details for this board to consider as a recommendation to the ultimate board commission are you guys currently doing any activities similar to this in the southern region where you're allowed to to do this today on the other uh 15 acres yeah the one just to the south of the yellow no and i i doubt you're going to see that i mean again i never say never but that area when you look at uh the the errants which is the soil types in that area as you get further away from the in from the cul-de-sac the soils get worse you're going downhill you're in a flood plain uh there's a truck um i don't know what you call a storage facility or parking area just to our south but you get beyond where that area was cleared and some of those errant soils are are in poor shape so um most of development i think you're going to see although the entire site the old 50 acres has got bpc and um industrial on it as you get further away from that uh um cul-de-sac the soils get worse and the likelihood of development is poor we don't see any any um cca being developed on the other 15 acres we would have we would have liked to have taken that uh allowance off of there but we can't we don't we don't own that property and so we can't go on someone else's land and change the allowable uses without their permission and so uh but we would have been happy to do that had we been able to okay thank you any other questions for the applicant from the board with that i'll entertain a motion or further discussion mr chair i'll move to approve ldct 2023-15 second we have a motion in a second roll call mr dalton robert beltran for the motion david dalton i'm for the motion tommy addison mike schmidt against the motion angel sims against the motion and linda schultz mr chair passes four to two thank you very much thank you all for attending today who spoke next case if you could please exit quietly i'd appreciate it we have other business to conduct all right number seven on the agenda is ldwa 2023-58 yapkin is requesting a waiver to chapter 8 section 821a of the land development code access through a platted residential lot with the intent of creating four residential lots subject property is located at 3202 silver fox pass path east of kathleen road south of duff road northwest of the city of lakeland and section 16 township 27 range 23 on december 14th 129 mailers were sent to arab property owners two signs were posted on december 18th a legal ad was published in the ledger on december 19th staff has received 27 responses in opposition with a petition of 41 signatures and melissa celestine is your planner good morning for the record melissa celestine presenting ldwa 2023-58 staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a waiver to chapter 8 section 821a of the land development code for access to a platted residential lot with the intent of creating four additional residential lots this request is not to review the proposed subdivision plan the applicant has submitted but to evaluate if a portion of lot 32 can be utilized for access to develop the parcel to the south there is a true hardship here as approval is the only way to get legal access to the southern property for development mr king owns both the parcels in question and the existing home will remain according to the applicant a 30-foot easement along the western portion of lot 32 is being proposed to provide the access required to develop the southern property which will utilize silver fox path for ingress and egress the subject request meets the waiver criteria in chapter 9 section 932 as outlined in the staff report if this request is approved the proposed parcel will be subject to a level one review pursuant to section 705b of the land development code for access the site is located south of duff road and east of kathleen road the subject access point is located within the residential low three land use district and the parcel to the south has a residential low one land use designation in this area you can see the outline of the fox chase subdivision and the area proposed for the four future lots although it appears that the access could be obtained through bangalow drive over here it is actually owned by the huntington hill properties association and staff visit also confirms that our lift station is at this location to the left is a photo is a photo for reference of where the easement for ingress and egress will be located to the and to the right is a synopsis of the applicant's request which i previously addressed i wanted to include this side to give an idea of where the most impacts to the neighboring properties and the overall developments would be this is what the area would look like if the access request and plat is approved and this is the path the new homeowners will need to take to access duff road the four additional units will increase the average traffic volume by approximately 32 annual average daily trips four of them will occur at peak hour of these trips silver fox path and the individuals residing on the cul-de-sac will be most impacted the proposed request is anticipated to increase the traffic volume on silver fox path by approximately 66 percent and approximately 10 for fox shake drop fox chase drive as individuals travel to and from duff road the impact is marginal for the subdivision as a whole here is the site plan showing the location of the proposed 30-foot easement for ingress and egress along silver fox path as you can see the lot abutting the site to the west will be most impacted if the access is approved here is a site photo showing mr king's driveway and the location of the proposed access to the west is the neighbor's fence staff recommends approval the requested hand is only for access to applied a lot which meets the waiver criteria outlining section 932 of the land development code if the waiver is approved it will only be valid for four lots subject to chapter 7 section 705 b for access there will be no impacts to water pressure because the future lots will utilize an on-site septic and well system the applicant's request is well below the threshold of what can be achieved under 25 acres in the residential low one district if the request was solely for access via easement this request would have been reviewed and approved administratively as it meets the requirements outlined in chapter 7 section 705 b of the land development code nonetheless staff finds the request to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code with that i thank you and i will stand for questions any questions for staff i just a quick point of clarification so this approval today only allows for an easement for four lots correct regardless of what may be happening in the future correct if that were to change it would have to come back that's also correct thank you all right so we'll go ahead and ask the applicant to come forward sarah good morning good morning for the record sarah case next level planning and permitting my address is 3825 south florida avenue and that is in lakeland i'm here today representing mr king who owns both of the properties that are in question before you today and as staff indicated and i do want to thank melissa for a very well written staff report she did a very thorough job of kind of explaining it because this is a little bit different a lot of waivers we achieve them administratively this is because it is a platted lot but mr king owns both of the properties which his lot itself is in the platted subdivision and is about just over 0.7 acres but he has also the 25 acres to the south of him that is actually we consider landlocked because the access to that and we did confirm with polka utilities can you see my cursor there that there is a lift station right there that the county owns so um we there's not an option um for for for access there and further south as you saw in the staff report um there's not an option for access there either so we were not required to submit a site plan but we did want to demonstrate because at drc we said um we want to limit ourselves to four lots i believe hopefully you read in the staff report that um there is a trend that that some folks want to live on um larger estate tracks kind of off the beaten path from urbanism and so um i did a 10 lot subdivision um in in the county but in south lake lakeland not too long ago and it just it took off and so this gentleman um the owner is just requesting the conditions of approval uh we agree with and that is going to hold us to and as you said mr bertram that um we would not be able to get any more than four so this is not um trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes and saying um first we'll get four and then we'll get something different um that would definitely have to come before you again and he is only interested in building the access road and then the four single-family lots so with that i know i've had an opportunity to speak with some of the opposition i would like a chance for a rebuttal and i appreciate your time this morning any questions for the applicant hearing now we'll go ahead and open up the public workshop part of this hearing or public comment part anybody here to speak for or against this case please come forward if there are multiple people if you could please queue up in the middle aisle go ahead sir name is james paxton 6825 fox chase drive i live at the end of fox chase drive um i don't really know that i can show you with it i don't have a corner or anything where i can show you on the uh the screen where i'm located at to my understanding in the uh the parcels that he's going into are and aiming to make a single family dwellings number one uh aren't they wetlands number one covered by uh swift mud and that needs to be looked at there is a that whole area is wet my side yard stays wet i know y'all wanted pictures i read through your documentation but and there's a drain coming in out of trying to remember the name of the uh the subdivision there but there is a drain going out there there there's a lot of water related issues that go across the property we live at the bottom of a hill you can't tell that from here but we live at the bottom of a hill and there's a lot of water related issues that are going to come down through there and i just feel that he's going to end up flooding our properties worse than they already are and i would like for that to be taken under consideration by the board and also the traffic i can only imagine what it's going to do to the traffic down through there and also we're at the top of a hill at a peak they're on duff road it's going to make it a whole lot more hard for everybody to get in and out of the subdivision without occurring accidents and injuries i'm just trying to prevent that from happening and for your consideration i appreciate y'all looking at that uh and also that's something i just looked at a while ago and remembered from when i looked what are we going to do the tree that's all it's worth that's all it's worth is just cutting the tree down i i think it's a sorry day when a nice tree like that's just going to be just cut down thank you for consideration thank you for your comment sir my name is chuck hoffman 6505 bendelow drive lakeland 33 810. i just have one question on the rl1 designation it it all talks about the designations being the lot size but nothing equates to what kind of a structure or structures could be put on those lots is that limited to one structure that's my question yeah but you don't have a chance to come back and answer questions all right um because i think the concern we are an adjacent subdivision but i think the concern more so is what's going to go in there as it was presented it it seems like one structure per lot but in the future that could develop into multi-family villas condos you know a replatting of that area thank you thank you sir hi my name is darlene wilhide i live in huntington hills uh 3098 westmoreland drive um i also mirror what chuck just said about what is going to actually be built there uh what type of um housing is going to be there is it going to be like a single family home multi-family home we don't know also there is access on bendelow drive i'm concerned about that i'm concerned because as we know things change over time nothing's set in stone this could be a future problem for uh huntington hills i'm very concerned about that i'm concerned about the noise i'm concerned about what's going to be built back there because i my i have a beautiful view of that farm right now i'm right on westmoreland drive it's gorgeous and i don't know what's going to look like my future vision i know that's not my property but i've admired the farm for as long as i lived here since august and i'm just concerned about it because i don't want to look at ugly buildings and i don't want a lot of noise pollution i don't want a lot of banging heavy machinery there's going to be a lot of noise it's a very calm beautiful um where we live is beautiful uh it's quiet there's a lot of elderly people there um that deserve to have quiet peace and quiet myself included i like the quiet so i don't know what kind of heavy machinery is going to be brought through those uh now silver fox that's not my neighborhood but i do feel bad for those people because i've gone down that neighborhood they're very narrow streets how are those trucks going to get through what kind of damage is going to be done to those streets who's going to take care of those streets so i don't want any access to the country or to hunting hills because that would ruin um they would first of all have to pay hoa fees they'd have to be part of the hoa and i'm very concerned about future implications of this i appreciate your um consideration thank you for your time hi cindy pennington 6850 bindleow drive lakeland 33810 i live in huntington hills which is the adjacent and actually i received a letter because it is within 500 feet of my property uh we do live in a it's it's a farm right behind us it's beautiful i mean i can't even say please don't do this because the aesthetics are just gorgeous i mean to have a farm behind you gorgeous but if you've been what they deleted in that little photo when they took a picture of that 30 foot easement coming into fox chase on that little bitty teeny cul-de-sac is there is a house literally right there that tree and there's a house when i drove into there there was a mother with two children sitting right there at the road to keep traffic from injuring her child i mean there are children that play in that cul-de-sac and they play all through that subdivision it's very dense populated area it goes off of a major road duff road and shame on whole county that that is the worst road it connects kathleen and 98 and it is a thoroughfare especially since publix kathleen has added traffic onto that is a two lane no sidewalk no roadway no pedestrian traffic you could bring any additional traffic especially into that tiny tiny subdivision and bring i don't care if it's four cars which we're talking about any family you're going to have two cars per household driving multiple times with motorcycles bicycles pedestrian you're adding to that community such a detriment i'm surprised everybody of course they got their letter a little late and they got a little sign right there in that cul-de-sac nobody in the neighborhood knew until we informed them because we knew what was coming because this has been up before this property has changed hand twice because it's landlocked they bought it knowing it's landlocked and they want access to it because it's 25 acres of beautiful property who wouldn't want to develop that into a subdivision that's what we fear that's what we're up here and we have a petition that we signed and we'll be at every hearing and we'll bring more people to stop it because we don't want a big subdivision behind there thank you thank you for your comments i'm supposed to push a button no you don't need to do anything just name and address for the my name is conrad clark uh i live at 6876 winkworth parkway lakeland uh in huntington hills um i really have uh three things i i need to uh talk about um writing on her description of duff road um there's been a an incredible amount of uh development in the kathleen area and duff road being a main uh east west connection between kathleen road and 98 um they're both um uh pretty fast roads and if it's not um uh rush hour traffic and slowed down because there's so many cars people drive there 65 70 miles an hour um i know from experience because i run up and down duff road on the sidewalk where there is one um and it it it's dangerous if you're pulling out of these subdivisions and cutting across the lane to take a left um you take your life in your hands every time you do it i'm surprised there hasn't been fatalities um adding more cars is just going to make it worse um if there are in fact only four sites as this diagram shows that wouldn't be nearly as bad as what could possibly come from 25 acres of who knows what they're going to do eight years down the road with it and somebody mentioned something about a well and septic um you know if you're talking about 400 people in 25 acres septic is going to be a problem um and lastly i did some research um starting with uh the address of 3202 silver fox path um the listed owner of that is cgf retail cgf retail has one listed position filled by a manager called land south management um so i looked up land south management and they manage mobile home parks uh direct mobile home rentals and low-end properties um as does that the cfg retail itself so if that's the type of development that's actually going to happen here they'll have a large negative effect on the housing values in huntington hills huntington hills the average uh housing price is 300 to 700 thousand dollars so you have 400 homes with negative impact on their value your revenue will be hit by a lot more than what will be enhanced by this new development thank you for your comments sir name and address for the record james grant 6815 north wheeler road lakeland florida 33 810. i live on the south side of that back by the woods where that ends up i've got about a little over six acres there i've been there over 25 years now raising my kids and now my grandkids and they enjoy the wildlife there are endangered gopher turtles all over through there there's owls bobcats all kinds of wildlife the more you encroach and take away that woods we're not going to have any wildlife that's all thank you sir for your comments good morning mike heiss uh 6868 bendelow drive in huntington hills and uh we back right this this corner this property that was purchased the corner of it is right in our backyard basically so we have a fence between us and and it uh so it does affect us we have enjoyed the the grass there was horses and cattle then there was cattle and now there's no cattle but we still enjoy the vacant area out there um our concern is uh number one concern is are these going to be single family dwellings that go on here uh like everybody else we don't want a bunch of condos going in there we don't want you know multiple family housings going in there that's a big concern another concern is where that property that you have up on the board butts up to the wooded area that this gentleman was just talking about there's probably 200 to 300 acres of wooded land out there uh is that something that's going to be connected to this and then expanded housing and residential areas out into that area i don't know who owns it but there's a lot of area out there that's vacant the traffic concern for those people on fox chase i feel sorry for them if this goes through supposedly it's only four families i don't know if any of you have ever driven duff road from 98 towards kathleen road if you haven't go up there at night and drive that there's no lights there's no place for bicyclers to go there's no place for pedestrians to go and sometimes you see people walking up to utilize that youth the activity center the basketball courts the handball courts it's a busy area and that area is so in need of some some widening uh you know somebody's going to get killed there um those are my comments uh the duff road thing really concerns me please take a look at it thank you sir go ahead if the rest of you want to queue down the middle aisle yes uh this is ken baker i live at 6846 bendelow drive and the biggest concern i would think you know we're looking at the future in huntington hills because the 25 acres owned by glenn hardwell is probably going to come up sooner or later for the same thing but the immediate problem would be the four houses according to where they build them is yet that area is so low that you're going to have to build up the whole section which is going to create a drainage problem for all the houses on fox chase when you start building that up when you start passing a perk test uh if they discord when they give it you know a rainy season or dry season i don't believe it'll pass in a rainy season so that means you're going to have to build up that whole section down by the access road which is going to affect all the houses on fox chase to the right of it just food for thought thank you thank you for your comments sir hi i'm kimberly snow i live at 6546 bendelow drive in lakeland that's the huntington hills neighborhood i first want to add that uh when the applicant was showing their pictures of the plats of the the residential properties the ones they initially centered were four at the very top very long thin lots and now when she pointed it out she's now talking about putting the fourth lot where the the tree line is down there which is actually um it's uh the fema flood zone that's part of the fema flood zone where that other land is um and of course in the uh chapter 7 section 50705b which this is subject to i just want to talk about that point by point um because this uh committee is subject to see if this complies um whether the applicant of the provisions of the code would cause unnecessary and undue hardship on the use of the property i'll respond to that the southwest tip of the property lies in the special flood hazard areas identified by the federal emergency management agency uh as flood zone ae defined as low line with high risk of flooding it also has wetlands on that southwest area the subject property abuts to neighboring properties which are conservation elements and croplands to the south and southwest the water runoff from the subject property flows to the south and southwest and onto the neighboring properties any constructions or homes built on the subject property north of these abutting properties may affect the florida aquifer wetlands and detention areas and possible violation of polk county florida land development code 630 flood hazard management and flood plain protection specifically letter h as to 932a2 whether the waiver granted is the minimal adjustment that will make possible the reasonable and permitted use of the property uh any waiver granted is not within the minimal requirements of the section 932 as to 932a letter number three whether the granting of the waiver will be harmed in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this code and that such waiver will not be interest or detrimental to the public health safety or welfare or by without limitation creating unsafe traffic conditions or cause increased maintenance expenses in connection with the subdivision improvements um and a budding property to the south that subject property is cropland used mostly for hay that feeds livestock any pollution of that crop may be detrimental to those animals the owner of that cropland allows friends and members of his church to use his land for target practice with a wide variety of firearms which is certainly within his right this occurs at least monthly during the summer and at least once per week during the hunting season the week that i am writing this letter they have practice every day this could certainly be a risk i've got a lot more to go but i guess my time my time is up but uh i just wanted to say the above point should be addressed and considered as they pertain to polk county land development code section 705 and 932 and also with scrutiny to 630 and it should not fall upon the taxpayers of polk county subsidize the maintenance of the roads and utilities you must also consider the environmental impact to the surrounding land and our water system thank you very much thank you thank you i'm mark scornick 7041 hazeltine circle 33810 i was uh uh formerly a member of the board of adjustment when we had one uh i have everybody complains about traffic well let me tell you since the county upgraded kathleen road it's the same as being on route four is absolutely unbelievable and the truck traffic that goes between kathleen over duff to 98 back and forth is unbelievable it's not just more traffic it's a lot more and we have had a pedestrian fatality on duff road a fatality so it's not a rural area you've heard all the other arguments and uh uh we we'd like your consideration thank you thank you good morning everybody uh my name is tony morelli i live at 3219 silver fox path it's actually caddy corner to the property that we're talking about also um there's the gent excuse me a gentleman here that's on the property right next to where you're going to be putting the road right next to their house for the easement or not easement but just the road and they do have young kids and i've lived there for 29 years seeing the change my concern is if you put in more than four houses and the traffic is going to be too much if this is just a a start for something else that's going to happen you know multi-family or anything else that what you're doing is is you're making a thoroughfare for another plat coming up into the plat that we have so i hope you if you're going to approve it i hope you limit it and zone it for residential and leave it at that thank you thank you for your comments good morning my name is mike mercurio and i live at 71 30 montreal drive in lakeland 33810 i'm part of the huntington hills community i'm also on their architectural board but one of the issues that i want to address that hasn't really been spoken to is the fact that you want to ingress into this through bendelow drive in our community through a property that's vacant right now but one thing to remember the roads inside of huntington hills are private we own them we maintain them and we build have been building a reserve fund based on the usage rate that we have in our community based on garbage trucks coming in ups fedex mail traffic in and out we have a limit on even garage sales we do that one time a year in order to limit the traffic flow well if you put an ingress through our community into there we're gated we would have to then allow these people to have access to our gated openers so that they can come in and out so their family and friends can come in and out that's going to produce excess wear on the roads that our reserve study hasn't figured in so therefore will become underfunded when it comes to the repair and maintenance of our roads internally and we think that's an important consideration because that's that's our private money county's not coming in to pay for any of that and these new homeowners aren't have not contributed torn or will they be contributing into our reserve fund because they're not a part of our HOA so those are i think important reasons why we don't want to allow an ingress and egress through our community into that area the current area that they're proposing i believe our public streets so i i can't speak to that but i can speak to our private community we do not want the extra traffic these are residential areas we have a 15 mile an hour speed limit we have little children that play in the street we have golf carts that go up and down the road we don't want to compete with a lot more cars of people coming through that are just passing through and not a part of our community and have the sensitivity to the other residents that live there so i think that's a very important consideration to allowing access and i know by not having that access it puts even more onus on their going up through the original one that they're proposing so there's just going to be a lot of increased traffic that's going to put a strain in that area and i really want you to make sure that we do not want that egress through our property thank you very much thank you sir my name is william mccorkle i live at 3051 on it uh yeah oh golly hi 3051 west morland drive lakeland florida 33810 and i am a resident of huntington hills i sit on the board i want to address two issues that i see up here on this board one is number two number two says although aerial photos depict that the access through could be obtained through bendelow drive which is owned by huntington hills which is a private community with private roads no one has addressed that and we don't want to set a precedence i'm here to object to that any any wording to that that it could be no one has approached us about bendelow uh and that access but we're we're here to make sure that that precedence isn't set okay so i object to the other side of it number four i don't like the wording okay i don't like the wording on 24 the proposed four lots four lots are well below the 25 lots that can be achieved by right of passage that wording leaves a pandora's box open as far as i'm concerned they're asking for four but it says if they get that four there's a right of passage there if they get the right of passage they are well below the 25 uh residents that they could put in there someone alluded to the fact that this is owned by a modular community i don't know that for sure i haven't researched that okay i just have those two objections that i want to make noted of it and i because i said on the board i want to make sure that you are aware that we are totally against any um inference to the fact that they can have access to the bendelow drive thank you thank you sir for your happy new year happy new year hi um my name is michelle castreland 2684 huntington hills drive and i've been listening all morning and it seems like you have a chicken and an egg situation um which comes first the road or the parcels um listening to some of the earlier comments it would seem we could perhaps confine whatever permission you grant now to address a lot of the concerns people made the road may contribute to runoff may impact neighbors both in silver fox and huntington hills is it four lots is it multiple units if you grant permission if we could have language confining what you're actually granting to give more time to address some of these concerns this way it's not setting precedent for approving a road to anything and i think that would go a long way towards the intent which is four lots um presumably single family um not necessarily opening pandora's box to 25 acres um the turtles and the owls and so on but still allowing forward progress there's checks and balances further on but let's not just rely on that let's agree on something which i believe is the intent of the applicant for four lots single family subject to making sure there's not runoff affecting other people and also protecting wetlands and um you know the wildlife thank you thank you hi good morning my name is erma cole i live at 7041 hazeltine circle which is part of huntington hills in lakeland and i i'm also on the uh board the hoa board i'm secretary of the board there and we've accumulated a lot of letters of opposition there are 395 uh homes in huntington hills and i haven't found one person that's in favor this so the problem is uh not just the number of houses or structures that are going in there but what that sets a precedent for um there is more land there there's the harwell farm which has been referenced and there is the gun shooting and there's the noise and the safety factor there is the road use in fox chase and the potential for for all of that to affect the residents at huntington hills there's the safety issue the noise issue the road issue property value issues there's a lot there and we are definitely opposed to this thank you for your consideration thank you good morning my name is judy new and i live at 5746 lake victoria drive in south lakeland so i hear what they are saying and this is a room of wonderful people this is where they live one person lived there for 29 years that's where their home is and i speak from experience where i live case reserve was recently built and they're actually still building right behind my home thankfully they're homes that are big lots they're nice homes it's it's wonderful to you know get my coffee and look out the window and see these this neighborhood however there's a street going down fitzgerald which leads to my neighborhood where it was just this poof one day there was a forest and now there's about i don't even know how many homes but it's one of those built-up streets all that to say i think there's enough dissension in this room that i could humbly just ask that this would be tabled until further communication between your wonderful board and these wonderful people could take place so there's more communication before this beautiful plot of land is developed thank you thank you any other comments for or against this motion if so if you're here to speak please queue up in the middle good morning my name is steven livesey and i live at 31 3195 huntington hills um i'm if you look on the on the picture right there if we can go to the the plan the other plan but this picture where the ss is my home is adjacent to the ss so in front of my in front of my behind my home on my backyard i'm probably one of the most effective residents other than the condos on the um east side so i'm the i'm the southmost house next to future lot number one so i think the problem here is like what everybody has been speaking about is the development of this area but the deeper problem is your planning staff have already approved it it's only come to you to say yes or no so i look at this and i'm looking at a deeper view of what i'm going to lose which is this pastoral view in my backyard okay i look out onto 25 acres of green i look at what's been purchased right there mr king represented by sarah today um has purchased two properties so that he can put an easement road through there so and now we have a plan in front of us that says let's approve this we've got four lots we've got three three acre lots and one 10 acre plot so we put the excess road in there what's to stop mr king or cfg retail in future years coming and asking to split these lots what's to stop the people that buy future lot number one future lot number two from coming back here and asking to split the lot further okay the rules how they were written on first page or the justification for the approval it states there the wording puts it right there one acre lots they could have one acre lots 200 by 200 lot it's right there in that justification for approval that's what we could be looking at in the future so i'm against this and my deep my my concern is not that this is going to happen because it looks like it's going to happen based on what's happened this morning you've approved everything that's here before you that's been approved by the staffing so this is going to get approved right here what we see because you're not listening to us you don't have empathy with us if this was your backyard would you want to see future lot number one two and three right adjacent to your backyard developed into you don't know what we're all ranch style homes single story there's nothing in this plan that tells us what's going to go on those lots there i appreciate your comments and just for the record we take each case individually and we listen to all the information as provided and make informed decisions as best we can and these are recommendations that go on to the board typically so thank you sir for your comment okay well also um i only heard about this through hearsay i received no letter yet i'm one of the most effective people in affected people in huntington hills thank you good morning my name is hugh roberts i live at 3126 orange grove court lakeland florida 33810 i just want to reiterate what was said earlier we live in a private gated community we maintain the roads what these people are asking is they're asking you to approve the use of our roads by construction equipment and then people that don't belong to our neighborhood it would require us to have to give those people gates to our keys to our gates and allow them through our subdivision at will not only them but whoever people they invite to their homes i don't think it's proper i don't think it's right to be able to to allow them to tell us how we're going to use our roads and that's all i have to say thank you thank you sir hi my name is james clay i uh live in the property right next to it at 3222 silver fox bath where the easement will actually be pretty much right on my fence line i'm not opposing the four lots because i knew it was going to be there prior to him buying the place my only concern is what can happen later you know i got my small kids they run out they play all the time i just don't want it to be any more than what's going on now that's my biggest concern thank you for your comments and for your service sir all right anybody else here to speak for against with that sarah if you'd like to respond absolutely i i am sure i can clear a lot of of the things up that were were discussed first of all um mr king bought the properties um as recorded in or book one two seven nine one pages zero five nine nine and 600 and he bought it from cgf retail llc who was the previous owner cgf retail hired me to start this process and then mr king bought it he lives in that house house that is there we're asking to have an access easement i may have said road i don't know that we're building a road we may not build a road we are asking permission to access an easement or an an easy access easement through a platted lot we never said huntington hills so i do feel like i need to correct that um we do not have access in huntington hills as verified by polk county utilities yesterday there's a lift station um and um where it shows the what would look like a sub out and it is owned by the property owners association of huntington hills and we have not approached them because we do not want to go through huntington hills that would be actually impacting more people um to do that so you can't see the bottom of the screen but the um vendolo drive is actually it dead ends we are not here to talk about the the harwell um property um my client mr king owns only these two properties um and here is um some excuse me here would be the assurance of what we're asking for the approval and i want to read into record the three conditions of approval that we agree to and this should clear up any doubt okay number one approval of this waiver shall be for the access of up to four single family residential lots through lot 32 of fox chase subdivision as described within the staff report number two this waiver shall be valid for the residential development of no more than four future lots derived from 25.13 acres of said parcel um so long as the size of these lots meet the criteria for the minimum lot size in the applicable land use district which is what you've heard rl1 there's a minimum lot size requirement of 40 000 square feet the rl1 is the one is the subject district which is basically one acre lots we're not asking we're asking for four lots so i do want to clear that up as well and then the third condition which you can read i know but um it talks about no vehicles machinery equipment that would or could interfere with the passage of emergency vehicles so i have heard their concerns about duff road um our county commission can address that we are asking for your recommendation of approval to the board of county commissioners for an access easement and that is it and it is restricted to single family homes built for single family homes built on no less than a 40 000 square foot lot any deviation from this would require further approvals and public hearings so it's four lots single family homes and um and um i would i would appreciate your recommendation to the board for approval of this access easement thank you thank you sarah any questions for the applicant go ahead um this owner owns both the house and this 25 acre tract is that correct mr king and he's actually with me here today so there are no ingress or egress issues current because he owns both properties he can come and go off of his own property at will correct so unless he sells these properties there is no ingress egress problem and no and nothing required to come and go is that correct he can just step across the property line and he's on his on the on the adjacent parcel correct so we're we're we're proposing this because we're wanting to sell this is that what i'm hearing or he may build for his family bill and he wants to he oh you know he owns and controls that and nothing else right it just so happens that the two are connected i have a family farm i understand he can do that with his own within his own family and those lots cannot be separated or segregated from the parcel if he does that but if we did the family homestead that's not what we're asking for because that's in perpetuity that the that the lots would be they have to be in perpetuity to a family member and it's well defined in the land development code right so this is basically to be sold to someone else is that is that correct four lots 25 acres okay maybe i'm not making myself clear he is doing this and asking for this ingress egress right away whatever you want to call that because there's going to be four different owners of these four different lots possibly but yes that that would be legal so the hoa of silver fox chase subdivision is going to have to give these four people access codes ingress egress the right to use the the roadways to come and go to these to these lots we're different from huntington hills they have i'm not speaking roads i'm speaking and these are public roads yeah those are all public roads for the so fox chase is all public roads and okay public access it doesn't have an hoa the public's hearing is closed so this allows the board to discuss with the applicant please okay um are there any restrictions to the i know there's hoa in huntington hills and that's off the table i get that um are there any restrictions to the size or the development of the housing that goes on these properties is there anything proposed well i believe um someone testified earlier about being adjacent to large estate lots and that it was not an eyesore that's a 10 lot subdivision that she's talking about this is going to be four and should he sell them to individuals if they are buying more than an acre or two they're not going to put a mobile home on here we wouldn't be allowed to do that anyway it the condition specifically says single family residential we would have to come back for hearing to do a mobile home we would have to come i mean any change that size of of land to build on it's going to be appropriate and compatible so there will not be multi-family there's not you know so i was hoping that reading those conditions would address some of the concerns that were brought before you by the opposition how is that to be included in the approval those conditions are part of the approval it's um it's page five in your staff report the conditions have staff to confirm that that is correct thank you any other questions one quick question yes somebody brought up a tree would need to come down to make room for cars to go down who is it mr king's tree yes okay and take his tree down if he wants to for any reason at all right okay making sure it wasn't like a community tree or something i'm going to ask the public the public hearing is closed and we've listened to your comments i appreciate that any other questions from the board to the applicant all right with that we'll take the discussion back to the board and or for a motion mr i move to approve ldwa 2023-58 second we have a motion in the second roll call robert beltron for the motion david dalton i'm for the motion tommy addison mike schmidt against the motion angel sims for the motion and linda schultz mr. chair passes 5-1 thank you sir all right thank you very much and if you guys can please exit quietly appreciate that next item on the agenda all right last on the agenda is ldct 2023-7 this is an ldc text amendment to chapter 3 section 303 plan development which will replace current requirements with new requirements chapter 2 table 2. please exit quietly give it a second just go ahead and stop for a second if you guys have discussions please take it out to the lobby i'm going to ask everyone to please exit the room if you're not here for the current case there's already access to it yeah quietly please if you guys could leave the room if you're going to have a conversation thank you go ahead ian last on the agenda is ldct 2023-7 this is an ldc text amendment to chapter 3 section 303 plan developments by replacing the current regulations with new requirements chapter 2 table 2.1 for standard land use districts and chapter 4 special districts to enable administrative approval of multi-family uses in residential medium residential high land use districts changing chapter 7 section 750 to clarify open space requirements amending chapter 9 section 903g plan developments in table 9.1 removing the impact assessment statement requirements and including the open space and many amenity plans in the pd application requirements finally amending chapter 10 to add definitions for emergency medical care and general mercantile on december 24th a legal ad was published in a ledger staff has received no response and eric peterson is your planner i apologize it's been a long morning and this is a big text amendment i'm hoping to get six zero here but if you got friends to vote go ahead um this is really big and it's really important and i've got a lot of slides and i got a lot to go through so bear with me i'm gonna go real fast we'll be out of here by noon i promise okay proceed eric pre for over 20 years um when the ldc was first adopted in in march of 2000 when in effect in september 2000 we formed a glitch committee that went through the code and was kind of correcting things they had been worked on for a long time and there was a lot to overcome uh with implementation of the code the plan development section was one of those we took the plan development language from the old zoning ordinance and copied and pasted it into the land development code we don't have a zoning ordinance polk county is different it's different than everybody else in this county it's different than pretty much every county in the state we have a land use plan we have a land development code that implements that land use plan have a zoning ordinance a separate zoning ordinance that's why we're different so plan development has always needed to be different than everybody else and different from the way we did it before so we started working on it in 2003 we had some workshops in 2005 around 2008 things were going fine then the economy crashed and we kind of set that aside put it off for a while worked on it a little bit more here or there for many years had stuff to bring to hearing never was the right time around 2015 the board of county commissioners felt concerned we really need to do something development was picking up considerably in the county and our planned development regulations were falling short of what the board had intended so we got back to work on it so we uh started developing it and about two years ago we went into a public process whereby we had some virtual workshops we had many uh sessions with the board to get input on as the way they wanted it to go it has come full circle to here so 20 years later here we are again plan development finally getting to hearing which i think is the intent of the the comprehensive plan and the land development code the way it's written that this is how we should do and review plan development i want to make this important note remember we had the the uh prescriptive plan development that that was adopted earlier that was withdrawn we were not doing that this was essentially a hybrid version or that was a hybrid version of this this is still a level three review everything comes before you there's no prescriptive approval here so everything will be basically the planning commission's approval this amendment frames plan development approval for what it should really be what it should be intended to be under the state statute what it should be under intended to be under the comprehensive plan and within the elements of the land development code so the board gave us the directive three things prevent premature development that's a lot to say real fast but premature development was was was has been evident in the plan development process we get requests that are way before their times in areas that are not ready for what's being proposed so we wanted a a system by which we could objectively identify the those areas that are ready for the the level of development and exclude the ones that are premature also provide for the residents needs within those residential developments make them more sustainable that was the directive and then lastly protect the residents that are around it the existing residents that are there as new development which is often more intense almost always more intense than what was there previously have rules in there that that got to the essence of what needs to be done when you have this disparity in density or intensity so the new section or uh 303 uh is broken up into six basic phases right now it's it's a litany of items that go that talk about parking and dumpster location and all kinds of stuff that we really don't concern ourselves at level three review uh this gets to the essence of it um the the six sections and i'm going to walk you through each one of them the applicability says okay who's who's you know what's this for the location eligibility is one thing we'll we'll first start with which is your proximity to water and wastewater when required c is the timing of development it's rather lengthy section d is the internal design section uh which gets at what's in it and e is the external design which gets at what's outside of it and last is the review process and i barely touch on that at all so we'll be once we get through a b c and d we'll be cruising uh the applicability and purpose um this applies to everything that is planned development but it also applies to suburban plan developments those are some of your more controversial cases because they're really out on the edge of uh development they interact with very low intensity areas mostly farmland where you're bringing in up to three units per acre rural mixed developments hey y'all remember that one creek ranch who doesn't remember that one that was a rural mixed development this would apply to to those residentially based mixed use developments we don't get a lot of those but that's where you you do a residential development in which you intertwine some commercial uses inside the development um then uh so we don't see many of those but uh the it would also apply to those the application requirements would change currently we require this impact assessment statement which is a lot of things about okay we're who's the nearest fire station stuff like that it doesn't always apply and from staff's perspective we review all that anyway so it's it's almost typically superfluous information what we're getting from the app or requesting from the applicant is a site plan very definitive one uh an open space plan that goes with that an amenity plan which deals with the recreational resources that are required and then the rest is a project narrative that gives the applicant the the framework in which to pitch the development to say here's how we are fitting in here's how we are in the right place at the right time location eligibility the first hurdle in the urban areas where and the rural mixed use developments by the way require connection to water and wastewater in the rural air in the urban areas and and those developments that require it water and sanitary sewer connection is a requirement and it needs to be within a mile it's in the term availability it needs to be available to the development at the time of request so the uh the service and an ample size line needs to be within a mile or plan as part of the five-year capital improvements program uh with it that it will come within a mile the last one or the next level is the suburban development area the suburban plan developments and then the rural cluster center residential not the commercial we were talking about before but the residential portion those are required to connect to water and so when you're proposing something a plan development in those areas they need to have water service within one mile before even applying so that's the first hurdle the next one is timing there's three main criteria remember timing which is everything internal design external design so it basically boils down to where is it what's in it and how it fits into the area it's going the timing is a lengthy thing but this is something the planning commission isn't necessarily going to see this is between the applicant and staff that we will address uh prior to the hearing basically what you'll get in their staff report is this is what it's eligible for but uh this system objectively determines when the timing is right based on the infrastructure not only the public infrastructure but the private infrastructure that goes in an area uh it will prevent development from causing you know unplanned infrastructure needs locating a development here with the expectation that there's going to going to be sewer or water sewer or things of adequate size adequate traffic capacity things of that nature but not having that yet it'll also promote development where there is infrastructure where the county has put in its investment into growth it'll promote more uh density in those areas so it's it comes down to a an algorithm essentially but this is a and it looks complicated from the outside looking in but it is essentially an objective way in which we can determine whether this area the timing is right for this development's level of intensity too often we get in a public hearing and and and arbitrary decisions are made about those things uh they say oh the time it's premature the timing isn't right but we have all this investment in the area or the time is now we're going to develop tomorrow we don't have all the you know investment in the area that's even going to support them tomorrow let alone five years from now so this gets at an objective way it gets us out of that subjective realm of trying to decide whether the timing is right it gives puts forth an objective analysis it deals with the immediate needs which are based on a point system granted uh quarter mile half mile three quarter mile distances these are immediate things like connection to the roadways sidewalk connections potable water lines sanitary sewer lines lift stations things of that nature that from an investment standpoint need to be in close proximity to really make a development eligible to to uh begin then we get at community needs that's the next level those are in one mile two mile three mile increments we address public safety we address schools we address commerce and employment parks in the this portion of the analysis one of the things that's unique about this analysis is it builds on the uh the points where you have a combination of multiple items vertically you get to add those so it compounds the the eligibility or the uh appropriateness based on not only is there a commercial district but is that commercial district developed is that commercial district developed with the things that residents need on a daily basis like grocery and mercantile is that there to support the new development uh it also uh with the example the employers the uh the employment is something data that we can easily get at for larger employers that go above 100 300 and 500 so we can also measure you know putting houses close to places where jobs where people work environment is in there it's not really a big contributor to the score and there's a lot of details in the ordinance as to how we measure things specifically so we've kind of uh turned over every stone that we could uh find imaginable in that portion then you go on to these density tables now once again this is not a bonus point system before the plan development bonus point systems was about what you were doing in your development where are we going to have underground utilities where are we going to have a park where are we going to have sidewalks those things are required anyway you know this is getting at where the location is the only thing that affects your bonus points here is where the property is not what what they're doing so it only talks about the timing about this piece of property based on the infrastructure that's around it so we got scores for all the different districts and they vary based on their what the comp plan calls for and the increments um we even had to go back through our analysis and recalibrate some of them because you know things uh didn't work out the first few go-arounds um we staff uh reviewed the last five years of all our plan developments against this system now i gave a presentation on this about a year ago and if you remember senate bill 250 kind of thwarted that the the uh i gave the presentation for one month and it was going to come before you but when senate bill 250 went into effect it was well we couldn't do it you know it was going to be maybe burdensome we couldn't take a risk at that well senate bill 250 has been removed and we're back on it so that same review uh we continued to review cases uh and uh uh you know the the data came through that a good many of them um made it through the locational scores of the developments that are approved the residential suburban was a difficult situation uh so we had to recalibrate that one now i will warn you there are some residential suburban cases that were denied that this would be eligible for but once again this is not an entitlement this is just eligibility this just gets you in the door so now you're thinking about okay some of these developments we approved didn't make it funny thing you know after five to eight years now those same developments that we approved that wouldn't have made this score they still haven't developed for some reason it's not that the infrastructure you know maybe it's the infrastructure is not there maybe it's the market that's really not there these are indicators of two things that go beyond us now all the ones that we did approve that met the score they're under construction are almost completed so it's really speaks to the the fact of when areas are ripe for the intensity i i think back to 540a when i first got here 540a and lakeland highlands was was nothing but orange groves and george jenkins pretty much that was it there was a sunoco at the corner that was it i went through three public hearings with publics three times it took to get that publics there now today people criticize me for that publics they say darn it it wasn't big enough times change areas change as they developed as you know another 8 000 to 16 thousand people moved into that area the dynamic change and the acceptability of development changed over time we just approved residential high across from watson clinic heck back in 96 we couldn't approve a duplex development on that location without everybody claiming oh the density is too high but now oh gosh you can do 18 units per acre and you know we had maybe one person show up and we didn't really know what he was talking about at the time so um the uh you know the the development this is an indicator uh of of how attitudes change so just to run through it one more time how we would do it is the you know an applicant would propose this site don't worry this site's not coming before you in the future there's actually an elementary school on top of it but there but we took it as an example before to show how the points would work out in this area now you look at the surrounding area um and the density and intensity is a lot lower than perhaps somebody would connecting to water and sewer today um that's because those a lot of that development came when there was no water no sewer the lots had to be bigger now if somebody were to come in today they would be eligible uh based on our analysis for three and a half units per acre they would get a score of 14 points which gives them three and a half units per year per acre that's eligibility that's not what you would be forced to improve no that's just that just tells us that the timing is right for 3.5 units per acre now it does tell us that it's not right for four it's it's too much for four so you know this timing is is very important in your review but it's not the only thing and i want to stress this is eligibility not entitlement we did a lot of analysis and i'm not going to go through this because it would just bore you to tears but all the other jurisdictions they don't have this objective level some of them don't even have criteria at all it's like plan unit development bring it on we'll decide at the hearing whether we think it's good or not we don't we don't have any standards we don't have anything there we're just going to arbitrarily decide this one gives us an objective point of view and that's why we have to be different why do we have to be different because polkani is different we don't have a zoning map plan unit developments or plan developments in other jurisdictions are a map change they're going from whatever their district was r3 r2 to pud number x they are creating a whole new district that's not in the code every time they approve a plan development that's that way they can be a lot more subjective and and not have to have really criteria they can they're dealing with a clean slate our framework is different we're dealing with conditional uses and one thing about conditional uses is that you've got to treat them equally as they come in you have different criteria you you say yes it is it is approved within this district but not everywhere it's conditional true um but that evaluation has to be the same throughout conditional use in northeast uh polk county has to be treated the same it's that same conditional use in southwest polk county so we we have to look at them under the same set of criteria now the situation the location may be different the things around it may be different and that gives us the ability to judge it um you know so not to harp on that too much um the the big uh meat of this which uh has always been a uh sticking point with planned developments is what they do within the development what do we regulate within the development the board gave us directives to produce more recreation opportunities in these planned developments they wanted recreation facilities to be within walking distance they wanted to parking in the streets has become a very uh very uh tangible problem today uh especially with regards to garbage collection and public safety uh we've got a lot of developments in which the automobiles that people keep at their home they don't have the room on their lot to park them all so our 20 foot wide roads which is our standard is where a lot of cars get parked when those cars are parked and the densities are are compact it makes it very hard for the garbage trucks to come along and pick up the garbage cans you know we we're automated or sort of automated with our garbage collection it makes it very difficult for that a fire truck has to meander through parked cars to to get through fire trucks are large they don't bend well those those are very important things so parking is a big issue about this but in the end we want to allow for flexibility of design we don't want to squash and dictate okay this is this is what you got to do it's got to look like this and that's all you can do we want to what we want to allow flexibility so these we have these minimum open space and recreation standards however those standards the board liked those standards so much they went ahead and approved them for development within the county back in december of last year so these have been in effect for uh a year they were put on hold because of senate bill 250 they are back in effect now but the same recreation standards and open space apply same with wetlands apply to development as a whole the only thing really different about plan development is there is a break point uh in here there's one of the changes proposed is that the uh as lots get above 80 feet in width that the open space goes down and there's no recreation amenities required now see the reason for that was the whole reason for recreation in the first place your the lots weren't big enough to do any type of recreation but if you have a larger lot development with more space you have that ability so we we centered our focus on everything less than that we established what types of recreation facilities were required or how much was required by categorizing recreation into four different types and i won't go into details about them but essentially it it intensifies as you go up in both investment and usage by the uh the community based on the number of units is your you have a certain number of points each one of these recreation amenities earns you earns the developer a certain set number of points with those points um you know you you you have to get above your your popular or your unit count score but you can choose any mixture and mix and match and and things of that nature just to go through these type one amenity is a 25 point here's an example it's just a little walking path and a gazebo uh a top lot is a type 2 amenity 75 points a community center type 4 amenity 200 points now it doesn't take up all the required recreation space it leaves all this open for pickup games of football frisbee you know teaching the dog to fetch stuff like that um this sort of development the way it is would would have ordered uh been awarded 300 points now there's only 153 units in this development they could have done something a little different made this a dog park for instance to achieve 70 175 points and that would have covered the 153 units so it gives flexibility and options you don't have to do a recreation in a in a set way you don't have to have an amenity center you don't have to have a top lot it gives you options many different options the additional parking based on the width of the lot based on the intensity of the development more parking spaces are required and i can go on and on about parking but we only require two parking spaces outside the garage and most uh the average household number of vehicles registered vehicles not not unregistered but registered vehicles in polk county is 2.2 so that is the county average is 2.2 uh registered vehicles per household so this gives uh an extra standard standard it also gives us the ability to have parking for our guests that often come and visit so uh keeps the cars out of the drive aisles and makes it a much safer development we did the same analysis on these and a lot of communities do have the open space requirements and the recreation requirements that we're suggesting in here that we already have in our code but they also some of them didn't because it like i said it was an open uh canvas uh essentially of a district and it's really defined by what is presented and evaluated at the hearing why is it so important that open space recreation and parking be be included we've the way development is going we have smaller lots and larger homes there's little room for anything else in a lot of our modern developments these days it's a suburban county everybody drives everybody has cars some of us have six i won't mention who are are of us are there but um it's a very important thing uh also sustainability is key in an in the unincorporated area these developments need to sustain themselves be able to have the recreation amenities on site because there's not anything real close by typically in the unincorporated areas there we deal in uh community and regional recreation ball fields boat ramps that's our that's what we can provide we can't provide these neighborhood parks like you do in the cities so our development needs to embody them exterior design now this is where the planning commission does its work the objectives of x here are designed with a focus on on the development relative to the community balancing those effects with existing residents and also to incorporate the environmental features of the site and use it in a positive way the applicant is addressing this in a narrative and addressing it in their site plan how they transition how they transition from their more intense development to the less intense what is the method that is addressed here this is the open slate we have that the planning commission will evaluate the other thing is the use of green infrastructure how do they use the wetlands and the floodplains to their advantage how do they use that to soften their impact upon neighboring residents how do they use it to accent the development within the site we've had this example many times in our presentation of the many different ways in which green infrastructure can be used to better fit and adapt to a less intense community that surrounds it access and travel this has always been a requirement of the planning commission to determine the access if a development comes in we have a binding site plan two of the things that are most binding is what's done on the perimeter and where the access points are if we change the access points it comes back to the planning commission so access is always key because access is where this new development affects the neighboring developments and other developments in the area the most is the amount of traffic going in and out of the site remember we talked about during our initial training what is the role of the local planning agency consistency compatibility concurrency consistency with planning the code concurrency deals with infrastructure compatibility compatibility is the big thing that the planning commission addresses at the public hearing is how is it how is the development compatible with its neighboring uh properties so the planning commission's compatibility review will will revolve around the transition the green infrastructure and the access to travel and that gets back to those original goals how to prevent premature development provide for future residents needs and protect existing residents so with that i'll conclude our justification is just that to prevent provide and protect and i'll stand for questions all right any questions for eric i almost made noon almost made it but not quite eric we'll hold you to that for future presentations just so you know eric just one quick question for me there's obviously i like the approach you guys are taking and i like the the mannerism in which you're going about doing it i think it's very innovative i thought i heard you say nobody else is kind of doing the same kind of approach from what we've done in past analysis well yeah the scoring system but also we are the only jurisdiction that has a one map system everywhere else in this state it's got a comprehensive plan a future land use map and then a separate ordinance totally separate and different ordinance going in itself often in a different direction especially if in the city of lakeland hint hint um and and when when development comes through it's got to rectify itself one way or the other our system is one map one system implementation of and our focus is on planning not necessarily zoning gotcha and then the items that are in the scorecard changing any of those items would require what process if you were to let's say something's not working out or we would go back to recalibrating uh it would be another text amendment in the future as a matter of fact that brings me to the next step is we've still got a lot of work to do once this get this framework gets adopted we need to go back through the saps and correct a lot of things one of the the things that is confusing about our code is often we were we require plan development something to be planned development but we don't say why you know why does you know commercial vehicle parking need to be planned development here what's what's planned about commercial vehicle you know there's no criteria there's no basis for analysis analyzing that so a lot of things will need to be converted from requiring plan development to really conditional use approval um there's also uh several sections we we're we're trying to identify that mix of the appropriate regulatory framework for townhouses versus multi-family townhouses are really a different animal all together so this is part of this amendment sets the stage for that thank you any other questions for eric and if not we'll turn it over to the public if it wasn't for senate bill 250 eric would this accomplish everything you wanted it to accomplish yes yes this is where we were in march of last year before uh the governor signed that bill into law this is exactly where we left off uh the the prescriptive plan development was a hybrid version of this because it was going to be prescriptive the planning commission wasn't going to have we were just going to let it go um that had to be a little different so this gets back to where we were um having all the other codes in place as well that now are now effective that we're not we're we're delayed because of senate bill 250 uh it all starts to mesh it all comes together and if you'll remember you know at the beginning of the hearing with miss voss makes so perfectly clear is what is competent substantial evidence in the hearing and the biggest one the focus is on that compatibility with the neighbors it's it's not about you know traffic on i4 it's it's not about drainage on itchipackasasa creek it's about how does this development interact with its neighbor and is it properly interacting or is it not properly interacting we're getting out of this whether it's premature or not because we have a mechanism in place for measuring objectively what is timed properly and what is not timed properly ask one more question does it meet all the goals of the board of county commissioners we think it does uh we've we've been getting a lot of direction from the board some in consensus some you know mentioned and not disagreed with so we're assuming that well if if nobody if one commissioner said it and no one was in direct opposition to it then they must all like it or they must be willing to accept it um it also gets at some of the stakeholder meetings that we had uh we had a lot of meetings with stakeholders after we rolled it out a year ago and we tweaked it we made things more clear we made things uh so we got a lot of good input from various attorneys and developers and engineers on it so yeah agreed and i'll say that is to quote commissioner lindsay you know if you don't like what you're getting change the code any other questions for eric i do are we moving closer or further away from subjective or objective analysis we're we're isolating what should be and i the elizabeth doesn't like me to use the term subjective so so it's more like it's more of a qualitative analysis we're isolating what is qualitative versus what is quantified we know how far the fire station is we know the size of the water line we know these things we know from a you know a technician standpoint what's needed what what's not um the one thing that no technician can tell you is when a development is proposes in a certain neighborhood is does it fit with the area it's it's a it's not a there's not a tangible measure for compatibility oh believe me we tried some of you might have remembered that we we tried to come up with a system where your your buffer would get bigger as the intensity was different and that's where one of the graphics came from from one of our consultants that helped us out with it and you know you really can't quantify those things there's there it's those are in the the eye of the beholder the hearing um it really takes a comprehensive analysis now all the other stuff whether it meets concurrency all that you know we can figure out that no problem that i've got a measure for everything when it comes to development but not a measure for fit my my question came from substantial competent evidence doesn't always come from hired professionals and i mean there's lots of people with competent competency i would say and uh listening to the general public speak um i've been in the engineering business my whole life i can separate the the fact from the emotions and uh they're talking about certain things i can i i understand that but we have an emphasis so strong seemingly on the substantial competent evidence that i'm not sure what the rest of us are even needed for if we're just going to rubber stamp i i i don't that's that's the point of my question are we moving more towards subjective or objective um to where to where up to where what i'm hearing and feeling and seeing and sensing again from the fact but but also just from the overall impact of the community we're framing the condition the the question better i think is is what we're doing with this we're framing the question better right now like i was mentioning before the questions are do they have an the right dumpsters mounted dumpsters that i mean that's not that's not the question you know um you know traffic studies that's it it comes down to a science um now condition of the road that's a little different a lot of potholes few potholes you know there there is a quantif quantification there that we get at but at what point is the road unbearable for driving you know we can't say those you know those those are things that are not necessarily addressed um that that we hear about in the hearings but we have experts with the school board that you know are are on top of how we allocate and locate and build new schools to support development and whether the development's going over here the development's going over there the kids are all going to the same school and if this location is okay but this one's not because of school capacity that's totally arbitrary that's not substantial competent evidence so you know that's what what we try to eliminate is a lot of that that chatter that static and get down to the real focus now the number of cars coming out of that development passing by the first house the first house they pass by that is substantial that is something that is subjective is it good is it bad we can't measure that today in one of the hearings we could tell you the percentage in increase thing on that little cul-de-sac that was going to change the the 10 lots to to or the six lots to 10 well that's going to have a you know a 66 percent increase in volume obviously but to the other lots in the subdivision it was much less now we could quantify that amount now what was the meaning of it that we don't have any direction that's that's always going to be open um you know they're proposing so many units yeah the the overall area and the infrastructure in the area can can can accept this density however their chosen location their access point is not in the best place it's going through the the the most you know the lowest intensity area it should be on this side they should be accessing over here now see those are things that are subjective and can't be quantified you know did they are they paying attention to the flood plains and the wetlands or are they just totally ignoring them and saying well yeah we plan to fill them in i think the term is mitigate that's a scientific term for filling them in you know so we're we're just gonna we're just gonna ignore where those things are no no you really need to take you know all development needs to take those into account and use them to their best advantage not only to use as a uh a step down in intensity from neighboring development but also to benefit their future homeowners sell more lots with better design so and some of those things are more important to some of us than to others of us or maybe even to all of us the environmental etc is what you were talking about those those have higher priorities and it's hard to hard to to hard to qualify that or or quantify it either one right so it that's why this section is out in the open it's that qualitative analysis that is for the planning commission's eye to interpret the whether it's it meets you know infrastructure wise we got that covered okay any other questions for eric on this topic eric thank you for detailed analysis there um just as a water person your graphics on water really need to get changed you're not spilling any water for proximity the fire hydrant shows like it's spilling take that out of there please that said is there anybody in the public like to speak on this topic hi again my name is sue nelson i live at 2920 crease lake drive um this locational scoring and amenity plan should not be used in rural development areas or suburban development areas and i'll show you why using an actual example applying this very language you learned of today this documentation is the applicant submittal this case was located in a rural development area disclaimer this case is currently under litigation so please don't discuss the actual specifics of the case please just sit back and listen this board approved this case four to three the applicant checked all the boxes if i was an applicant i'd be like we got it achieved 30 locational points and 1 975 amenity points why shouldn't this application be approved but does this development belong in a rural development area directly across the street from this development was a national what is a national wildlife refuge if this development is built this wildlife refuge will now face a hundred and two thousand square foot commercial building the size of watchulas walmart and 1876 homes but the applicant checked all the boxes why shouldn't he be approved directly adjacent looking at the slide directly adjacent east of this development this property owner you can't see the property owner but the property owner owned two homes on 250 acres picture yourselves if you will living there as you can see from the slide the transition buffer provided for this property owner is a curved storm water management ditch and a natural buffer ask yourselves is that enough i have two homes on 250 acres everyone will now use the same collector road everyone will now use the same collector road the applicant received prized location points for collector road access and multiple accesses to boot this one development will generate over 17 000 vehicles per day just this one development currently this entire road only sees 7 300 vehicles that's almost three times the amount this road currently sees does this development belong in a rural development area in closing all of you have the ability to tweak this amendment the language this language does not belong everywhere you can't take i know what mr peterson and staff was trying to accomplish in fact eric and i went back and forth and he goes soup can i finish may i wrap it up please um eric and i went back and forth and he said sue you're going to be so excited and i was i was like great finally kind of like objective material and but this creek ranch was a perfect example of why you can't take locational criteria and put it everywhere in the county we can't do that if i was an applicant i'd say like why isn't why can't i get approved i checked all the boxes thank you thank you miss nelson any other comments with that eric i don't know if you'd like to come back up appreciate it with that i'll take the discussion to the board for a motion and or discussion mr chair i move to approve ldct 2023-7 we have a motion do we have a second second leave a motion a second roll call please robert beltran for the motion david dalton i'm for the motion tommy addison mike schmidt against the motion sorry angel sims for the motion and linda schultz mr chair passes five one appreciate that thank you staff i think there's no other business for today with that i'll take a motion to adjourn second all in favor aye thank you