Planning Commission on 2024-02-07 9:00 AM

Hey, good morning. I'd like to open the workshop prior to our meeting this morning. Is there any changes to the agenda? Good morning. No, sir. There are no changes to the agenda, but there are two advertised cases that need to be continued. These are LDPD 2023-23. This is being continued to March 6th. And LDCPAs 2023-29, which is being continued April 3rd, and they're on the screen. Okay, so that's 2023-23? Yes, sir. And LDCPAs 2023-29, the Grove Avenue CPA. Okay. Any other changes? Yes, sir. Any questions of staff? Okay, we'll reconvene at 9 o'clock. Thank you. Okay, at this time, I'd like to call the February 7th Planning Commission meeting to order. Can I have a roll call for determination of quorum, please? Rennie Heath. Here. Robert Beltran. David Dalton. I am present. Mike Hickman. Tommy Addison. Mike Schmidt. And Linda Schultz. Mr. Chair, we have a quorum. Okay, thank you. At this time, if we could stand for the President's Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, can I have an approval of the minutes for the January meeting? So moved. I got a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. At this time, is there any changes to the agenda that everybody in the audience would need to know about? There are no changes to the agenda on the screen, but there are two cases that were advertised for this hearing that are being continued. These are LDPD 2023-23, the North U.S. 98 PD. It's being continued to March 6th. And LDCPA-S 2023-29, the Grove Avenue CPA is being continued to April 3rd. And that's it. Okay, thank you. At this time, if you could do the explanation of general procedures, please. Real quick, we just need to take a motion to continue those two cases. I'm sorry. Yeah, could I have a motion to accept the changes of the agenda? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. General procedures. The Office of Planning and Development will introduce the case and disclose any responses to the notification which are not already provided to the Planning Commission in their packets. The Office of Planning and Development will present their staff report and recommendation. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case will be sworn in. The applicant and others in support or opposition of the case will be given the opportunity to speak. The applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to any opposition testimony. The Commission will discuss the case and vote on the matter. Expedited hearing procedures. Expedited hearing procedures may be used by the Planning Commission under the following circumstances. There is no opposition to the case present at the hearing and the recommendation of the Office of Planning and Development is for approval and all of the Commission members present wish to use this procedure. Level 3 reviews. Pursuant to Section 906 of the Polk County Land Development Code on Level 3 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 3 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 their right of appeal in order to preserve that right. A party cannot and should not rely on their right to appeal being preserved by someone else filing an appeal on the same matter. Please be advised that a party may withdraw their appeal to the Board of County Commissioners prior to that de novo hearing. If one party withdraws their appeal and another party fail to file an appeal, there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the Board of County Commissioners. The application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal. Please also be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the Board of County Commissioners to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition, you must either file the application for 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 the ability to speak during the public comment portion of the de novo hearing. Level 4 reviews. Pursuant to Section 907 of the Land Development Code, the Planning Commission's decision on a Level 4 review is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately decide the matter. Mr. Chair, would you like for me to swear in all 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. And this is for all the cases, so if you think you're going to speak, please go ahead and stand up and be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony and evidence you provide today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Just a last housekeeping item, to admit the County Land Planners as expert witnesses in your packets are their resumes of the staff we'll be presenting today. If you haven't reviewed them yet, please go ahead and review them. And if you'd like to ask any of them about their background or expertise, you can do so at this time. So if not, could you please go ahead and take a motion to accept staff as experts in the field of land? Do I have a motion to accept staff as expert witnesses? Second. Motion to second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Great. And if any of the applicants have experts, you can tender them at this time or wait until your case is called. Sorry, then let me just get one more policy that I'd like to read about, the quasi-judicial land use hearings. 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 land development code. 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 competent 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 include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise such as aesthetic incompatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhood. However, popularity polls, petitions, testimony that is hypothetical, speculative, based on fear, or consists of generalized statements that do not address the land development code criteria are not competent substantial evidence. For example, fear that a 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, and utility capacity, light and noise pollution, or the application's impact on property values, citizen testimony is not competent substantial evidence unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are all my comments. Okay. Thank you. At this time, we're going to start the first case. However, please keep in mind, if you're going to come up and speak for or against any case here, there's a three-minute time limit, and you'll see the clock up here above you, and that is strictly adhered to. Also, if I could get you to turn your cell phones to vibrate or turn them off so there's no disturbance during the cases, I would appreciate it. At this time, before the first case is read by the staff, I believe you have some comments. I lied. I do have a few more comments. I just want to give a quick statement regarding fair housing laws for this particular case. Just a reminder to the board that it is unlawful to discriminate in land use decisions based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, familial status, or religion. Therefore, should you receive discriminatory testimony today regarding those matters as they pertain to the individuals living in the proposed facility, such evidence cannot be considered in your deliberations. Additionally, because this is farm worker housing, I'd like to also point out Florida Statutes 381.00896, which states a county may not administer local land use ordinances to prohibit or discriminate against the development and use of farm worker housing facilities because of the occupation, race, sex, color, religion, national origin, or income of the intended residence. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you. Eric, first case, please. First up is LDCU 2023-42. The act is requesting conditional use approval of a barrack-style farm worker dormitory, serving up to 70 workers on approximately 12 acres in an agricultural residential rural district. The subject site is located west of Doc Lindsay Road, north of Lake Buffum Road South, south of Murray Road, east of the city of Fort Meade in Section 23, Township 31, Range 26. On November 15th, 18 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two signs were posted on the property on January 7th, and a legal ad was published in the ledger on November 13th. Twelve responses and opposition were received, and Eric Peterson will present the case. Good morning, Planning Commissioners. See here before you some details of the case and the items that are submitted into record that are in your packet. The site is located, as Leon mentioned, just south of Lake Buffum, and it is very remote. It's a significant distance from any of the cities, as you can see. This is the site on Doc Lindsay Road, just north of Lake Buffum Road, south of Lake Buffum itself. The case is relatively close to a previous case of farmworker housing back in 07, which was the catalyst for creating the farmworker housing task force that the board set out. And that task force, after two years, came up with the regulations that you have in the LDC today regarding the two types of farmworker housing. This application is for barracks housing. The apartment style is the other style of farmworker housing, which has very prescriptive requirements and is eligible to be developed on this property, but those requirements are a little more significant. Barracks style is wide open. They cannot meet, for one reason or another, they cannot meet any or all of the requirements for our apartment style farmworker housing, so they have this avenue to come before you for approval. The site plan left a lot to understand for us. We were able to figure out the location on the property of the barrack structure based on their septic tank plan that was submitted. As you can see, when you look at the future land use map, the closest land use that is in agricultural residential rural is the boat ramp on Lake Buffum, which is recreation open space. There is no commercial, no goods or services sold within many miles of this site. This is the site plan submitted. I think it shows trees being planted around the area of the farmworker housing barrack. On that site plan, it shows details the restroom facilities, but not anything greater. This was accompanied with the site plan as the septic tank permitting plan where we were able to deduce where the structure would be submitted. The site plan is insufficient, didn't outline the necessary requirements for a binding site plan. It doesn't show the access points, for instance, and a number of other things that are required. This is a recent aerial photo taken of the site. That's the approximate location. This is looking north. This is looking more towards the west. This is a closer view of Dock Lindsey Road and the approximate location. This is looking to the south, and you see the location of CU 0719, which the board denied back in 2008 and was the catalyst for creating the farmworker housing task force that produced the regulations we have now. And here's another close-up view looking to the east, and these are ground photos of the site. It's currently under cultivation, and the barracks would be somewhere in this area. The staff recommends denial. We find the request not consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code for various reasons outlined in the staff report. The application was insufficient. That's why when you notice the advertisement was in November, we've been continuing this case in order to get a more sufficient application, but the applicant declared themselves to be sufficient and urged to go to Planning Commission for the hearing. The location here is a lot to overcome. I've brought before you many of the barrack-style farmworker housing because there might have been one item or two that they couldn't meet because of maybe architectural standards, maybe placement, maybe some other reason. But in all of those cases, they were located in areas that had sufficient resources like places for commerce, for recreation, other services in the area, churches, things of that nature that are needed by guest workers or migrant farmworkers that are indigenous to the United States for the times of the day in which they're not working. So in this application, there was nothing to address recreation. There was nothing to address how they would be able to get any necessary items they might need for maintaining their quality of life. This location is farthest away of any other application other than the previous one that the board denied back in 2007. More recently, we've had requests in areas that were much better, that had those facilities. The last one, for example, in Bradley Junction, that was a facility that was being reused from a former detention facility, but it was in an area that had commerce, it had recreation, it had recreation planned on site. Even the 07 request addressed recreation facilities on site. It addressed also eating facilities on site. And it also addressed transportation and things of that nature. So that was, you know, this is probably one of the most insufficient applications for farm worker housing we've ever experienced. So that is why we recommend denial. With that, I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Say no. Okay. Thank you. Eric, is the applicant here? Would like to come up and present their case? Please take your name and address for the record, please. My address is 5187 Crystal Beach Road, Winter Haven. And I'm here to, I am the applicant. Mr. Fernandez is actually the owner of the property. Okay. Anything else you'd like to say? No. Well, I was listening to the gentleman here speak a while ago in regards to, I guess, their questioning the transportation, basically, mostly the transportation, how to get, how these farm workers are going to transport from the facility to, I guess, whatever necessary grocery store or anything like that. On the site plan, it does show transportation. I think that's one of their main concerns. And it shows these farm workers are provided with a bus and a bus driver that is licensed to drive it to any of whatever they, anything to meet their needs. Now, when it comes to meals, Mr. Fernandez does have someone also that's licensed to provide meals. They don't just work at this job site. They travel different places, so they're really not there the entire day. So whenever they're out on job sites, meals are brought to whatever job site they're at. And then on the weekends, the same, whomever provides the meals would be coming to this location also to provide meals. I think that was one of their main concerns and transportation. Have anything else? Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Anybody? Well, okay. At this point, I'm going to open the public portion of the meeting. Is there anyone I'd like to come up and speak for or against this case? Please keep in mind there is a three-minute time limit, and I will stop you. Name and address for the record, please. Luann Bigsby, 7401 Lake Buffum Road South, Fort Meade, Florida. Anything else? And David Bigsby. This is my wife. 7401 Lake Buffum Road South. We are at the residence that connects to the property that we're discussing. We'll make this as brief as we can because we understand that, first of all, we want to thank the staff that did our job for us. These are exactly the same points and the same things that we discussed how many years ago? 16. 16 years ago. The property is across the street from us when we fought it then. Now it is in our backyard. It is the property that is adjacent to our property line. It's not on there, but if you'll notice their drawing, they included my property all the way to South Lake Buffum Road. Yours does not, but theirs does. I don't know if he assumed he was buying my property. I'm not sure what he had in mind. There's no barrier between me and his property. So at the bottom of the screen, that is South Lake Buffum Road. Our house is adjacent to South Lake Buffum Road. We come today to thank the staff for what they did. My wife will take over. She'll explain some of the things we had. Most of these people out here are my neighbors, and we want to keep our neighborhood the way it is. We don't want to change it. We came there. We understood what we were getting into. We would not have a Walmart's next door, but that's why we bought the property. And you'll hear from a few of those who moved from out of state, who moved from other cities, and some that moved from out of country. So if you look at what we have here now, this is our pond. It is a surface water. Lake Buffum was in the report as the only surface water that was there, but we do have a spring-fed pond on the back of the property. This is the line drawn between us, and if you saw that last graphic that we had, there is no buffer between our property and the site plan. They did plant trees, but they all died. So I'm sure that with the state legislation on farm worker housing, am I counted in that three minutes? I'm going to give you 30 more seconds. Thank you. Since you had a little bit of a difficult time with your- Thank you. But anyway, what we were wanting to say is that we actually have seen that the staff has done an excellent job of looking at the different points in that that we have. We do have some drainage issues in that that we go into the Lake Buffum Wildlife Preserve that is just across the street. The ditch drains into that and then goes into the Lake Buffum Lake. So this is the property currently and how the drainage has been done. The ditches have been filled with the sludge that's come off. So that's where we are. We have a lot of neighbors. We have a lot of children. And we did move out there 30-something years ago in order to have the quiet, no noise, that kind of thing, and the lighting. We choose if we want to have a light out there on our property. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else I'd like to come up and speak for against this case? Thank you. Name and address for the record. Steve Baltimore, 7590 Lake Buffum Road South. Once again, I'd like to thank staff for their presentation. Back in 07, one of the major concerns was emergency response. The emergency response has not changed really from then until now, except Polk County Fire Rescue is overtaxed. The ambulance is coming from the same location, Fort Meade or Frostproof. The third ambulance would be coming from Lake Wales. It's not uncommon that those ambulances are not at their station because how taxed the system is due to the population and the growth of this county. So, typically, the response time would be an additional 10 to 15 more minutes above average. I'm sure you took that in consideration once again. You know, we appreciate all your work, and that's our concern about the safety of everybody. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else I'd like to come up and speak for against this case? There's a number of you. If you could kind of line up behind the person speaking in front of you, so it doesn't take quite as long of a time. Name and address for the record, please. My name is Greg McSwain. I'm at 7300 Lake Buffum Road South, which is directly across the road from the property we're discussing. I'll keep it as brief as possible. Folks, I've got 22 pages of notes and research here. And with your permission, we'll just put that off for another day since. The opening summary took all of my argument away, and I want to thank you for that. I know it's been said quite a few times today, and you'll hear it more. We appreciate your work on this because you have helped, and you do understand what we're talking about and discussing here, so we appreciate you. Nearly everyone in Lake Buffum area, folks, Lake Buffum is a community, and it's with good reason. We have one single-family dwelling, generally with one residential septic system per five acres. On that property. And almost everyone sitting out here can attest. They've had issues with the county, with the state, with the Department of Health over septic. Septic is always an issue when construction comes up. You know this. And septic, when it works properly, is great. There are no problems and no issues. But we all know that doesn't happen. So since the opening summary and since you folks already understand where we are, I'm going to just skip right to the meat of what I was bringing to begin with. We're concerned about an 80 person because one thing I'd like to get clear for everyone here, you're saying 70 people. The initial application, I believe, was for 70. I believe it's been moved to 80. Am I not right about that? It has not? 70. Okay, 70 people. But the land use code does allow for more people, so I'm very concerned about growth in the future, of course, but that's hypothetical. Folks, back to the septic. When septic works, it's great. But our local Department of Health has seemingly just passed this through, and I'm not sure they have enough information because my concern is the lack of detail with the site plan, with the information that's been presented to make these decisions. This land is surrounded by water very frequently, and we've been in a drought situation out there, so at the site evaluation time, it may have been dry. But right now, there's water out there, and it doesn't take an advanced degree to figure where that water's going. Our own local Department of Health was surprised to find there was a forest preserve to the south and to the east of this property. Now, there's a residence between that on the east side, but just to the south, just to the east, there's a forest preserve, protected lands, and any drainage, any issue with the septic over there is going to drain that direction. It drains to the east and to the north and to the lake. So, nitrogen impact is a big concern. The state of Florida has already brought this up, and they seem to disagree with our local environmental protection people, that our people say that it's just a conventional septic tank they're putting in for 70 people, which is a septic tank, a drain field with baffles and filters. And we all know that when septic works, it's great. When septic doesn't work, it doesn't. Baffles, clog, filters, fail, and it can easily affect surrounding waters and the forest preserve. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Next, please. My name is Diane Pyburn. I live at 3200 East Canal Lane, Fort Meade, Florida, directly on Lake Buffum. I have a couple of questions about this. First of all, are these legal immigrants? And secondly, who has checked the E6 to make sure they're worthy? I do not want it out there. A lot of us out there are handicapped. We have problems. We had a drug lab out there. We don't need any problems. We're old. I'm 80. I've been out there since 96, and I don't appreciate being moved in on like that. Seventy people and how many septic tanks? No answers? We'll let the applicant address that after everybody gets finished talking. All right. I disapprove totally of what you're trying to do to us. Middle class. We're not upper class, so of course it's not going to be there. We're middle class. And some lower than that struggling in this economy. It's not right. It's not fair. And we don't want it. Okay. Thank you. Next, please. Hi. My name is Tiffany Coker. My address is 800 Buffum Church Road, Fort Meade, Florida. I'm sorry. I'm really nervous. I've never done this before. Take your time. Take your time. Okay. So me and my husband are both Polk County residents. Born and raised. Lived our whole lives. I'm seven generation. Polk County, my husband is sixth generation. You don't get many of us anymore, right? So I'm from an area called Kathleen. He's from an area called Auburndale. If you've been around, you've seen Kathleen and Auburndale don't look like they used to, right? We made a decision to sell the first home we bought back in 2016. We sold it last year. We chose to come to Fort Meade because it was five acres for one person. So we wouldn't have to worry about the same things that happened in the area of Auburndale like it did. We build our home. We love our home. We're right down the road from this. I understand what they're trying to do, and I understand that it is necessary. I just feel that maybe there's a better option for a better place that's maybe closer into town for them because it does infringe on the whole reason why we bought our property and why we did what we did. We were trying to get away from it, and now it's right back next door to us again. We thank you for everything that y'all do. Please take that into consideration. I know my other neighbors, they did the same thing we did. We went to the country to be in the country, not to have a 70-person barracks not even two miles down the road from us. Thank y'all. I didn't even need the whole three minutes. Y'all have a great day. Thank you. Next, please. Good morning. My name is Stacy Smith. I live at 3890 Woolfolk Road, which is on the east side of Lake Buffum. We, too, want to thank you for hearing some of our concerns and all the hard work that's went into it with the Planning Commission and staff. If you wait long enough, everything you were going to say will be said. So that's kind of where I'm at, and without being redundant, we have some of the same concerns as far as what the general use of the area was intended and what it will or may become. Again, without sounding redundant on everything, 44 years ago I moved to Florida with my family. Absolutely love it. Don't plan on ever leaving Florida. Florida, it's our home. Very diverse. If you're looking for something, there is a place in Florida for you. We are looking for something. We found it, and it's in this area, like-minded people. Started out in Fort Lauderdale 44 years ago. Couldn't wait to move to West Palm Beach County. Was on acre and a quarter there at one point. Again, larger area, like-minded people. It's a great area. I think you all would agree in that. That Polk County has some amazing areas. I started visiting Polk County 35 years ago. We appreciate staff's recommendation, and we hope that you would consider our plea for being opposed to this. We thank you. Okay, thank you. My name's Gerard Roy. I live at 1890 Doc Lindsay Road, which is right across the street from this property. When I first moved out here 25 years ago, they had a viable orange grove there. It used to have gopher turtles we could see in it. It had fireflies. Now there's none of that. Now you want to say you want to put a housing here that's going to have lights, can interfere with seeing the stars and lights. And I moved out there to be in the country, and what you're doing is not country. Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public portion and bring it back to the applicant if they would like to come up and address any of the issues that were brought up. Yes, as I was listening, I was listening to some of the concerns of the neighbors there, and I understand. I'm also from Polk County. I'm also in the area where I live is a town and country area. Myself, I understand, because I've been in your shoes. I purchased a property of three acres, and my neighbors decided to be out there because of the country, the quietness. And now we have a subdivision of 100 houses right behind my house. We fought for the same reason, but we come to understand that times have changed, and the county has changed. It's not like it was in the 90s or in the 80s. We don't have that much country, and I understand that, and I understand that's the reason why a lot of people like this area. But I also understand Mr. Fernandez, the owner, that he has a duty with his workers, and let me go ahead and also, one of the ladies spoke, and she said something about illegals. None of these workers are illegals. All these workers come here with the working visa, or these workers go through a background check before they can even have a visa. Mr. Fernandez has been doing this for years. This is not something that he just started last year. He's been doing this for many years, and the reason why he needs to build this is because these people are already amongst the community. Everyone here is so worried about where they come from, who they are, but people have been living. These workers have come here every year and live amongst them, and I don't even think they realize that, that they've been living in their backyard this whole time. Different, not probably in the same property, but within the neighborhood. I don't really have other than that. I mean, I think, again, I'm going to mention the emails and the concerns, the county's concerns were transportation. And everything that the concerns, the county's concerns, Mr. Fernandez is willing to meet if we need to make modifications on this site, if we need to make modifications on the building. He's also open to that. We presented this as just as a level three. We know there's more to it, but at this moment, this is what he has, and we're just hoping you understand his side as well as the ladies and gentlemen's here in the room. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any questions over the applicant? See none. Okay. Okay, thank you. At this time, I'm going to bring it back to the board. Any discussion? The public portion is closed. Thank you. Go ahead. Well, obviously, the application is insufficient, doesn't meet the plan development code. Your microphone. It's my recommendation for denial. Second. I got a motion to second for denial. Roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. David Dalton. I'm for the motion. Mike Hickman, Tommy Addison, Mike Schmidt, and Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 7-0. For denial. For denial. Okay, thank you. Please hold your clap, and if you're here for the case, you can stay all day if you want, but if you want to file out, please do timely, quickly, so that we can carry on with the cases. At this time, we'll take the next case. You might want to wait just a couple minutes. Why are you even talking? Yeah. Correct. That's just, that's not even, not at all. They're all without prejudice. Okay. All right. I think it's close enough. Number two on the agenda is LDCU 2023-48. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for a mobile home to be located in a subdivision, where fewer than 50% of developed lots have mobile homes. Subject site is located south of New Tampa Highway, north of Old Tampa Highway, and west of the city of Lakeland in Section 21, Township 28, Range 23. On January 18, 13 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two signs were posted on January 19th. An illegal ad was published in the ledger on January 22nd. Staff has received no responses, and Aaliyah Iglema is your planner. Mr. Chair, move to expedite. Second. I've got a motion and a second to expedite. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I've got a motion and a second for expedite. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Good morning. Aaliyah Iglema with Land Development, presenting LDCU 2023-48, the Old Tampa Highway mobile home conditional use. The applicant is requesting a conditional use approval for a mobile home to be located in a subdivision, where fewer than 50% of the developed lots have mobile homes. The site is compatible with surrounding uses, meets setbacks, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. And I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Seeing none. Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant available? I'd like to come up and present their case. Okay. Oh, there they are. Name and address for the record. Please speak closer to the microphone. My name is Jorge Reyes, and I live on 6520. Fox. Fox. Chris Lane. Frost Creek's Lake. Lakeland. Lakeland, Florida. 33803. Hang on one second. I need to swear in the interpreter, just really quickly. Do you swear or affirm that you will truly and correctly translate English into Spanish and Spanish into English today? I do. Thank you. No, que quiero poner un mobile home para ir a vivir con mi familia ahí. Okay. He just wanted to let you know that he just wanted to put his mobile home so he can live there with his family. Okay. Anything else? That's all he got to say. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time, I'm going to open up to the public. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, bring it back to the board for discussion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCU 2023-48. Second. Motion and second. Roll call, please. Running Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. For the motion. David Dalton. I'm for the motion. Mike Hickman. Tommy Addison. Mike Schmidt. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair passes 7-0. It's approved. Thank you. Next case, please. Number 3 on the agenda is LDCU 2023-52. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for an individual mobile home to be located on an unplatted lot within a residential suburban land use district. Subject site is located west of Willow Oak Road, north of Sable Palm Drive, east of Palm Meadow Street, and west of the city of Mulberry, in Section 29, Township 29, Range 23. On January 18th, 39 mailers were sent to area property owners. On January 5th, a sign was posted on the property, and a legal ad was published in a ledger on January 22nd. Staff has logged one response in opposition, and Aliyah Nglema is your planner. Mr. Chair, motion to expedite. Second. Second. I've got a motion to second to expedite. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for a motion to second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Expedite, please. Good morning. Aliyah Nglema with Land Development presenting LDCU 2023-52, the Poinsettia Drive mobile home conditional use. The applicant is requesting a conditional use approval for an individual mobile home to be located on an unplatted lot within a residential suburban land use. The site is compatible with surrounding uses, meets setbacks, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code. And I'll stand for questions. Any questions to staff? Okay, thank you. Is the applicant available to like to come up and present their case? Good morning. Christopher Adams, 3241 Merlot Drive, Lakeland, Florida. Kayla Adams, 3241 Merlot Drive. We're seeking to have a brand new manufactured home put on the piece of land that we recently purchased. I know there was one opposition concerned about property value, but we're not looking to build a typical trailer. We're building a very, very nice manufactured home from one of the best builders in the country. I have pictures if it makes a difference, but I mean, it looks like a standard house. The lot's actually already approved for a modular home. This house has a modular option. It looks and feels exactly the same. It just costs us $80,000 more to build that way. So we're hoping to save some money and build the same house in a more affordable fashion. Okay. Any questions to the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. At this time, I'm going to open it up to the public. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public portion, bring it back to the board for discussion and or a motion. Move approval of LDCU 2023-52. I've got a motion and a second roll call, please. Renny Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. David Dalton. I am for the motion. Mike Kickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. Mike Schmidt. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 7-0. Okay. Thank you. All right. Number four is LDCU 2023-54. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for a mobile home to be permitted on 0.85 acres within a residential low future land use district. Subject site is located at 2520 Ralph Road, south of Settle Creek. Creek Road, west of Cumbie Road, north, and south of the city of Lakeland in section 4, township 28, range 24. On January 18th, 38 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on the property on January 9th and an ad was published in the ledger on January 22nd. Staff has received one response in opposition and Melissa Celestine is your planner. Good morning. For the record, Melissa Celestine presenting LDCU 2023-54. Staff is recommending approval of a mobile home to be permitted on approximately 0.85 acres within a residential low future land use district where the proposed lot does not meet the conditions outlined in Chapter 3, Section 303 of the Land Development Code. The parcel is associated with a code violation which includes placing a mobile home on site without an approved building permit. While past areas depict a mobile home on the property, the 24-month period which would allow the individual to replace the mobile home by rights has passed. The site is located north of Memorial Boulevard and west of Cumbie Road in Lakeland. The site is located in the residential low future land use district where the minimum lot size is one dwelling unit per acre. When measured to the center line, the subject parcel meets the residential, the minimum residential lot area of 40,000 square feet. Site-built residences are indicated with the red triangles while mobile homes are identified in the green circles. As you can see, there are currently two mobile homes in the vicinity, one of which is directly across the street from the subject site according to the property appraiser's website. Here you can see the subject site in relation to other residential structures. The site, the slide also confirms the lot size when counting to the center line, which is allowed per the land development code. Here are just some site visit photos. As previously mentioned, the mobile home is currently on the property. Here is the site plan showing that the applicant does meet the residential low one land use district setbacks. Here is the updated individual mobile home requirements outlined in Chapter 3, Section 303. This is an area from 2002 showing a mobile home on the site. To the right is a deed associated with that mobile home. Sorry. Staff recommends approval. There was a mobile home previously on the parcel, and according to a recently approved text amendment, LDCT 2023-2, had a mobile home been located adjacent to the property or if the lot to the east were vacant, additional approval from the Planning Commission would not be necessary. Nonetheless, staff finds the request to be consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan. With that, I thank you, and I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Seeing none. Okay. Thank you. The applicant available would like to come up and present their case. Morning. Good morning. Name and address for the record. Frank Merillo. I address 32, 38, Oakland Road, South, Lakeland, Florida. I'm going to be the owner of the new home. I'm 93 years old. I was unaware of the, I took a, there was a mobile home on the property I had removed, and I had this one put on. I was ignorant to the fact that I needed a permit, and that was my mistake. So, I went through the process of, you know, what I have to do to get a mobile home down there, and he said, okay, pay this fee of $900, which really didn't help me, but I paid the fee, and here I am. You know, I'm by myself. My son and my two grandsons are helping me with the home, and I haven't worked in eight years, and I'm living on Social Security. I just want you to do the right thing with me. That's all. Okay. Thank you. At this time, I'm going to open up with the public. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case? Please come forward. Name and address for the record, and there is a three-minute time limit. Thank you. My name is Darrell Linnell. I live at 2433 Ralph Road. Excuse me. I'm nervous. I've never done this before, but yes, as you could see in some of the previous, there was not a mobile home there. It hadn't been there in a long time, and years ago, yeah, there were mobile homes there, but the community came to this board and agreed to let those mobile homes come, but once they were pulled off, they've stayed off. That's why there's still no mobile home active in this area. This gentleman, from the very beginning, has, in multiple violations, county code violations. He moved that trailer in and set it up without permits. He put a septic tank system in without permits. Patricia Boatwright, which is a county code investigator. Excuse me. I'm getting a little nervous here. She's taken all the pictures. She's multiple-sided him with all these issues. He's ignored them, continued to move forward, but that pole barn was not there. He built a pole barn and then requested from the county to give him a permit to restore the back wall of a pole barn, manipulating the county every way he can, ignoring the county and all the violations that he's created, and then he would just want us to set by and allow this mobile home to come in. You ought to see it. Go down there and take a look at this place, especially the code where he didn't even call the county health code and get a septic tank system put in. He did it behind the scene. He cut down trees and pushed them over on existing people's properties so he wouldn't have to do away with them. They're still there today. You can go by there and look. Big stinking oak trees pushed over on other people's properties from him so he could put a mobile home. Now, there's tractors there. There's equipment, construction companies. So for him to say, oh, I just live on Social Security, where is this stuff coming from? Does he have another job? I don't know. But I don't want a community. I got from people who couldn't come, especially the lady that lives directly across from him. Here's their letter, if I can leave it with you. Her husband had a doctor's appointment, so they couldn't change it. So they're not here. Other people just aren't here because they had appointments. But yeah, our whole road is a nice community. I had a roof put on my house, a metal roof. I had to get a permit. I had to redo my receptory tank system. I had to get permits. This man is in violation. Everything you see in those pictures is all violations. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes, okay. Name and address for the record, please, sir. And keep in mind, three minutes. Michael Fry, 2531 Ralph Road. I live Caddy Corner from this property, and when I first moved in, the property that they want to put a mobile home on now was up for sale. I was actually going to buy it. We ended up not, and it sold again, I think, to this guy. And there wasn't a pole barn on there. There was literally, I have pictures here if you want to see them. There was nothing on that property. And, I mean, even I put a chicken coop in, and I had a guy out in my yard with the wheel and a shed, and I got to pay permits. And I bitch about it, but at the same time, this is the reason why these things are in place, right? So you can't just do whatever you want. And since then, he's taken his lot and cleared all the trees off of it. You can come to my house any morning and stand in my front yard. You have my permission, and you can see the eagles and hawks, and it's beautiful out there. I mean, the eagles are there every single morning, and for someone to just come in and do what they want to do, I don't understand how you – and if I build a chicken coop, I've got to follow all the rules. Like, I'm all for if you want to buy a property and put a nice house and, you know, help, you know, build the economy in our community, I should say. But to take all your junk fences and make a fence around his lot, I mean, literally all your trash is basically around this property, and then now you want to put a mobile home on it, and it just doesn't feel fair to the people around that have houses and that are going to lose money, basically. I think that's all I got. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public portion of this meeting and ask the applicant to come up if they'd like to address any of the concerns. Some gentlemen are right about a lot of things. Please, closer to the microphone, please. Pull it up there if you like. Gentlemen, I'm right about a lot of things. However, the septic tank was already there from the old mobile home. The electric pole was there, and the water was there. I didn't put it in. It was there. And the equipment that was there was used to just level the place out, and I got a licensed contractor to put the double Y there, unknowing to me that I needed to permit. That's my fault. And I'm very sorry I didn't understand that. I thought if you take a mobile home off, you could put one back on. But anything other than that, if you look at there now, there's no equipment on the property. All I want to do is live with my grandson, the two of us, and that's it. I'm not going to do any business there. I'm not going to disturb the neighborhood. I'm going to build a nice front fence with concrete columns and white vinyl fencing in front of it. So it's a credit to the neighborhood, and a credit to me. I'm sorry that I did what I did by not securing the permit, but my ignorance shows that that's why I'm here. I didn't realize that I had to get a permit by pulling the mobile home off and putting it on. I didn't realize it. And I'm to blame. And the gentlemen, they're right in many respects. And the neighbor across the street, I haven't known him for 15 years, and I've had a problem with him. Never. They're ministerial people, and they're wonderful people. So really, I just want to live comfortably for the rest of the years I have left. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Absolutely. Sir? Excuse me. Sir? Yeah, how long have you owned the property? Oh, I've owned the property for, I guess, five, six years. And in that time, I guess, when did you have the mobile home put on the property? Just last year. Thank you. Any other questions? Any other questions of the applicant? No, sir. Thank you. Thank you. The public portion is closed. Okay. I have a question. Absolutely. The site on the aerial right that shows the mobile home and the house across the street, is that an active mobile home on the right, or is that just parked there? I'm trying to, it's all one property, it looks like, it's a single family home, and there's a trailer parked adjacent to it. Is that a... So according to Property Appraiser, it's a mobile home. So that's what I went based off of, Property Appraiser's website. And then back to the map with all the star, I mean, the triangles and the circles. So in this community, there's only two other mobile homes, including the one we just talked about that looks like it's on a shared property between a single family home and a mobile home. That is correct. This one? All of my slides would say that it's compatible or consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan. Oh, it doesn't meet the conditions outlined in 303. So in 303, essentially, if there was to be a mobile home parked directly adjacent, if there was a mobile home on this slide right here, or a mobile home here or here, we wouldn't be here. Same goes, if there was nothing here, if it was completely vacant, then he would be by right able to put a mobile home on there. So that's why we're saying, hey, it is consistent. The request essentially is consistent. The fact that there's been a mobile home there prior to his acquisition for... Is that there illegally, I guess? Well, according to the deed and everything like that, it was there. So that's why I included the slides showing that 2,000 area with that mobile home there and the deed associated with that mobile home. The gentleman also had a pre-inspection permit with the building division, and that's kind of what started this roller coaster, if you would. Exactly, yeah. So he did that. He does have the mobile home setup permit in-house as well, but they can't do anything with it because he has to come through this procedure in order to get approved for it and then move forth. As far as everything else that's going on on the site, that's neither here nor there for this particular hearing because that's a code violation and building. So that would have to be handled at that point, but not today. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I just... Melissa brought up a good point. You're basically pretty limited in your authority today. A lot of what you heard isn't relevant to the hearing. All you're looking at is the compatibility of the mobile home. That's correct. Any other discussion? Mr. Checkwood, question for staff. Did you hear anything in the public testimony that changes your view on the case? Absolutely not. Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? I entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCU 2023-54. Motion. Do I have a second? Second. I'm going to motion and a second. Roll call, please. Rennie Heath. For the motion. Albert Beltran. David Dalt. I'm for the motion. Mike Hickman. Against the motion. Tommy Addison. Against the motion. Mike Schmidt. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 4-3. Okay. Thank you. Next case, please. All right. Number five on the agenda is LDCU 2023-58. APCAN is requesting conditional use approval of a 290,000... Sorry, 290,000 gallons per day wastewater treatment plant in an institutional two district. Subject property is located at 151 Warner Drive, west of U.S. Highway 27, south of Alturas, Babson Park Cutoff Road, west of Fulton Hall, south of the city of Lake Wales, and north of the town of Frostproof in Section 34, Township 30, Range 27. On January 18th, 125 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two signs were posted to the property on January 16th, and a legal ad was published in the ledger on January 22nd. Staff has received one response in opposition, and Eric Peterson will present. Good morning, commissioners. This is a sewage treatment plant for Warner University. Warner University is one of our fine institutions of higher learning down in the Crooked Lake area, south of Lake Wales. This area doesn't necessarily have a name. It has a few different names because there's a lot of different subdivisions in the area, but we know it as the area with Warner Southern. And the wastewater treatment plant is going in an institutional 2X district, which is for colleges and universities and for wastewater treatment plants. It just requires a hearing before the Planning Commission for approval. The site is further away from any neighboring properties than the existing wastewater treatment plant, which is up here. You can see it's moving closer to the south. This is a broader view of some of the things around the area and the Warner Southern Campus, which is over here. And the reason that they are in need of the wastewater treatment plant, which would be located on this vacant piece of property and even far from the baseball fields, is that they're planning some major expansions in the upcoming decade. They are going to build several residence halls, a new stadium, and a dining hall and student center, all of which will require more wastewater treatment. The current facility is 89,000. They need to expand it so they can expand the campus. With that, I will stand for questions. Any questions to staff? This plan also serves some of those developments, does it not? No, it does not. Actually, there is another wastewater treatment plant on the other side of Crooked Lake that has recently been taken offline and diverted their flow to the city of Lake Wales for treatment. I believe that's been under construction for a while. That serves wastewater treatment plant for multiple areas. Because this plant primarily serves the campus and, of course, Bach Academy across the street, some of the campus goes across the street to the other side as well. So I think that's the limits of what they currently serve. I inquired about did they have plans for serving outside? But at this time, their plans are basically to serve the university primarily, and if something were to come up, maybe. But for now, this expansion is really so that they can add more dorm halls. They need more housing facilities on site. Eric, just for clarification purposes, the existing facility is on the same piece of property? Yes, yes. But we still need a conditional use for an expansion of an existing facility? Yes, when it comes to wastewater treatment plants, any expansion requires a conditional use, expansion of a conditional use, essentially. Yeah, this is the wastewater treatment plant. I believe we had some opposition. The area to the north, and this one, this slide doesn't show the lot lines. You can see the lot lines here. This is a land offering by ATGAR many years ago. There's no roads, no access to the sites. I think that was where one of the letters in opposition came from. It's actually going to be further away from that property as well. So it's better. The state activity is occurring adjacent to, or just expanding it within the same property? Yes, and this will be a much better plant. The existing plant is several years old. This will be more state-of-the-art and process waste. So is the plan to take the old plant offline? Yes, the old plant's coming away. And being replaced. Okay. Yeah, I believe the old plant is not much more than a packaged plant. This is going to be a full-fledged sewage treatment plant. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Okay, thank you. The applicant would like to come up and present their case. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Planning Commission members. Dave Carter, Professional Engineer, 137 5th Street, Northwest Winter Haven. Today with me, Daniel Magro, who is our design engineer for the plant itself. And Daniel's in the audience. And also, Janet Craig-Miles. She is the Vice President of Operation for Warner University. She's here as well. As Eric indicated, there's an existing plant on site. It's about 40 years old, extended air. The precipitating the addition, we're adding additional dorm rooms, dorm buildings on campus. Also, the existing plant has some operational issues that need to be overcome. And so building a brand-new plant was decided upon as a way to move forward rather than trying to do something with an older plant that's got issues. Just so you're aware, the state of Florida legislature has earmarked several million dollars for expansion of plant that was done. And there's some specific time frames that we're dealing with. The next dorm building is scheduled to go online middle of next summer. And so there's some critical path timings we've got to do. But we feel like we can get that done. And the new plant, as Eric indicated, it's advanced treatment. The acronyms are MLE. And I'm sure Daniel could spend a better part of an hour explaining to you what that is. But I'm not going to bore you with that. But it's a much better state-of-the-art plant than what's there today. The effluent would be much cleaner than what's being discharged today. Just to let you know, the site plan that you saw is fairly large. While they've done a number of preliminary environmental and geotechnical studies, they have not decided from a design perspective exactly what area some of the spray field or ponds would sit on. And so we wanted to make sure that they had enough authority to build a plant where the geology gave them the most opportune location for water disposal. And so we have, I think, about a fourth of that site will actually be used for water disposal on the site. And then the plant would be built up near the existing plant. Ultimately, once the new plant's online, the old plant will go offline to be, you know, appropriately decommissioned. So, Mr. Chair, that's all I had this morning. I would look forward to your consideration and stand for any questions. I have a question, Dave. Once this plant's up and running, is there going to be excess capacity for that area? The plant, as you know, you don't build a plant for exactly what you need tomorrow. You always have some expansion. So there's available capacity there. It's not their intention to serve other new areas. You know, they're putting their money forward with the legislature to build a plant. They want to use it for the university. I understand there at one point there were some folks across the street that were tied in. I'm not sure, you know, Eric did explain that, what that status is. But it's not their intention today to expand the plant necessarily for anybody else but the university. And that's going to be owned and operated by the university? It is currently, the current plant is and the new plant will be as well owned and operated by the university, yes. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Dave, just real quick. What is your, do you have your DEP permits yet for this? No. I don't believe so. Do we, Daniel? No. We're still working on the design. This may be a question for Daniel. What's the design characteristics effluent quality and what's the intended use, it sounded like? Spray fields and ribs? Hi, good morning. Good morning. Daniel Magger with Aclose Engineering. Yeah, so the, it is going to be secondary treatment with advanced nutrient removal for nitrogen and phosphorus to meet some of the requirements of the area. Okay. Do you have, you know, those requirements? Yes. Are you going to meet? Uh, nitrogen, total nitrogen will be six milligrams per liter and total phosphorus six. Thank you. Yep. And, and we are planning on using a spray field because that's. Just, just for your information, this is an impaired area that's been declared by the state. Correct. So this is a good solution. Just wanted to see where you were going with it. Thank you. Wow. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. At this time, I'm going to open up the public portion of the meetings. Anybody in the audience would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion, bring it back to the, the board for discussion or a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCU 2023-58. Beckon. Got a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Running Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. For the motion. David Dalton. I'm for the motion. Mike Kickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 7-0. Okay, great. Thank you. Next case, please. All right. Good morning for record, Ian Nance for land development. Staff recommends approval of LDPD 2023-34, a request for 150 multifamily townhome units in a residential low-for-land-use district. Subject site is located at 1431 North Wabash Avenue, north of 10th Street, west of Kathleen Road, and south of I-4, south of the city of Lakeland in Section 11, Township 28, Range 23. On January 18th, 44 mailers were sent to area property owners. Five signs were posted January 10th, and a legal ad was published in the Ledger on January 22nd. Staff has logged no responses in opposition. Here is the site south of the intersection of Kathleen and I-4. This is an area of infill with long surrounding development that includes a variety of employment centers and other higher-density residential uses. This is to look at the immediate surrounding uses. A duplex development is located to the east. Single-family site built and mobile homes are located to the west. A railroad spur and an aggregate processing facility are located to the north. The surrounding land-use districts include Residential Low 3 and 4 and Residential High. It is located within the transit-supported development area, and densities are permitted by right up to seven dwelling units per acre here. But this is before you because the LDC requires a Level 3 review for multifamily uses in residential low districts, and Section 303 specifically requires PC approval for multifamily structures with more than four units per structure. The intent of which is to promote designs closer to single-family uses rather than apartment-style developments. Here is the site plan. 150 multifamily townhome units on approximately 24 acres. Each unit is proposed at 20 feet wide, no more than two stories high, and no more than eight units per structure. There is a stream that runs from the northeast to the southwest of the site with associated wetlands. Minimum wetland impacts are anticipated, but will be required for internal traffic circulation in accordance with the LDC policy. Of the acreage, nearly half will consist of open space, including the requisite recreation requirements. Landscaping standards will be met or exceeded, and internal sidewalks and shielded lighting will be required. This is the site plan overlaid on the property, and as you can see, the stream really dictates where development can occur here. A 10-foot-wide landscaping buffer and 6-foot opaque fence will be required along the northern property line to buffer and screen the site from the railroad and aggregate processing. Type A landscaping is proposed along the eastern and southern property lines, and type B landscaping and natural vegetation and trees will be preserved to screen and buffer the existing single-family homes along the west. The entrance on the north Wabash will be for emergency services only, left unpaved and with a gate. This development will complete a gap in the sidewalk systems. And as for consideration of the unit type, a townhome project is being planned to the southeast by Lakeland Housing Authority, and the duplex development has been located here since the early 80s. The scenario taken last Tuesday, I-4 and Kathleen are to the north with warehousing, manufacturing, and distribution uses nearby. This is looking south towards US-92. The Lakeland Logistics Center is at the top. New single-family development on a 40-foot-wide lot is to the west with construction underway. It's a preliminary impact assessment. In short, there's an abundance of urban-level services with capacity. Urgency services are nearby with anticipated levels of response. There have been recent improvements to the roadways that have added sidewalks that can reach surrounding uses and multiple mass transit stops. Should this be approved, this is a list of further reviews that will be necessary at staff level. A flood study review will be required, and right-of-way dedication will be necessary along with a major traffic study. Utilities will be provided through the City of Lakeland. Again, staff recommends approval. The proposed use is made compatible through the layout of the site relative to the other uses and using buffering and screening techniques. Similar uses are found in the immediate vicinity of the site. The application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. With that, I thank you, and we'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Got a quick question. Sure. Parking? It's a lot of... The parking, it's going to be two spaces per unit. Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions? Please speak into the microphone. Yes, sir. This will be emergency access over. Correct. Any other questions? Okay. The applicant available. I'd like to present your case. Good morning, Commission. For the record, Bart Allen. I'm a Land Use Attorney with the Peterson and Meyers Law Firm. My address is 225 East Lemon Street, Lakeland, Florida. See if I can find this presentation real quick. There we go. I know it's on here. I'm here this morning on behalf of the applicant, Meredith Holmes. Excuse me. Been battling that all of 2024. It's been fun. We are, as Mr. Nance has really given you a great overview of the project, so I'm going to run through my presentation fairly quickly. But I want to do, just real quick, I want to make a few introductions to our team. I've got with me Mr. Tyler Van Sant. I would like to recognize Mr. Van Sant for recently graduating from law school, and he'll be taking the bar in a couple weeks, I think. So I appreciate him taking some... Another one? I know, I know. We're like weeds, Commissioner Heath. But he'll be taking the bar, so I appreciate him taking out some time of his study for that. Ms. Betsy Jolly, also with Meredith Holmes, is here with us. We have our planner and engineer here, Mr. Dunning and Mr. Sposato. Also, Eden Cook is with us as well, all from Level Up. They're here to answer any technical questions that we can't get into, that I can't answer this morning. Who's Meredith Holmes? I've been representing Meredith for a little while now. They're the fifth largest home builder in the United States locally. They've been in a couple different areas of the county, but even close to this building, they're currently in Stewart Crossings building, single family development there right off of Ernest Smith Boulevard. So really enjoyed the opportunity to work with them. They're really creative and they have some really neat thoughts on efficiency and green building and different things like that. And Mr. Van Sant can give you a primer on some of their insulation efforts and different things if we need to today. Let's see. The site, 26 acres, more or less, Wabash and 10th Street. Mr. Nance has already kind of gone over those issues. One thing that I want to make sure that we're clear on, we have to use the term multifamily because of some nuances in the code. The way the code's currently constructed, the county's code is four units or more becomes a multifamily, anything four units attached. So these will be fee simple platted townhome product, but because we're going over four attached units in the building, we technically have to qualify as multifamily. So it's a really weird kind of dynamic with the code. These will be traditional townhome product. So fee simple platted lots. Approximately 1,500 square feet in the homes and expected prices somewhere in the mid to high 200s. This is a typical just kind of concept elevation of what a unit will look like from the street. This is just land use. Mr. Nance already covered most of this. Again, residential low four. Typically, we're talking about four to five units an acre there, but because we're in the TSDA, the TSDA policies of the comp plan allow the site by right to go. Up to seven dwelling units per acre. And we're in just over six based on the 150 townhome units that we're proposing on this 26 acres. Site plan. Mr. Nance went over that pretty well. Just really want to highlight again a couple things. This is where the townhomes will go. We have not lotted this out. So these aren't necessarily going to be a big brick wall of townhomes. This is just where townhomes are going to be located, the actual lots and how the form and function and size of each building will come in at level two. And those details will get sorted out there. Buffering along the north edge. The buffering and the landscaping bufferings are located where townhomes are adjacent to other properties. We're trying to leave the rest of where adjacent to other properties and undeveloped, we're trying to leave the natural vegetation in place. That's the best landscaping and buffering that you can do is maintaining the natural vegetation. That's why you don't see the fence running all the way along the property boundaries, impacting wetlands and different things. We've limited those areas. But again, a 10-foot type C adjacent to the industrial to the north and the rail spur type B, which is, again, in excess of what the minimum code requirements are, which would be a type A along with a fence along the western and eastern boundaries and the southern boundaries along the right of way. This is an emergency access only. At one time, we were contemplating a secondary access point after looking at the site, evaluating adjacent neighbors and adjacent property owners, we made the decision that it made more sense for this to be emergency only, leave it gated with a Knox box and that sort of stuff. So it won't be a free access. It won't be open to a resident. It won't be a clicker for the residents. It will be emergency vehicles only. And this will remain basically grass. It will be stabilized enough and then sodded and grass so that it looks like an open space, but stabilized enough for emergency vehicles to get in and out. So our primary access point is here on 10th Street. This is compatible with the surrounding area. You've already got the Colton Meadows project kind of to the east. That's around seven, almost eight dwelling units an acre. You've got some additional single family. So this is a transitional area. And Mr. Nance aptly described it as infill. That's kind of what we're doing as we're filling in here. The project's compatible with the area. It meets all of your land development code or criteria. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan. And we'll stand for any questions and recommend approval of this PD. Any questions, the applicant? I see none. Okay. At this time, I'm going to open the public portion. Anybody in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case, please come forward to the podium, name and address for the record. And there is a three-minute time limit. Cynthia McCann, 1455 North Wabash and 1445 North Wabash. I came to the office on the 23rd, and I did speak with you, and I did voice concerns. Earlier, when you first spoke, you said there was nobody that voiced concerns about this project, and I did. It's a big concern. Once you opened Wabash, you destroyed our way of life. We were a cul-de-sac there. Now we have all kinds of traffic. With this coming in, this is going to just add to our area. You're going to add at least 300 more cars if it's two cars per unit. You're going to add 600 people if it's two adults and two children. If it's two adults and three children, it's going to be 754, 750 more people in that area, just right behind me. And next door to me, you're going to have emergency services come in. It's going to wake us up in the middle of the night. We already have all kinds of traffic coming down and throwing their garbage in our yard because you opened the road. My husband has lived there for over 40 years, and it was always a closed road, a cul-de-sac. It's going to change our way of life completely. I really oppose this, and I hope you do too because I don't think this is good for our community. The only person that it's going to profit is the people who own the property, and it's going to add taxes. I'm sorry, but I'm really against this. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience? I'm going to close the public portion, bring it back to the applicant to address any of the issues. Thank you. I'll be relatively brief here. Transportation issues, she was talking about additional cars pursuant to the staff report. North Wabash, 10th Street, all these areas have plenty of available capacity to handle additional traffic. They're currently operating at a level of service of C, and we anticipate that they will be continuing to operate at a level of service of C based on staff's analysis, which, again, is in your staff report on page 12. There will be some additional folks out here, but there are the services available. There's school capacity available. According to the analysis in the staff report, they're operating around 79% of capacity for the zone schools, so there's plenty of capacity for handling additional folks out here. We will be connecting to water and sewer with the city of Lakeland. We've addressed compatibility issues. If you look at the site plan, the homes are pulled about as far away from adjacent parcels on the west side as we physically can when you start taking into account wetlands and other things that we have to avoid on the site. We're providing six-foot opaque fence along those sides as well as the landscaping that will go on in on that area as well. So I understand that sometimes people don't want to have change, but this property is prime for development. It's in the north part of Lakeland where there is a ton of development going on. You want people located in these areas where you have all the services and you have access to parks and schools and different things. So this is an appropriate location for this project. It's a good project with a good developer, and we would request a favorable vote this morning. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing no, bring it back to the board for discussion or a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDPD 2023-34. Second. I've got a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Rennie Heath. For the motion. Over, Beltran. For the motion. David Dalton. I am for the motion. Mike Kickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 7-0. Okay, thank you. Next case, please. All right, number seven on the agenda is LDPD 2023-37. The applicant is requesting a planned development modification, the PUD 71-10, to allow the placement of two single-family homes. Subject site is located south of Gold Drive, north of Hummingbird Court, east of Audubon Road, and east of the town of Dundee, in section 25, township 27, range 28. On January 18th, 99 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on the property on January 10th, and a legal ad was published in the ledger on January 22nd. Staff has received no responses, and Leah and Gleema is your planner. Motion expedite. Second. In a motion and a second expedite, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case, other than the applicant? Not yet. But you would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Yeah. Okay, so we will not expedite. Good morning, Leah and Gleema with Land Development, presenting LDPD 2023-37, the Gold Drive PD mod. The applicant is requesting a planned development modification to PUD 71-10, to allow the placement of two single-family homes. Staff is recommending approval. The subject site is located south of Gold Drive, north of Hummingbird Court, east of Audubon Road, west of Falcon Road, and east of the town of Dundee, in section 25, township 27, range 28. The property is 0.93 acres, located within the Poinciana Pre-Development of Regional Impact and the UEA. The property is part of the Poinciana Plan Union Development, PUD 71-10, approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1971. Poinciana has experienced rapid growth in recent years. The newly proposed site plan shows that LDPD 2023-37 is adding two single-family homes to Track K off Gold Drive. This is under the maximum permitted in the PUD for single-family residential of five dwelling units per acre. Here is the site plan. The applicant is placing two single-family homes on the parcel. Staff recommends approval. The number of units requested are similar density to the area with no procedural compatibility issues. The lots will be larger than the adjacent and surrounding lots. The subject site is surrounded by single-family homes within a pre-DRI land-use district. And two single-family homes will not have adverse effects on public infrastructure. This development should fit seamlessly into the surrounding community. And the request is consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. And I'll stand for questions. Any questions, the staff? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant available? Would like to come up and speak for your case? The applicant. You'll get a chance in just a minute. Is the applicant here? She is. Oh, she is the applicant. I'm sorry. Name and address for the record, please. I'm calling 7444 Cypress Grove Road, Orlando. I'm representing the applicant. I submitted the application. And I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Is there any questions of the applicant? Once again, I apologize for not recognizing you as the applicant. Okay. Thank you. At this point, I'm going to open up the public portion. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case? Good morning. Name and address for the record. Yes. Jennifer Jacobson. I live at 567 Finch Court. This is, my house is kind of behind where this is going to be. But I still can see the trees over the top of my neighbor's house. And the reason why I'm here is, well, first I wanted to thank you guys for sending out these notices. Because this is more than I got about four years ago. I woke up to the lot right next to me being bulldozed. And all the trees gone and my privacy gone. And now I have a house there with neighbors that won't talk to me. So I really appreciate the warning. So thank you. I'm not opposed to the plan. I talked to some of my neighbors. And I know you're planning two single-family homes. And that's better than what it could have been. Could have had more houses and more trees down. That's the only reason why I'm here is just to see if the plan allows for saving of some of the taller trees. Point Siena, as was stated earlier, has grown so rapidly. I bought my house 16 years ago. And one of the primary reasons why I purchased my home there was because it is heavily wooded. There are lots of animals and birds. And I was an animal trainer for 23 years. So I really love nature. And I love talking to people about nature and conservation. Yeah. So I guess my question is, will there be an allowance in the plan for some of the larger, older, bigger trees to be left standing? That's all I'm asking for today. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Anybody else in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case? See none. Close the public portion. Bring it back to the applicant if they would like to come up and address any of the concerns. I'd just like to say that we'd be happy to work with anybody in the neighborhood and address any of these concerns. This is the first time this was brought to my attention. It's our intention to keep as many trees on the property also. It benefits the site and the aesthetics of the site in general. And so I'd be happy to entertain any follow-up involvement to appease the neighborhood. We want to be good neighbors. Maybe you should get with her. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I have a question for Leah. In the staff report, it says that this site was designated as residential. In my experience with Poinciana, it's identified as Track K. And anywhere in Poinciana where you have usually identification like that, it's either intended for commercial or institutional of some sort. So I would disagree that it was intended as residential based on the original PD 71-10. Would you like to address that? Yeah. This is the map from the actual PUD, which shows the site as single-family residential. But the plat did not – we did not find anything on the plat that stated what Track K was designated for. And if I may add, Shonda Bennett, if we felt that the PUD or the master plan for Poinciana displayed it as commercial in any way that we could identify, we would have made them do a comprehensive plan amendment. So we did not find any evidence that it was designated commercial. And I get what you're saying about the track. I was – we're always a suspect of that. But as – since Avatars sold the properties off, we're getting a lot more detailed research about what those tracks are. And a lot of times, they're also related to drainage. Any other questions? Okay. At this time, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion and or a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDPD 2023-37. Second. Got a motion. A second. Roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. For the motion. David Dalton. I'm for the motion. Mike Kickman. I'm for the motion. Tommy Addison. I'm for the motion. Mike Schmidt. I'm for the motion. And Linda Schultz. I'm for the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 6-1. Okay. Thank you. Next case, please. All right. Number 8 on the agenda is LDCD 2023-10. The applicant is requesting a sub-district change from residential low 1 to residential low 3 on approximately 2.71 acres. Subject property is located east of Sweet Bay Drive, south of Pipkin Road, west, west of Lund Road, south of the city of Lakeland, and section 10, township 29. Range 23. On January 18th, 66 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on January 21st, and a legal ad was published in the ledger on January 22nd. Staff has received no responses, and Amy Little will present. Good morning. Amy Little with Land Development. LDCD 2023-10 is a request for a sub-district change from residential low 1 to residential low 3 to allow for the development of a nine-lot subdivision. The request is compatible with the surrounding area, with RL3 to the north and the east. To the west is RL1, but the developed lots are smaller in size, more what we would expect in RL3. There are available urban services to the site, and staff is recommending approval. Staff is requesting a recommendation from the Planning Commission, and the sub-district change will be heard at the March 19th board hearing. Here's the current land use with surrounding uses. You can see there's RL3 to the north and east, and a bit further south on Lund Road down here. If approved, the future land use map will look like that, so not much of a change, considering that it's adjacent to RL3 to the north. Here's the context area. You can see there's large subdivisions in the area that have similar density to what could be developed in RL3. And here's a closer look at the site. The neighborhood to the immediate west features lot sizes averaging about 10,000 square feet, which is the minimum lot size in RL3, even though these are located in RL1. So it's very consistent with what is out there. The request is to facilitate the creation of a nine-lot subdivision for single-family residences. The main difference between RL1 and RL3 is the density and lot size. Within RL1 land use districts, the minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet, and density is one dwelling unit per acre. RL3 allows 10,000 square foot lots and three dwelling units per acre. However, the parcel is also located in the Transit Supportive Development Area, and the comprehensive plan grants up to seven dwelling units per acre in RL3 and the TSDA. If approved, they'll be able to develop the subdivision as they proposed. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code. RL3 is compatible with the surrounding uses. It provides a gradual decrease in intensity with the RL1 to the west, and staff is recommending approval. With that, I thank you, and I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Okay, seeing none. The applicant available. I'm sorry. Please speak in the microphone. Excuse me. Table 5 in the submittal suggests that under RL1, there's two single-family units acceptable. Under RL3, there's 18 multifamily units. That would be the maximum that they could do because they're in the TSDA. They could do seven dwelling units per acre, and there's 2.71 acres there. So ultimately, they could do that many. That's not their intention of what they've provided to us. They've provided a nine-lot single-family. They could get up to 18 units there. So our approval will be for nine-lot single-family? Your approval will just be for the sub-district change. We can't condition that. Their intention is nine-lots, but they conceivably could come in for 18 if they wanted to. We could see that. That's my problem with it. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions of staff? I see none. Okay, is the applicant available? I'd like to come up and present their case. Also, multifamily would be required to come back in for planning commission. I understand. Again, is the applicant available? We can table it until the end. I don't know if anyone's reached out to the applicant to see if they're planning to attend today. But just from what it sounds like, we may have some that want to vote to deny it. So I would recommend tabling it until the applicant can be here. Since there was no comments back. Since the applicant is not available, is there anyone in the audience that, well, I'll tell you what, since the applicant's not available and there was a recommendation, well, it was not a recommendation of denial, I'd like to entertain a motion to table this to move it on to the planning commission meeting next month. So moved. Second. I got a motion. Yes, sir? Okay, I'll tell you what. Let me back up here for just a second. I didn't realize you were here for that. I'm going to open it up to the public. Is there anyone out here that would like to speak for or against this case? Appreciate you raising your hand back there. Good morning. John Hadfield, 5104 Lund Road, Lakeland, Florida. I live in the property directly across from the property that's being discussed. In fact, the first eight years of my life, I lived on that property. My parents rented it from the Wiggins family. In 1973, they bought the parcel of land across the street and built the house that our family currently resides in. It's my current residence and intended to be my permanent residence for all intents and purposes. My biggest concern is having been a resident there for over 50 years and seeing how development has happened up and down Lund Road and seeing the impact that it's had, especially that close to the intersection of Lund and Pipkin, the traffic has increased exponentially as more multi-family dwellings have been put up farther down Lund Road, especially during peak hours in the morning and the afternoons. The congestion at that area is extremely populated. I don't know what the ingress is planned for this area, but it's got to go in and out somewhere, and if the plan is for it to come out onto Lund Road, it's just going to add more to the traffic at that intersection. Any change to Lund Road at that intersection would then impact my property because it would then have to widen somewhere. In the 50 years, more so than 50 years of my entire life that I've been there, we have seen a change in traffic patterns, in congestion. We have seen more physical pollution in trash being tossed out, more noise pollution as more cars run up and down the road at all hours of the night. Many of these properties are being built up slightly, so it's also impacting then where does the water runoff to, due to the shops that were built next to our property. If we have a major storm, a lot of rain, my property floods due to the runoff. Where's that going to go? My concern with more density is more impact to the environment, more impact to the community, and just the overall well-being of that particular area, it being especially that close to the intersection of Lund and Pipkin. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else in the audience would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public portion, bring it back to the board for discussion of tabling it, since the applicant is not here, to be continued to next month? Can that happen to me? Do you have to re-advertise? No, if you do a motion for a date certain, you can go off the motion. Do we need the motion that's out there? Do we need to make a motion to cancel that one? Did you get a second? Did I get a second? Did I get a second? I don't think I got a second. Okay. Okay, well, then I would like to make a motion to continue this case to the next Planning Commission meeting on March 6th. On March 6th, 2024. I have a motion to tables. Do I have a second? Second. Was that? Again, motion and second. Roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. Robert Veltron. For the motion. David Dalton. I am for the motion. Mike Hickman. Tommy Addison. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 7-0. Okay, thank you. Next case, please. The next case is a comprehensive plan amendment, small scale, LDCPAS 2023-21, Raffle Range Road Racetrack, high impact commercial. It's a future land use designation change from agricultural, residential, rural in the rural development area to high impact commercial in the suburban development area. The property is in the gateway selected area plan. The subject site is located on the south side of U.S. 60, west of County Road 655A, Alturas Road, north of Lake Garfield, and east of 80-foot Road West, west of the city of Winterhaven, and east of the city of Bartow, in Section 32, Township 29, and Range 26. Property owners are Applebaum and Joannis West Estate. The parcel size is about 13.56 acres of a larger 47-acre property. It's also in the transit centers and corridors overlay. Nearest municipality, even though it's between near Bartow, it's really Winterhaven is the nearest city. And in terms of advertisement, 32 mailers were sent to area property owners on January 18th. Two signs were posted to the property on January 17th. A legal advertisement was published in the Lakeland Ledger on January 22nd, and no responses were received, and Robert Bolton is the case planner. Pardon me. I've been fighting also all year. You too, huh? Yes. Good morning. Robert Bolton with Land Development, presenting LDCPAS 2023-21, Rifle Range Highway 60, HIC. It's a comprehensive plan request for land use change from Agricultural Rural Residential X to High Impact Commercial X on approximately 13.56 acres of a parent parcel of 47.07 acres. It is a Level 4 review that will be heard by the BFCC on March 19th, 2024. The subject is located on the south side of Highway 60 at the intersection of Rifle Range and 60, west of Alturas Road and east of 80-foot Road, midway between the cities of Bartow, Lake Wales, Winterhaven, Snakes Down, like that. This is a current 2023 aerial for context. Highway 60 runs east and west from coast to coast through central Florida. It also goes east and west all the way through Polk County. The Polk Parkway extension will be coming down east side of Lake Hancock and connecting to Highway 60 somewhere to the west in this area. This is a closer view of the subject with Rifle Range Road, Highway 60. This is Camping World, which was developed in the early 2000s. This is the Good Life RV Resort, which was developed in the mid-1980s. To the northeast in this area is an area of industrial land use. It's an industrial land use district. This area right here is currently the heavy use. They have sandblasting, those type uses, currently active in that industrial area. Further to the east at Old Bartow Road, Lake Wales Road, and Alturas, this is where the pilot travel center is, and a Circle K with some high-speed diesel pumps also. And this residential subdivision here was developed in the earlier 70s. I think it was platted like in 1974. This is the existing land use districts in the area. The request is basically an extension of the existing HIC-X to the north. On the northeastern quadrant of Rifle Range N-60 is the industrial area, the district that I was speaking of. You've got the ARR, and there is a vacant NAC-X that is adjacent to the subject site. And this is showing how it would be. The parent tract comes down like this. It's hard to see with these lines. The rest of this is not included in the request. This is Highway 60 looking west. This is Camping World over here on the north side of 60. This is Highway 60 looking east. That is the intersection at Rifle Range Road with the site over on the right-hand side. This is Rifle Range Road intersecting with Highway 60. The north side of Highway 60 looking from the site. This is the site. It's looking down toward Lake Garfield. And this is another section of that area. The subject is serviced well by all public services. No schools with no impact to schools because the HIC does not allow residential development. The services are available, good fire EMS. EMS is actually just located on Rifle Range Road. The request represents an expansion of an existing HIC-X on the north side of Highway 60. The subject site is located within a heavily traveled and growing area between Bartow and Lake Wales. Highway 60 is a principal arterial road with Rifle Range Road and Urban Collector Road. The site is public services and will not impact schools. The request is consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan and development code. And staff recommends approval. This, I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Quick question for staff, Mr. Chair. Robert, what's the reason for the odd shape of the red outline? That is, at this point in time, we really don't get into level two, but they do have a current level two in. It is a proposed racetrack that is coming in, and that is where their stormwater retention is being planned to be put. Okay. So we just went on and included it in the HIC. Okay, got it. Thank you. Robert, Bartow is a service area, but how far to the west are the utilities? I think that was in Stafford Port. It is fairly far. They're going to, that is part of the level two overcomes that they're having to work with is the water. I know there's a county-owned package plant in the development that's to the east on the south end of that. Any other questions of staff? Okay, seeing none, is the applicant available? I'd like to present your case. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Tom Sullivan with the Gray Robinson Law Firm, 301 East Pine Street in Orlando, on behalf of Racetrack on this request. Appreciate your time this morning. Also appreciate staff's presentation. Really covered kind of the key points I was going to cover, so would appreciate your support and happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Just kind of as a follow-up on the infrastructure question, are you guys connecting to Central Sewer or anything? It's a good question. I'm going to ask Brian Potts, our civil engineer, to give you a little bit more detail on that. Thank you. How are you all doing? Brian Potts, 2494 Rose Spring Drive, Orlando. So the utilities from Bartow are three miles to the west. That's too far for us to connect. There is a line much closer to the east from Polk County Utilities. We approached them about making the connection, and they do not have any capacity for us. They have told us they will not let us connect or extend their lines. There's also – we did a bunch of research on this because we would have preferred to two-side utilities. There's a private utility company called Wanata to the north. They also do not have capacity for us to extend lines. So we've gotten with fire, and they're agreeable to us putting in a fire well and a fire tank, and we'll be on well for water service and septic for sewer. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. At this time, I'm going to open it up to the public. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public portion. Bring it back to the board for discussion or and or a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDC-PAS 2023-21. Do I have a second? Second. Got a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Renny Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. For the motion. David Dalton. I am for the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 7-0. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next case, please. Sorry about that. The next case is another small-scale conference plan amendment, LDC-PAS 2023-31, Fox Lake Drive, future land use amendment. It's a future land use designation change from the linear commercial corridor to residential medium in the transit supportive development area. It's located south of Fox Lake Drive, east of Highway 98 north, west of Ranch Road, north of Bibby Lane, north of the city of Lakeland, in section 13, township 27, and range 23. Property owner is Inspire Veterinary Alliance, LLC. Applicant is Next Level Planning, Sarah Case. Parcel size is a little over half an acre. Nearest municipality is the city of Lakeland. And in terms of advertisement, 21 mailers were sent to area property owners on January 18th. One sign was posted to the property on January 21st. A legal advertisement was published in the Lakeland Ledger on January 22nd, and no responses have been received. And Amy Little is the case planner. Good morning. Chair moved to expedite. I got a motion to expedite. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case, other than the applicant? Who is here? Okay. I got a motion to second to expedite. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. LDC-PAS-2023-31 is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to request a change to 0.62 acres. It's within the Linear Commercial Corridor Future Land Use designation, and they are requesting that it go to residential medium. They are intending to build two triplexes. It is compatible with the surrounding uses. Further to the east, there are duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. So this change will allow them to build structures that are very similar to what's located to the east, and it provides a step down in intensity from the LCC along the roadway from the RL1 that's to the east. And staff is recommending approval. With that, I thank you, and I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant available? I'd like to come up and present their case. Good morning for the record. Sarah Case, Next Level Planning and Permitting. Here representing the owner, who actually is also the veterinary clinic next door. As indicated by staff, it's LCC. So this is a transition from what is more intensive LCC that we have now to the RL that is adjacent to us to the east. And as indicated in the staff report, there's a higher-density multifamily complex to the southeast of us. I believe there were at least eight policies we were consistent with, as indicated in the staff report. And I will stand for any questions that you might have, and I appreciate your consideration of approval. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, okay, thank you. At this time, I'm going to open it up for the public. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I close the public portion of the meeting. Bring it back to the board for discussion and or a motion. Mr. Chair, I move a motion to approve LDC-PAS 2023-31. Second. I'm going to motion a second. Roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. For the motion. David Dalton, I am for the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. Yes, we're motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 6-1. Okay, thank you. Next case, please. The next two cases are related. However, they'll be presented slightly in a different, not necessarily in one, but I'll read both of them into the record. First is a small-scale conference plan amendment, LDC-PAS 2023-11, the Providence N27-CAC. It's a future land use designation change from preservation to community activity center. And the related case is LD-DRI 2023-1. The subject property is located on the east side of Highway 1792, south of Ronald Reagan Parkway, or Kenny Harmon Road, and north of Ernie Caldwell Boulevard, northeast of Davenport City Limits in Section 12, Township 26, and Range 27, and Section 7, Township 26, and Range 28. The applicant is Applied Building Development Company. The parcel size is about 7.48 acres. The development area is the urban growth area. It's also in the transit centers and corridors overlay. The nearest city is the city of Davenport. And the conference, I'm sorry, the Development of Regional Impact Amendment to Providence, which was first approved in 1990, that's LD-DRI 2023-1. And it's an amendment to the development of regional impact for the expansion of the neighborhood 727 commercial area. You'll see the map is divided into different neighborhoods. It's a summary of the, and also to amend the summarization of the residential and commercial unit counts within the neighborhoods, i.e. to remove some of the detail regarding Map H, and extend the build-out dates of Phase 1 and Phase 2. The property owner is the same, Applied Building Development Company. And the acreage of, I was going to say Oak Hill, that's what it used to be called, Providence, is about 2,300 acres. But it also focuses on the conference plan amendment. And in terms of the advertisement, 54 mailers were sent to area property owners for the conference plan amendment. Four signs were posted to the property on January 17th. The legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on January 22nd, and no responses were received. And the case for the Development Regional Impact Amendment also had a posting in the Lakeland Ledger on January 26th, I'm sorry, January 22nd, and Robert Bolton is the case planner. Good morning again, Robert Bolton with Land Development, presenting LDCPAS 2023-11, Providence in 27th City. It's a comprehensive plan amendment for requested land use change from Preservation X to Community Activity Center X on approximately 7.48 acres of apparent 19.12, approximate, acres, parcels. Staff has recommended approval. This is a level four review and will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on March 19th, 2024. The site is located on the east side of US Highway 1792, south of Kinney Harmon Road, northeast of the Davenport city limits. This is a current 2023 aerial for context. US 1792 generally runs north and south, with Ronald Reagan running westward from the intersection and Kinney Harmon Road running eastward. On the northern corner is the Loughman Crossing Shopping Center. This is a recent single-family development, Vista Mar. Over here is a self-storage facility that is currently being constructed and will soon be completed. Over on the west side, 1792, is an apartment complex, Point Grand apartments that are currently under construction. This is the site that we're talking about right here, the hard intersection right there of those two roads. This is a closer view of that section. You can see where the residential has been built out. Even the 2023 doesn't have the current apartments being built. This is the self-storage. This area over here is the CAC, which this request is for an expansion westward to this site. This area over here is known as N27, which is a commercial neighborhood within the Providence DRI. These are the existing land uses. As you can see, the west side of 1792 is all CACX. The east side here has a number of vacant parcels, and it is also CACX. The original DRI made this commercial. When the land development code was adopted, there we go, it was given CAC. N27 was designated as commercial. So it's just, you know, this is currently preservation. This is what the land use would look like after it's done. One of the requests, this isn't just a straight land use change. Don't really hear preservation being brought forward to you to change. We have looked, you know, staff has looked at a lot of things. Many aspects of this request were considered, reviewed, and analyzed, not just by planning staff, but also South Florida Water Management District and the Florida Department Environmental Protection. The SWIFT MUD and FDEP reports were attached under separate cover, giving their approval for the mitigation of these wetlands with their reasonings also. Our floodplain manager also reviewed these reports and has agreed that given the location of this area, the hard intersection, the wetlands, the wetlands that are going to be, still be protected within the DRI, that it is appropriate land use to allow for the mitigation of these wetlands. There's talk, and we are going to be, in the next presentation, we'll be talking about the DRI in general. This is the Providence DRI, originally known as Oak Hills Estates. The land use we're talking about is right up here, right at this intersection. It is going to impact less than 1% of the total protected wetlands within Providence DRI. When you go through both SWIFT MUD and FDEP's approvals, they recognize that the preservation of their higher level of wetlands in that area, this area has been impacted over time, over and over again. This is what the site looks like today, with 1792 and Ronald Reagan and Kenny Harmon Road. You've got this CAC that is rapidly building out. These are the vacant areas of CAC. You have this apartment complex being built. This is already entitled, and I want to back up. This land use does not provide any additional entitlements. The entitlements for this area are provided through the DRI, so there are no new entitlements. It just gives a larger area for them to be able to work with. This is what it looks like today. 2007, Providence was already approved, entitled. 1792 is two-lane paved road in that area. Ronald Reagan was two-lane paved. Kenny Harmon was dirt. You can see, with the road widenings, the takings, these wetlands have already been taken, impacted. And with the additional traffic, you've got the runoffs into these wetlands. That's part of the analysis that the applicant, submitting with SWIFT MUD and FDEP, recognize with this site. Chapter 620, Wetland Protection, allows for mitigation of wetlands for certain uses. One of the uses is for access. This was approved back in 1990, prior to a lot of our Land Development Code comprehensive plan. Now, for a development here, it would be good to be able to have multiple accesses on both these roads, or at least one on each road, to be able to create circulation. That gets into more of a level two, but it's part of the reason why this request is there. One of the other, and I meant to bring up, is that in the DRI, the original application, ADA, application development approval, recognized the need for wetland, of mitigating wetlands. And this, the entitlements that were given in the DRI are vested into current day. This is 1792, looking northward. Up here, you get Ronald Reagan, Kenny Harmon, the shopping center up here with the apartments over here to the right. Those are the apartments currently under construction. This is the picture of the site that slopes down into, you know, the wetlands. This is Kenny Harmon looking toward Ronald Reagan with the site over on the left. This is looking eastward, and you can see the residential subdivision. This area is just being built out more and more. The site's well-serviced by all public services. Like I stated before, this land use will not increase any entitlements. The entitlements are already set in place by the DRI. Any impacts that the development would have at a level two would have to be dealt with at that point in time and considered. That doesn't change anything from a level two perspective. The request represents an expansion of an existing CAC to the east of the subject. The requested land use change will allow the wetlands at the intersection to be mitigated as approved by SWIFT, MUD, and FDEP. Less than 1% of the wetlands protected by the Providence DRI will be impacted. The request will not increase any entitlements to the DRI. It will allow the entitled commercial neighborhood to develop in a safer and more viable manner, allowing potential access to 1792. The request is consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan and land development. With that, I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, okay, is the applicant available? I'd like to come up and present your case. Excuse me, I'm not sure when, that's okay, I'm not sure when to ask this, but is it appropriate to hear both of the Providence proposals? Oh, you can ask now. Can we hear both of them since they seem to be rather tied together? Yes, we do that for CPAs and other cases too, and we've got two applications on the same subject property that, yes, we'll have one public hearing, but you have to take two separate votes. I mean, now, he's, we have two separate Providence, one is RES to CAT and then DRI, the next one, apparently. They're related cases. Before we vote, can we hear both? Yes, you've heard both cases just now from Roberts, what he just provided, his presentation. This is both cases here. Correct, yes. Sorry, I thought we were presenting one at a time. All right, thank you. I'm sorry, Sean is, oh, so we have another presentation coming from Robert? Okay, well, why don't we just go ahead and present them both at the same time? Let's do that. Let's do that. You need a motion for that? I read them both into the record, so. Okay. Nice try. Robert Bolton for the record, presenting LDDRI 2023-1, an amendment to the Providence development of regional impact. The subject site is the Providence DRI, a 2,300-plus acre development originally known as Oak Hill Estates, and was adopted on October 16, 1990. This request is the 8th restated and amended development order for the Providence DRI. The request consists of three main elements. The first is the expansion of the N27 commercial area, which is what we were just speaking of as to the LDCPA S2023-11. As a point, if the land use doesn't change, then this amendment will have to change because we will not be able to amend the MAP-H and records. So this would start a different process. The second is the summarization of the residential and commercial unit counts within the neighborhoods. Third is extending the build-out dates for Phase 1 and 2. The first of the request, the expansion of the N27 commercial area, as I said, relates to what we just presented. And it is so that the DRI's MAP-H, which in a DRI, it was before land use change, was its source of basically a comp plan map is what it is, but it's still part of the DRI process. And also the ADA, the application for development approval. The second request is a summarization, and it's this I'm talking about right here, of the unit counts within the neighborhoods. The current table identifies each neighborhood and the units. The new table summarizes the units outside of the specific neighborhoods. This will allow the developer to be able to move the residential units between neighborhoods without having to go through a modification process. They're not adding total entitlements. Again, when this table was developed, it was developed pretty much in 1990. As the development starts going through, they realize we can't put as many units in this neighborhood because as we get in new standards for, you know, whatever, we can't put them, but we'd like to transfer them over here to a different neighborhood. It allows for that. It does not allow for changing commercial to residential. That would still take a comprehensive map plan amendment, just like what we just presented, to change those type uses. The third request is to extend the build-out dates, which is very pretty much common practice. These are very large projects and are required to have phasing dates and never, you know, they don't put them out to future infinity type, you know, dates. And that's where their phasing dates are coming to May 2024 and May 2029. Phase one is predominantly built out. I'll let the applicant explain more as far as where that is at that point in time. With that, I'll stand for any questions. Any questions, staff? Seeing none, okay. Now can the applicant come up and present your case? More questions, sir. Good morning, Syl. Mark Wilson from Kimmy Horn, 109 South Kentucky Avenue, representing Applied Building Development, ABD Incorporated, who has been the developer for some time on the Oak Hills Providence DRI. It started with Oak Hills, I think, with the landowners a few years ago, 1990, I think Shonda said, and ABD has owned it since then and changed the name to Providence. And really, what we're here to talk about, Rob's done a good job of covering all the details. I'll try to be as brief as possible, but when it comes down to the CPA, I think he's explained it well. It's really an expansion of the CACX at the intersection there when the plan was developed, you know, over 20 years ago. It was a more substantial wetland system in there. And as you have noticed on the aerials that he's shown you here as it's moved through the decades, there's been a number of impacts along 1792 to impact the wetland for road expansion. There's been impacts on our north side with Kenny Harmon Road slash Point Siena Parkway that's there that's impacted the wetland. So gradually, that whole corner has kind of been nipped away and impacted from utility lines and roadways, and it's gotten smaller. So it's made sense for us and our development plan on the CACX. Part of it's been developed on Kenny Harmon already with self-storage, but it just makes sense to kind of push our development to the corner there. A little bit unusual. We've gone to the Water Management District and actually have our permit issued. We've gone to DEP slash Army Corps of the state of Florida, and they've issued a permit. So everyone's agreed with the methodology, the approach, and the logic behind what we're doing here with that intersection being developed on, you know, essentially two corners or two and a half corners, if you will, and it makes sense to kind of pinch it together here. So it's a simple expansion of CACX. We're staying within the limits, and we're not exceeding what we're allowed to do retail development-wise. That number is not changing entitlements, as Robert talked about. We are not changing that. It's really just an expansion, cleaning up that one corner. I would say for the overall project, Robert mentioned this, but we're 2,300 acres roughly, and I believe the entire project, we've only counting what we're impacting here, about 15 acres of wetland impacts. So I think we've done a pretty good job. The developer has ABD over the decades of developing this site, staying in the uplands, maintaining the development in the developable areas, and staying out of the wetlands. So that's pretty impressive. I would say it only end up with about 15 acres out of 2,300 acres, and that doesn't count the fact we've set aside like an 84-acre preserve for an upland kind of a scrub area. So they've done a pretty good job. The entitlements were established in the DRI, and the developable areas were established in the DRI. So we did a pretty good job of staying within that bounds. The plan has not changed months. When you get down to the NOPC, and what Robert was talking about with staff here, it's really just a cleaning up of the numbers to allow some flexibility as we develop. A lot of these pods are not developed with the same density, so we're really below the threshold of what we're allowed to do with DRI and entitlements allowed in the comp plan. And quite frankly, most of Providence has already been developed as we stand here for you today. So there's a couple residential pods that remain to be completed and a couple that remain to be constructed, but the entitlement's already there. They've already gotten approvals and permits. They just haven't built it yet. And surprisingly, it's most of the retail that has not been developed. So just a little portion of the CACX and what you see before the screen here. And other than that, there's mostly just retail development to be done and one multifamily tract that's already been approved. They just haven't built it yet. So, Stan, for any questions? Any questions to the applicant? Yeah, sure. Hey, Mark, just real quick, just looking through the documentation, talk to me a little bit about that corner. You said it's been impacted. I probably agree with that a little bit. But originally it was slated to be preserved. Do you know the intent behind that? And it sounds like you're going to mitigate off-site. Correct. I saw two different references to two different mitigation banks. Have you guys landed on that? And I noticed the permits, at least the documentation and the file record, were notice of intents to issue. Have permits all now been issued, as you stated? From the Water Management District, yes. Final permits have been issued and also DEP permit has been issued. Okay, because they both were pending in the file. Right. Right. I think maybe they copied it. But they have been issued. I don't – I think they've actually made – they were issued pending the mitigation bank payment, which has been made, and I don't know which one we settled on. Modica and Associates with the environmental consultant, I'm just not sure which one we settled on. Which one? Okay. But they're both forested, wetland. Correct. Similar. And initially, kind of getting back to your – maybe your question initially was, even before the land use designation was there, it was just we didn't go to the corner because it was a more substantial hogwood wetlands, but over the years, as it's been nipped, and with the comp plan coming in place that wetland areas became preservation, so now it results in a land use change for us to expand the CAC, which is really why we're here before you're doing that. It's not just – you know, it's not a wetland area that's falling within RMX, RL, or any CACX, you know, land use. There are some wetlands on the screen here that are not preservation, but they are wetlands in a land use area. In our case, when provenance was taken from DRI and what the PUD was and land use was applied, the wetlands were given a land use designation of preservation X somewhere along that timeline. I appreciate that. So that's why we're here before you're changing that. And since we're talking about both cases, if I could ask a quick question on the other side. So I'm very familiar with this map and the infrastructure in the area. You guys had talked about permission to switch units around to different pods. Talk to me a little bit about how that process works, assuming we allow you to do that here today. Can we bring up the deer right? And the reason I'm asking is I know a lot of infrastructure has been built and planned as he alluded to a lot of this has already been built, and it was built on those assumptions of a certain number of units in certain areas. I mean, does this go back through level two when they move units around? Is utilities going to get to look at this to make sure pipes are big enough? Well, I'll go ahead and bite the bullet and tell you it's been shifted, so they're making a correction pretty much. Okay. And you'll see the map, that table that I'm, I think I'm taking Mark's thunder here, but that table that you see, you can't read it, but every neighborhood row there has a certain number of units in it, so they're not familiar with it. Right. Yep. So they've been shifting it around already, and so we needed to really get that off the map so that there weren't, they and we are not in violation of that map. Okay. Thank you for that, Claire. So it's already been kind of done. It's already happened. It's really just kind of cleaning house a little bit, just making sure it's consistent, because you can see the current map before you and the proposed. A good example would be, this is all proposed as single family down here, but there is a multifamily and single family detached mix, and what has ended up being constructed is all single family detached, which is a lower density loss of units, but it, you know, technically it's not matching the color on the map, so that's just one of the more glaring examples of trying to clean it up, the house cleaning, and make sure the map is consistent with what's happened out there. But this whole boulevard's been built, I hear, Robert, all these units are under construction here, but for the most part, everything you see on this map, there's a pod here that's not built of 130 units or so. So this is all approved, the multifamily, just not constructed yet. Other than that, it's really these retail pods are, they're really pieces that are not yet developed, you know, with the exception of a few small residential that are. I just know a lot of planning went into making sure the lines underneath the roads were all right. So if it's all good now, I'm good. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't going to have this flexibility to change things around. I wanted to make another statement, and I don't know if you're going to mention it, Mark, but there's also a cemetery on that right map where the, you can't read it, but where that black text is for CAC, that's about where cemetery is, and it goes back several decades. So it's another justification for shifting the retail over a little bit. And just to be clear, the white box in the middle is still not part of all this, right? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions to the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Back to Robert's statement, the backup that I read showed that the mitigation was at the Southport Ranch Mitigation Bank, which surprises me because I know it can't be the same drainage basin. I'm not sure which bank they paid for the mitigation credits, and you get a little bit out of my league in what the district allows and what DEP allows and where they go to, but I know it was approved and the mitigation credits are paid for. Yeah, that was the reason my question was, if the permits have really been approved. I know there's notice of intent to issue, and one of them talked about the Reedy Creek Mitigation Basin, and the other one was the Southport Ranch, so I didn't know where you guys landed. And since the permits are pending in the record, you're telling me they have been issued. Yeah. Yeah. And we found the Reedy Creek Basin, so you'd think we would stay in there, but... And obviously, some of that's going to be level two questions, right? We still have to go through level two and finish checking all the boxes, DOT, Polk County utility connections, and so on, right? We're just here for land use. I wanted to make one other statement. I'm sorry. Just in terms of applicability with other projects, if this wasn't a DRI approved prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan, it'd be more difficult for us to support these changes. Again, any other questions of the applicant? I know this was, I think, the eighth modification to the DRI based on the backup that was in our package, so my only question is, how do we know for sure that these wetlands weren't part of set-aside based upon the density that was granted on everything else? Shauna, can maybe speak... Most of the DRI amendments we did have been related to timing extensions and the allowable time to complete it, right? This DRI dates from 1990 and here we are in 2024, so the vast majority has been related to that. I don't... Shauna, you can help me out here. I can't think of anything that really has been a substantial change beyond that, really. Right. The unit count has... I don't have any... Granted, it's 29 years old memory, but I can't remember any DRI amendment. I've been here for most of those amendments have increased the unit count. Definitely not the retail. Well, square footage on MapH, because they haven't gotten to it till now, so... As it relates to your wetland question, though, the vast majority of these wetlands have a conservation easement overlaid on them that's been recorded with the Water Management District. This is an actual upland conservation area with a conservation easement. The areas that do not have a conservation easement are the area we're talking about up in this area here. So this is one area that we have not done a conservation easement, primarily because, you know, the thought was that this may be coming down the road. But for the most part, everything else you see on this page in here, the wetlands have a conservation easement over them, with exception to this area up in here. Okay. Thank you. At this time, I'm going to open it up to the public. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this case? And keep in mind that this is for both applications, since we heard them both at the same time. Thank you for reminding me there. Seeing none, I'm going to bring it back to the board for any discussion and or motion. And keep in mind it's two individual motions. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDC-PAS 2023-11. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. A motion to second. Roll call, please. Rennie Heath. For the motion. Over. Robert Beltran. For the motion. David Dalt. I am for the motion. Mike Hickman. Tommy Addison. Mike Schmidt. Motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 6-1. Okay. And the next case to be voted on. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve LDDRI-2023-1. I got a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion to second. Roll call, please. Rennie Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. For the motion. David Dalt. I am for the motion. Mike Hickman. Tommy Addison. Mike Schmidt. Motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 7-0. Okay. Thank you. Next case, please. Next case is another small-scale conference plan amendment, LDCPA 2023-28, Lake Marion Recreation and Open Space. It's a future land use map change from Pointeana Pre-DRI of Regional Impact, Pre-DRI No. 1, to Recreation and Open Space. Partial size is about 32 acres. It's east of Lake Marion, west of Lake Marion Creek Drive, south of McMahon Road, east of the city of Haines City in Township 29. I'm sorry. Section 29, Township 27, Range 28. The property owner and applicant is Polk County. The parent tract is about over 300 acres, but this is just a request for 32 of those acres. It's in the rural development area. Nearest municipality is Haines City. And in terms of the advertisement, 217 mailers were sent to area property owners on January 18th. Three signs were posted on the property on January 10th. A legal advertisement was published in Lakeland Ledger on January 22nd. No responses were received. And Aaliyah Nglema is the case planner. And also we have the principal planner from our Parks and Recreation Department as well here, Tracy Mullins. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to expedite. I've got a motion to expedite. Do I have a second? I'll second the motion. Okay. I've got a motion and a second. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case other than the applicant? Okay. Then we'll give you time. We will not expedite this. Good morning. Aaliyah Nglema with Land Development presenting LDC-PAS 2023-28, the Lake Marion ROS. This is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. Future land use map change from Point Siena pre-development of regional impact to recreation open space. The subject site is located in Point Siena, east of Lake Marion, west of Lake Marion Creek Drive, south of McMahon Road, east of the city of Haines City, and Section 29, Township 27, Range 28. The property is 32.02 acres of a 321.94-acre parcel located within the rural development area. Current future land use is Point Siena pre-development regional impact, and the proposed future land use is recreational open space. The county purchased 600 acres in a multi-parcel transaction of land on the eastern coast of Lake Marion for preservation, education, and recreation. The proposed development would include a 16,000-square-foot building and a boat ramp. The site will be dedicated to educating the public about Florida's natural environment and will provide public open space along with recreation. Staff has reviewed the request and finds it is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies and is compatible with the surrounding land uses and infrastructure, and I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? So you know it okay? Okay, and the county is the applicant as well, correct? Okay. If that's the case, I'm going to open public portion. Is there anyone in the audience that I'd like to speak for against this case? Please come up and name an address for the record, and you do have a three minute time limit. My name's Al Williams. I live at 9662 St. Clair Road. I'm the manager at St. Clair Resort. I'm representing the owner. The owner right now is off the mainland in India. He's in another continent right now. So I'm coming basically to get some information on this development. He did receive a letter in the mail concerning this development, so we don't know exactly where it's going to be. I'm trying to find out if it's going to impact St. Clair Resort. St. Clair Resort is off McMahon Road, and so I'm going to find out basically if it's going to be in that area, because in that area, I've been out there for about 20 years, and I can see the development has really changed. The environment has really changed because of the environment, the developments coming in, the roads are not lit up at night time. We've got cattle on one side. People in the area begin to use that road, McMahon Road, as a dumping area. You've got mattresses, refrigerators, stoves. Twice a month, people got to clean it up. I'm in the pig catching world right now. I caught six pigs last month. It seems like development is pushing the animal, the wildlife, into our residential area, and I don't think that's a good deal. And so the owner of the property basically wanted me to find out that this is going to affect St. Clair Resort, which has about maybe 30 retirees there. We've got some RVs. We've got some manufactured homes also there. And so right now it's a pretty quiet place where I live because people come off the main road and they see it. They say, wow, this is a nice place out here because we got not far from the lake. I can take a stone and hit the water, so I'm really close to the lake. But I can see the environment changes. The traffic is tremendous now. It's like we have two accidents a month on the average. It takes about a half an hour to get to the main road, down the road, off of Johnson Avenue. They're building up like crazy. They have a public coming in there. They're developing public right now, so the traffic is really crazy. Accidents are crazy. They're getting to be trash, wildlife. So I don't think it's a good idea. So I just wanted to find out, is it going to be, this development, is it going to be affecting St. Clair Resort? So that's what I got to say. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I'm going to close the public portion and bring it back to the applicant. Do you want to address? I'm sorry. Well, I'm more or less the applicant, Tracy Mullen, Senior Planner, Polk County Parks and Natural Resources, 6301 Amber Lane. This area was purchased for preservation, so we're not going to be bringing a whole lot of new housing or anything else in there. We're actually preserving an area of Polk County to keep it nice and quiet. We're planning on putting an education center here, so very much like Circle B. It's great to have Polk County kids learning about the land and learning about the relationships between the land and the animals. We are going to be putting a boat ramp on the property that has been supported by the Polk County Board of County Commissioner's Lakes Access Committee to improve fishing for local sportsmen, so we feel that this is going to be a great opportunity to provide recreational opportunities and educational opportunities for the residents of Polk County, and we hope you support this particular land change amendment, please. Okay. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. At this point, we'll bring it back to the board for discussion and or motion. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to state for the record that my firm is working on this on behalf of the county, so I'm going to abstain from any vote on this item. Okay. Noted. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDC-PAS 2023-28. I got a motion. Do I have a second? I have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Ronnie Heath. For the motion. David Dalton. I am for the motion. Mike Hickman. Tommy Addison. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 6-0 with one of the same. Okay. Thank you. Next case, please. All right. For the record, Ian Nance, land development. Staff recommends approval of LDC-T 2023-19, a county-initiated request to modify multiple sections of the land development code to alleviate burdens on the citizens when developing individual lots, to reduce levels of review for certain uses, and provide clarity for citizens and staff when applying existing LDC standards. For the record, a legal ad was published in the ledger on January 22nd with no response. This is a level four review with a board hearing scheduled for March 5th and March 19th. The goals of this amendment are listed here with input provided by land development's customer service, the development review committee, and data gathered from the land use hearing officer cases. It was borne out of a desire to improve how the LDC is applied to a handful of residential primary and accessory uses that are currently unclear or inconsistent or too restrictive. One such inconsistency is for the application of duplexes. They are not permitted in RL1 or 2, but multifamily uses are. This text will add them to these sub-districts. Technically, the code currently does not easily favor the construction of a duplex on a single lot anywhere without a planned development approval, which is too stringent. So this amendment will create a distinction between a single duplex on an individual lot and those within a larger development requiring planned development standards. This amendment will reduce the level review for mobile home parks and subdivisions to a level three review in residential low districts, consistent with what you find in ARR and RCCR districts. Required board approval is a holdover policy from previous zoning ordinances, and today's LDC requirements for these uses far exceed what was once required. Planning commission approval is more appropriate. We've processed very few of these requests, and over the last several years, they've mostly been for simple modifications to existing parks for a handful of units, which still require BOCC approval. One other change with mobile homes, currently in the RL4 sub-district and the Ronald Reagan SAP, any mobile home, an individual mobile home, requires board approval. This will drop this down to a level one review with the criteria in section 303 to determine whether it needs to come before the planning commission. Security residences have technically required level two engineered site plans for approval. Staff finds this is too much for adding one dwelling unit to a non-residential site. Customer service has long been asked about using mobile homes for security residences, as will have been asked by churches if parsonages count, both of which have not been directly addressed in the code. This amendment will rename all these uses, secondary residential structures, and require simple administrative approval. Right now, the code allows special exceptions to temporarily place a mobile home on a property for medical hardship purposes. These must be approved by a land use hearing officer in a public hearing. This amendment will allow an administrative approval for properties over an acre, rather than enduring a public hearing process. Finally, the code allows accessory structures larger than the primary on properties five acres or larger in ARR, through LUHO approval, or for agricultural purposes. Staff processes several of these per year, and often we land in situations where someone has purchased a large piece of property with a mobile home, and then builds a pole barn or garage for their vehicles, lawn equipment, etc., which are almost always larger in square footage than the mobile home. This change will allow administrative approval of accessory structures up to 150% of the size of the primary structure on all residential properties two acres or larger. If anyone wants to exceed this, or the property falls below two acres, you or she must continue with the LUHO process. Again, staff recommends approval. These changes are all consistent with comprehensive plan and land development code, and we really hope that it will help out quite a few people navigate the system in coming years. With that, I thank you, and we'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? What does this do to ag exemption, pole barns, etc.? Nothing. If you're still bona fide ag, it's out of our purview. Any other questions of staff? And I guess the applicant is staff. Me. Therefore, I'm going to open the public portion. Anybody on it just like to speak for or against this case? See none, I'll close that public portion and bring it back to the board for any discussion and or a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCT 2023-19. Second. And a motion to second. Roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. For the motion. David Dalton. I'm for the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. Motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 7-0. Okay, thank you. Next case, please. All right. Next up is LDCT 2023-20. This is a county-initiated LDC text amendment, the Chapter 3, Section 303, to change the responsibility of inspecting non-phosphate mines from code enforcement to the land development division. On January 22nd, the legal ad was published in the ledger with no response, and J.P. Sims is your planner. All right, so J.P. Sims of Land Development, LDCT 2023-20, is essentially changing the responsibility of conducting the annual mining inspections, non-phosphate, from the codes enforcement division to the land development division. First hearing is on Planning Commission today, February 7th. First reading of BOCC is March 5th, and adoption hearing is March 19th. After evaluating the surrounding jurisdictions, whether they be county or municipality, we did find that several of the surrounding municipalities and counties did offer a similar solution, where the local administrators and land development teams do handle the annual mining inspections. Land development does currently conduct the annual mining report reviews already, and our land inspectors do visit the sites on a regular basis, so it made logical sense to change it from codes enforcement to land development. And then the change that would occur is changing the two words from codes enforcement to land development division in Section 303 for criteria for conditional uses of mining non-phosphate. And with that, staff will stand with questions. Any questions of staff? I just have one question, J.P. What prompted this other than the fact that code enforcement wasn't doing it? Essentially, the idea was that we already have inspectors that are out there looking at the property, so to just kind of expedite the process and make it official, we decided to go ahead and make the change. As long as I was in the mining business, I never, ever saw code enforcement inspect a sand mine, ever. No comment. They used to be more involved in it a long time ago when I first started working for the county, 29 years ago. But, just January 30th. I just think it's funny. I know, but since you're older than me, it's fine. But, recently, we've had a lot more sand mines recently, and we've been trying to pay more attention to their reports and catching up with what's going on, and our inspectors, our engineering inspectors, are doing more of that than our code inspectors. We figured out a way to get Tom Mims to pay for it. I mean, Tom seems to be bringing all the mining permits, mining lately. Well, there's also several in the Green Swamp. They've done that to create mitigation banks for wetlands, and I forgot his name, but the gentleman who submitted some of them used to be on the Planning Commission 15 years ago or so. I forgot his name, but, so, it's not just Mr. Mims. Any other questions? Okay, and the applicant is the county, therefore, I'm going to open the public portion. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I'll close the public portion and bring it back to the board for a discussion and or a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCT 2023-20. Motion, do I have a second? Second. Got a motion saying a roll call, please. Ronnie Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. For the motion. David Dalton. I am for the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Linda Schultz. I am for the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 7-0. Okay, thank you. Next case, please. Eric, before you get started, or, I'm sorry, before you get started, Eric, I don't think you got the memo. Those two guys must have got the memo to address it. Oh, yeah. They're on range. Yeah. Okay, now you go. All right. Last case is LDCU 2023-67. This is a county-initiated conditional use approval request of a ground storage water tank on an existing potable water well site. So each site is located at 170 Libby Road, Wessah State Road 17, east of Cody Road, south of Gulfview Cutoff in Babson Park, north of the town of Hillcrest Heights, and south of the town of Highland Park, north of Frostproof in Section 28, Township 30, Range 28. On January 18th, 12 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on January 16th. An illegal ad was published in the ledger on January 22nd with no responses, and Eric Peterson will present. We have a water tank in Babson Park that we're going to add to the current system. If you didn't know where Babson Park is, it's on the east Crooked Lake in between Lake Wales and Frostproof and Hillcrest Heights and Highland Park. We have two well sites in the Babson Park water service area. This is number one. It is institutional, 2X. We are going to be adding this ground storage tank to this area. It's about this large. It's going to be much larger than the current one, but not overly too big. It's going to look like that, sort of. Libby Road isn't in great condition, but water facilities don't require much people. It's not going to be staff. It's not a staff facility. It's on our SCADA system, and we can run the plant from a remote location. There used to be a water tower on site, a very tall one back in the day, and it was removed a long time ago. We've been on just using pumps, but this will help the water pressure in the service area, and perhaps there might be more development in the future. Warner Southern, or not Warner Southern, Weber College is on our water system, and they might be expanding. So with that, I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff, and also is the applicant? Therefore, I'm going to open the public portion. Anybody in the audience would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing none, close the public portion. Bring it back to the board for discussion and or motion. Move to approve. Second. Motion and second. Roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. For the motion. David Dalton, I'm for the motion. Mike Kickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. For the motion. Mike Schmidt. For the motion. And Linda Schultz. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes 7-0. Okay, thank you. Any other business we need to discuss? No, sir. Any of y'all have a motion to adjourn? So moved. No, second. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Goodbye.