Planning Commission on 2024-04-03 9:00 AM

home case. This was opened at the last hearing and continued. It has been withdrawn. LDCPAS 2023-33 and LDCD 2024-2. These are the Mediterranean Drive CPA and sub-district change cases. These have been continued to May 1st. LDCPAS 2023-34 and LDCT 2024-1. These are the Florinda Farm LDC text amendments and CPA map and text amendment will be presented together. LDCT 2024-6, the Vehicle Repair Ordinance has been continued to May 1st and LDCT 2024-7 to Water Star Ordinance has been continued to May 1st. That'll do it. So the last one is continued as well? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Do I have a motion to accept the revised agenda? Second. Motion is second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, thank you. At this time, if you want to explain the general procedures to the audience. Yes, good morning. General procedures, the Office of Planning and Development will introduce the case and disclose any responses to the notification which were not already provided to the Planning Commission in their packets. The Office of Planning and Development will present their staff report and recommendation. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case will be sworn in. The applicant and others in support or opposition of the case will be given the opportunity to speak. The applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to any opposition testimony and 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 a de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application. And those individuals have agreed to waive their ability to speak during the the public portion of the de novo hearing. Level four reviews. Pursuant to section 907 of the land development code, the Planning Commission's decision on a level four review is a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will ultimately decide the matter. Mr. Chairman, would you like for me to swear in the witnesses for the cases today? Yes, please. So if you're going to address the Commission, please go ahead and stand up to be sworn in and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you provide today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And just a few last housekeeping items. We need to admit the county's land planners as expert witnesses, and your packets are their resumes of staff who will be presenting cases today. We've admitted them in past meetings, but if you'd like to voir dire any of them as to their background or expertise, you can do so at this time. And if not, if we could just have a motion to accept staff as experts in the field of land planning. Do I have a motion to accept? So moved. Second. Second. All in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Thanks. And if we have any experts of applicants, you can tender them at this time or wait until your case is called. And then lastly, since we have some quasi-judicial cases on the agenda today, if you'll just bear with me one more minute, I'll read through the procedures. 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. And the staff report and presentation provide you with expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria and a recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria. Regarding compatibility, the commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area. The commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing, which may be written or 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 considered 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 consist of generalized statements that do not address the land development code criteria are not competent substantial evidence. For example, fear that the project will cause increased traffic and crime is not competent substantial evidence. Lastly, when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic, engineering, drainage, wetland impacts, school and utility capacity, light and noise pollution, or the application's impact on property values, citizen testimony is not competent substantial evidence unless the witness is qualified as an expert in that area. That concludes my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any questions? Okay, a couple other things. Keep in mind when you come up to speak for or against the case with the exception of the applicant or the county, there's a three-minute time limit. There's the clock above you and there's also a timer on the on the podium. Also, if you could put your cell phones on silent or or turn them off wherever you want to do that so that it doesn't disturb during the during the presentation of the cases. And having said that, we'll go for the first case. Good morning, Ian Nance for Land Development. Staff recommends approval of LDWA 2023-74, a request to access up to four lots on an easement that exceeds a quarter mile. The subject site is approximately 72 acres located on north side of Hashten Hall Road, east of Tyner Road, west of Jennings Road, south of Greenleaf and east of Dundee in section 18, township 28, range 28. For the record, 12 mailers were sent to area property owners on February 15th. One sign was posted on February 9th and a legal ad was published in the ledger on February 20th with one email in opposition. This is a level four review with a board hearing for a final approval scheduled on April 16th. Here's the subject property in ARR land use district where minimum lot sizes are five acres. To obtain a residential building permit in Polk County, property must have access to the public roadway system. This is accomplished by a simple road frontage or through an easement. The subject property has approximately 360 feet of frontage along Lake Hashten Hall Road. This is a rural major collector on which the LDC requires new lots to have 210 feet of frontage. By simple math, it is impossible to create lots that meet the standard. So the other option is an easement. Section 705b allows access via easement through a level one administrative approval. If there are no more than four lots using it, it is at least 20 feet wide and shorter than a quarter mile. It also must be sufficient for safe emergency access and that legal access is demonstrated. This is here today simply because the proposed access easement is over one quarter mile length. The site plan shows to the right shows the easement will be 50 feet wide comprised of a stabilized surface and be approximately 0.4 miles long and overlaid on an existing internal grove road. This has been reviewed by the development review committee and the fire marshal and deemed adequate. Should this be approved today though, each slot will need to undergo the previously described level one review before a building permit is issued to ensure the easement's suitability for access. What is under review here today is the intensity on this easement. The easement is all very different and this request is for a maximum of four lots which is relatively minimal. I'll say for the record because there have been rumors about this easement that this is not connecting to Greenleaf. It is not providing a back entrance to that development. If the nature of this easement changes or more lots and would have been proposed here or desired on this easement, it will have to undergo a modification and will return before the board. Having said that, staff finds this application consistent with the LDC and comprehensive plan compatible surrounding uses and recommends approval. Okay, thank you. Any questions to staff? Seeing none. Okay, thank you. Is the applicant available like to come up? Name and address for the record. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members, Dave Carter, professional engineer, 137 5th Street, Northwest Winter Haven, Carter Kay Engineering, representing Don Mason's sons, Matthew and Michael Mason, had bought this property a number of years ago and their intent was to each of them build a home on the site. As Mr. Nance indicated, the frontage, the limited frontage they have would not allow the two lots as they want to build because they need more furniture than what that would allow. So they're requesting the waiver to be done. It's a pretty straightforward case. I'm not going to go into it anymore. If you'd have any questions, I'll be happy to answer it for you though. Any questions to the applicant? Seeing none. Okay, thank you. At this time, I'm going to open it up to the public. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Seeing none, we'll close the public portion, bring it back to the board for discussion or a motion. Mr. Chair, move approval of the LDCU 2023-74. I've got a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Is that the right case numbers? LDWA? LDWA. Okay, got it. Roll call, Rennie Heath. For the motion. Or Beltran. David Dalton. I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. And Mike Schmidt. Motion. Mr. Chair passes unanimously. Okay, great. Thank you. Next case, please. Next up is LDWA 2023-70. The applicant is requesting a waiver to Chapter 7, Section 705 to waive the requirement of a lot having legal access to a paved county road and to allow more than four lots to an access easement. The location is 1697 Cedar Ridge Road, east of EF Griffin Road, west of Highway 98, in Section 24, Township 29, Range 24. On March 5th, 13 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on March 18th and a legal ad was published on March 20th in Ledger with no response. And Amy Little is your planner. Mr. Chair, move to expedite. Second. A motion and a second to expedite. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Okay, Thank you. We'll call you up in just a minute. If that's the case, we will not do an expedited procedure. All right. Our next case is LDWA-2023-70. This is a request for a waiver to Section 705 of the Land Development Code. My name is Amy Little with the Office of Planning and Development. This request would waive both a requirement for the lot to front a public or private paved road and to allow for more than four lots to access an easement. The applicant intends to subdivide the lots to provide homes for his family members in the future. As the request is to waive access to public or paved road requires approval by the Board of County Commissioners, staff is also recommending the easement provide access to up to five lots, which must also be approved by the Board. Staff is requesting a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Board hearing is scheduled for May 21st and staff is recommending approval. The site is located just north of Bartow and west of Highway 98. A little history of the lot. The home was constructed in 1971 when the property was part of a larger parcel that had road frontage. There were a number of lot splits throughout the years and while the minimum lot size of one acre was maintained with those splits, the resulting lot no longer had access to a paved county roadway. To facilitate access, the applicant received an ingress-egress easement from the Lakeland Regional, who owns the property to the east of the site. The easement notes that the access shall be provided to no more than five lots. A lot split was done in October of 2023 to allow the applicant to build a home and an access via easement request was approved by the county as at staff level in 2023. Here's a better visual depiction of the site with the yellow area showing the easement with Lakeland Regional leading to the site. The applicant also has an easement running north to south that runs through the center of the property. You can see the county maintenance of Cedar Ridge Road ends where the yellow easement begins. The area also shows the surrounding properties with lots similar in size to the south and much higher density and smaller lots to the west of EF Griffin Road. Any resulting lots created must be one acre, which is in character with the surrounding development. The site is largely surrounded by the city of Bartow. It's located in a residential low 1x land use district in the US 98 SAP, which again requires a one acre minimum lot size. Here's a closer view of the site. You can see the county maintained roadway ends just short of the site. A lot split was done in October of 2023 and a permit was issued in January of 2024 for a single family residence on the rear lot back here. So the reason that we're in front of you today is to waive two requirements from section 705 of the land development code. More importantly 705 B2 is that a parent tracked prior to subdividing shall directly front on a paved private road meeting county standards. The parent parcel was granted access via easement approval. So that's not the case that the parent parcel has that access. So section 932 of the land development code waivers to technical standards allows a waiver to section 705. And because this is required to go in front of the board for approval and the easement from Lakeland regional includes up to five homes, staff included waiving of section 705 B1A that access easements cannot provide more access to more than four lots. So both of those are part of this request. Here's a photo from my site visit. This is looking south towards the home that was built in 1971. The red area that you can see over to the right is where the easement that runs through the property is located. And there's a house currently under construction to the rear of the newly created parcel. It's very difficult to see from the roadway. And here's a better depiction that you can tell where that red is on the right. That is this that runs through the center of the property. Here's a better aerial depiction of the easement there as it relates to the two lots that were currently split. And this is their preliminary site plan. This is not binding. They're showing a future lot potentially here and a future lot here. This request would allow them to go to up to five. They do have adequate acreage to have one acre lots that would achieve that. Here's a photo looking east towards the property that Lakeland Regional owns. And here is the easement that they received from Lakeland Regional. And here's a photo that is looking towards Cedar Ridge Road. It was taken approximately where the county maintenance for Cedar Ridge Road stops as depicted on the aerial with a star. Staff is recommending approval. There is a compatible residential development surrounding the property. Any future lots would have to meet the minimum lot size. There will be minimal impacts to infrastructure with a total of five homes, one of which is already there. The second is under construction. So really it would just be three additional homes on that roadway. That roadway, there is two driveway accesses for other via other homes that are on that road. The easement dead ends to the east where Lakeland Regional owns the property. Any development on that site will likely access Highway 98. So they would not utilize this road at all. The request meets the comprehensive plan and land development code and staff is recommending approval. And with that, I thank you and I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? See none. Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant available to like to come up, present their case? Right there's fine. Name and address for the record. Good morning. Um, address 1697 Cedar Ridge Road. My name is Emerson Herrera. Lewis Garcia is a property owner. Uh, her English is minimal. So I'm here to represent her. I'm her son. Um, based on the information that Ms. Amy gave you guys, basically we're just building kind of like a family compound. Um, we have roughly 5.6 acres there, which would allow the five lots, uh, for one acre lots. Um, in the future, my sons may want to build there. That is the only reason we're going through this issue. Currently, she is building right behind the existing home and that's where her home will be. And in the future, uh, would be west as far as west. You could go, uh, building my home. And that is the reason why we're here. Okay. Is that it? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Is there any questions of the applicant? Seeing none. Okay. Thank you. At this, at this time, I'm going to open it up to the public. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this case? Pardon me? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? At this time, I'm going to close the public portion, bring it back to the, yes, sir. Since the gentleman withdrew his, uh, contest, can we expedite this? It's just too late. We're, we're almost done here anyway. So having said that, I'm going to close the public portion, bring it back to the board for discussion and a motion. Mr. Chair, I'm going to approve LDWA 2023-70. In a motion, send a roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. David Dalton. I'm for the motion. Brooke Agnini. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. For the motion. And Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes unanimously. Was that quick enough? Okay. Thank you. Next case, please. All right. Next up is LDCU 2023-39. 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 property is located north of Ronald Reagan Parkway, south of Church Street, west of Old Kissimmee Road, north of Davenport and Section 6, Township 26, and Range 28. On March 5th, 30 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on March 18th, and a legal ad was published in the ledger on March 20th with no responses. And Melissa Celestine is your planner. Mr. Chair, I move to expedite. Second. I got a motion to expedite and a second. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Seeing none, I got a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Expedite, please. Good morning. For the record, Melissa Celestine presenting LDCU 2023-39. Staff is recommending approval of a mobile home to be located in a subdivision where fewer than 50% of the developed lots have mobile homes. The parcel is approximately 0.92 acres, identified as Lot 4 of the Tripoli subdivision within the Residential Low 4X Future Land Use District and the Ronald Reagan-Selected Area Plan. Had a mobile home been located adjacent to the subject parcel or if the property was not within a subdivision, additional approval by the Planning Commission would not be required. Nonetheless, there is a mobile home on the same street as the subject request and staff finds the request to be consistent with the LDC and Comprehensive Plan. With that, I thank you and I'll stand for questions. Any questions to staff? Seeing none, okay. Is the applicant available? I'd like to come up and present their case. Name and address for the record, please. My name is Tanya Brown. My address is 39850 Stewart Road, Zephyr Hills, Florida, 33540. You're okay with the staff report. Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, okay. Thank you. At this time, I'm going to open it up to the public. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to 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 board for discussion and a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCU 2023-39. Second. Motion and second. Roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. David Dalt. Ninem for the motion. Brooke Agnini. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison and Mike Schmidt. On the motion. Mr. Chair, I pass it unanimously. Okay, great. Thank you. Next case, please. Next up is LDCU 2023-49. This applicant is requesting a conditional use approval for a mobile home to be located in a subdivision where fewer than 50% of developed lots have mobile homes. Subject property is located north of Roberts Avenue, south of State Roads, I'm sorry, south of U.S. 92, west of Taylor Street, west of Auburndale, and section 18, township 28, and range 25. On March 5th, 35 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted on March 18th, and a legal ad was published in the ledger with no responses, and Melissa Celestine is your planner. Mr. Chair, I move to expedite. Second. I got a motion and a second to expedite. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to come up and speak for or against this case? Okay, thank you. At this time, we will not expedite. Good morning. For the record, Melissa Celestine presenting LDCU 2023-49. Let's see. Staff recommends 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 located south of Highway 92 west and east of Old Dixie Highway. The subject parcel is approximately .34 acres within the residential suburban future land use district. The parcel is identified as lots 271 through 274 of the Coosterville town site subdivision, eligible for one residential dwelling unit pending issuance and finalization of building permits. The setbacks for a primary structure includes 10 feet for the interior size, 15 feet for the interior rear, and then the setbacks along the right-of-way of a real-minded collector is going to be 35 feet. Site-built residences are indicated with the red triangles, while the mobile homes are identified by the green triangles. I'm sorry, by the green circles. For reference, there are six mobile homes on the same block as the subject request. Here is a close-up of the subject site. A mobile home that was previously approved is located to the southwest of the site identified by the red star. Here is a site visit photo. This is the site plan to the left, which exceeds the RS district setback requirements, and to the right is another site visit photo. I also just wanted to include the updated conditional requirements in 303 for you all. Staff does recommend approval. There are six mobile homes located on the same block, and there have been several other approved mobile homes within this development, including one to the southwest of the subject site. Staff finds a request to be consistent with the LDC and comprehensive plan. And with that, I thank you, and I'll stand for questions. Any questions to staff? Seeing none, okay, thank you. Is the applicant about, yeah, I'm sorry, go ahead. The location of the septic tank is far left, upper corner, right on the property line. Is that an appropriate location? That won't be something for us. That's going to be with the health department. So they're going to have to go through the health department, and they're going to give them their requirements for that. And the other property line to the right, I'm not sure what the orientation, east maybe, is seemingly right adjacent to the existing house, the neighbor's house. What do you mean? You can't see it on this one, but on the previous, right there. So this is the shed right here. This is the other house, but the mobile home is going to be, like, over here. Is that who owns that house that's right there on the property line? Not this person. But this is just a shed on the parcel. It's a vacant parcel with just a shed on there right now. So there's no setback left for that existing house for fire protection or anything else? For this house right here that's adjacent to it, well, the house on the subject parcel is going to meet the setback requirements, so it should be sufficient for the fire protection of the existing structures. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. You're welcome. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you. At this time, is the applicant available? I'd like to come up and present their case. Name and address for the record, please. 205 Indian Lane, Lakeland, Florida, 33813. If you could speak further closer into the microphone. I'm not 100% with the objections. As to your point about the other property, there's a lot of connecting lots in that septic. I've already had a septic review to try to figure out what needs to be done for that septic. The property line, it's going to be pushed off of that based on what he already told me about. The whole septic has to get redone. So it's all going to be put in place as far as where it needs to be for the health department. I know I had to do this step. I've already got the floor plan picked out. After this step, I'm going to go with the septic permit and all that kind of stuff. It's already been discussed with them as far as the Department of Health. The other property that's on there, where we're putting that, if you look at the top of the map, there's an easement that's off of that main highway. That's where the driveway is at. We're going to cut out. We're going to get as close to the septic on the other side of that property line to leave room on that fence line that's already there, where the existing power pole is as well. Like I say, we're in the process right now, all the land that's on the connecting lots with that exact specific line where the septic point is, it's on the other property line. We're in process of trying to – that's all family land. My wife and I got that piece from her granny who just recently passed. We're going to be taking – we're going to be putting something there, and we're in the process when her daughter that's living on site still lives there. When she decides – if she decides to leave, we're going to get that neighboring property beforehand, so there's not going to be any real lines on there. It kind of threw me off guard when this whole thing got called a subdivision. If anybody knows anything about Kayville, it's not anything you'd call a subdivision. Like I say, it's – you can't – they're not making more dirt. My wife was raised there. I brought every one of my children home while I was in the service. That was their first home that we had. So that's the significance of this property, and we've already gone through the motions to figure out what we need to do to make the septic optic code, and there is already room. We actually knew the guy who used to rent that house. It's on the neighboring side right below the fence line, and there was never any issue. Like I say, with the driveway there, nothing's going to be built on that easement anyways. So as far as safety concerns that there would be anything like that, there's still going to be access for fire protection and things of that sort. And the shed's in process of going to be moved around as well when the house gets put on there. So if there's any other questions or concerns. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none. Okay, thank you, sir. I appreciate it. At this time, I'm going to open it up to the public. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to come up and speak for or against this case? Yes, sir. Name and address for the record, and also there is a three-minute time limit. Michael Baxter, 3929 K-Ville. I'm not really opposing their trailer. When they rebuilt the house on the right side of my house, they raised the house two foot off the ground. When they put the trailer in next to me, they raised it like eight inches. When they put the carport behind me, they raised it another two foot. I brought in eight loads of dirt just to keep my yard from being a cesspool of all the water runoff. I'm just concerned as they put mobile homes in there and their septic tanks, they keep raising the land. I keep going deeper, deeper into the whole water. I have no problems with the mobile home. I just worry about the water runoff. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? At this time, I'm going to close the public portion. Does the applicant want to respond to that comment? I'm actually familiar with the house that he's talking about. I walked through it when he was doing all the renovations. He did small house. I understand his concerns. But, again, I think what goes to the fact of that is that we are talking about getting that adjacent property that's between his and ours right now. So we have that far lot in the process of there probably will be some buildup and all that kind of stuff. Everybody's aware of that. We have that adjacent property in which we are going to do nothing but level that out to have additional area for us to have. So there's not going to be any more buildings. So the area between our lot and his area, any of that can be adjusted accordingly to fix the drainage issues. Whatever slope we've got is going to be stopped by the neighboring septic hill that's already on that other piece of property. So I understand his concerns, but I don't think it's going to be a concern when it comes to play with that other piece of property also becoming ours. Okay, thank you. Any questions? Go ahead. My concerns when we see a site plan like this, it doesn't appear to have been really engineered to prevent things like he's concerned with runoff to the side of the properties, onto someone else's property. And this, if I'm not mistaken, this becomes a legal binding site plan, does it not, if it's presented? It's not for engineering. Engineering will be binding at level two, so this is just setting the placement of, I don't know if staff can elaborate on that. Yeah, it's just setting the placement of the structure, ensuring that they're going to meet the setbacks and everything like that for it. But once they get to the building division, anything that they need to update the actual site will be done at that point. Okay. And the runoff will be addressed? It should be addressed at the building division point also, yes. And I just thought he might want to know that. I'm a millwright by trade. I mean, engineering is not my forte of things. They're usually the most people I fight in my daily life. This is just to satisfy needs. There's nothing against it. A lot of things weren't built to be worked on, and I've got to find ways to do it. I understand. It is my business. I understand that 100%. When the drawing came about, I've got this level review thing. I had no idea this was a thing. I realized I just counted how many other mobile homes were in the area, so I didn't think this was going to be a situation. But, like I say, it's not as close as it is to the line. I didn't have the x-ray. I had the septic inspected to try to figure out if it was viable or anything like that. But I don't think it goes all the way up to the property line. I was just trying to cover all bases to make sure that I didn't underestimate how much room it had. I don't think it's going to hit that point. And, again, the drainage will be a point of concern. But with us buying that other property as well, I think it will kind of change things as well, what we can do to prevent it. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. At this time, I'm going to bring it back to the board for a discussion or a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCU 2023-49. Motion and second. Roll call, please. Rennie Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. For the motion. David Dalt. Nine for the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. And Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes unanimously. Okay. Thank you. Next case, please. All right. Next up is LDCU 2023-56. The applicant has requested additional use approval for a mobile home to be located in the subdivision where fewer than 50% of developed lots have mobile homes. Subject property is located north of Little Orange Avenue, south of Church Avenue, west of Old Highway 37, south of Mulberry, and Section 11, Township 31, Range 23. On March 5th, 52 mailers were sent to area property owners. Two signs were posted on March 19th, and a legal ad was published in a ledger on March 20th. Staff has received no responses, and Melissa Celestine is your planner. Move to expedite. Second. We'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? Yes. Okay. Thank you. If that's, um, are you the applicant? Okay. Okay. Well, we'll call you up in just a minute. Okay. And if that's the case, then we will not expedite. I'm sorry, not expediting? No. I know that breaks your heart. Good morning for the record. Melissa Celestine presenting LDCU 2023-56. Staff recommends approval for a mobile home to be located in a subdivision where fewer than 50% of developed lots have a mobile home. The site is located east of Highway 37 south and west of Old Highway 37. The parcel is approximately 0.23 acres located within a rural cluster center residential future land use district. The parcel is identified as lots 13 and 14 of Ransom's WV addition to Bradley JS subdivision, eligible for one residential dwelling unit pending issuance and finalization of building permits. The setbacks for a primary structure includes 15 feet for interior sides, 20 feet for interior rear, and 25 feet along a local residential roadway. Site-built residences are indicated with red triangles while the mobile homes identified by the green circles. As you can see, there are only two mobile homes in the subdivision, none of which are on the same block as the subject request. Here is a close-up of the subject site. A mobile home was previously on site, but the 24-month by-right replacement period has passed. Had the request been within the 24 months of a demolition permit, the applicant would be permitted to replace said mobile home by-right. Here is a site plan showing that it does meet the setback requirements for the RCCR district. I just wanted to include an example of what the mobile home would look like for the presentation. Again, the requirements in 303. And staff does recommend approval while there are no mobile homes within the vicinity of the subject site. A mobile home was previously on the property. Staff finds the request to be consistent with the LDC and comprehensive plan. With that, I thank you, and I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Okay, seeing none, thank you. At this time, is the applicant available, would like to come up and present their case? Again, is the applicant available? If you'd like to come up and present your case, name and address for the record. Good morning, my name is Clara Bell Narvaez, and I'm actually... Can you get your address? I'm 220 Palmer Road. It was actually, and the property appraiser is actually 220 Roberts Avenue, because it's in a corner lot. And I'm the permit lady that tried to pull the mobile home setup permit originally, and I see that the customer's not here. So, I mean, everything she said is pretty much what we're looking for. And I wasn't ready to stand here. So, I just wanted to get an update of what was going on this morning. But she has the latest site plan, and that's the picture of the house that we're trying to put on that site. So... You're the applicant, right? Sorry, hold on. Do we have... Are you allowed to speak on the applicant's behalf? Do we have that form filled out, Melissa, or does anyone know? What was your name, I'm sorry? Clara Bell Narvaez. I don't think that's in the documents for her to speak on them. Can we double-check? Please. If not, I would want to continue the case until the applicant can be here. We're just double-checking. Go ahead and take her testimony, but... Yeah, I think we can. And if you want to take her opposition testimony. Yeah, yeah. Mr. Chair, I move to continue. Second. Case number LDCU 2023-56. Again, a motion is seconded to continue. Hold on before we take a vote. There's a gentleman that has come out here to state his case. If we're going to continue this, if he would like to present his case before we continue this case, that would be fine. So, at this time, I'm assuming... Well, hang on just a second. Clara Bell Narvaez. Oh, she's on there. I don't know if she was sworn in, though. Were you sworn in? Sorry. I don't know if you were sworn in at the beginning of the meeting. Okay, raise your hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony and evidence you provide today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Do you want to withdraw your motion to continue, Mr. Addison? Yes, I'll withdraw my motion. Okay, hang on just a second. Are you done? I'm ready to be here. I just wanted to get an update of what was going to happen. Okay. Okay, thank you. At this time, I'm going to open the public portion. Is there anyone I'd like to come up and speak for or against this case? Yes, sir. Name and address for the record. Three-minute time limit. Good morning. Thank you for your service as elected officials. My name is Brian James Lynch. I live at 150 McCall Avenue within 500 feet of the case being proposed here. On behalf of my entire neighborhood, which includes but is not limited to, Ms. Sharon, Ms. Cassandra, Ms. Boyd, Mr. Alfred, Ms. Etta James, Mr. Enrique and his two sons, Ms. Kat, Ms. Valerie, and Ms. Kat's son, Mr. Curtis. Thank you very much. We are also concerned with our property value as being as we, and I want to get to this in a moment, but it doesn't appear that we have any mobile homes in our neighborhood despite the two green circles. So this is my concern that came up as this case was brought up as I was listening. I am unclear as to the distinction between a mobile home and what's called either a prefabricated home or a modular home. My understanding is that prefab homes and modular homes are not mobile. They're not on wheels. You can't pull them out. Those two green dots on the map, if you look at those houses, you're not putting them on a trailer. They do not appear to be mobile homes. And so I am concerned as to making that distinction clear. If it is a prefab home or a modular home and it is not going to be moved or cannot be moved, I feel that our neighborhood would accept something like that. And so that's where we stand. We, as a neighborhood, do not wish to have any mobile homes or trailers in our neighborhood. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. At this time, I'm going to close the public portion, bring it back to the applicant or the applicant's representative to comment on his comment. Comment on his comment. That's weird. I just want to let him know I work in a mobile home dealer. I've been working for that company for 14 years, and I just want to let him know what's the difference of a manufactured home and a modular. The difference between that is that the modular is built with a concrete foundation. And a mobile home or manufactured home, as it's called nowadays, is just blocks and anchor. So maybe if we could do a foundation, a concrete foundation with footers where it cannot be moved, maybe we could, you know, work a deal. But that's the difference between a modular and a manufactured home setup, is that we pour concrete, we do footers, and it cannot be moved. And the mobile home setup is just blocks and anchored. That's the difference between a modular and a manufactured home. And it could look like a, you know, a built house, because the foundation at the bottom is, you know, concrete blocks. So I hope that helped. Okay. Thank you. Anybody, any other questions of her? I have one question for staff, if I may. Sure. Did you hear anything in the public testimony that changes your view on the case? It doesn't necessarily change my view on the case, but I did want to clarify something from our standpoint. If the applicant were looking for a modular, the county considered a modular to be the same as a site-built residence. So if that were the case, they wouldn't have to come here for this approval. They're here for the approval solely because they requested a mobile home or, as it's called today, a manufactured home. So that's going to be the difference. If you're saying that now it's going to be a modular home, it's irrelevant for this. But if they're sticking to an actual mobile home or manufactured home, then they would need your approval to move forth with this. Can I talk? Sure. Okay. Speak into the microphone. He pointed to green dots, and I'm not sure which houses he's talking about. Okay, I can't see the front of it. And sometimes mobile homes, the siding is the only thing that covers all the way down, which you can't see the actual setup. So I'm not sure if he's saying that that looks like a modular home because it's closed. The siding is closed all the way to the ground instead of using skirting. But if it's the appearance, you know, it can look like a site-built house. I mean, I don't know, if you see the house, it's, you know, it's a good-looking house where you could just put the siding down. So, and regarding his comment about immigrants, this house is actually going to the, it's an older guy. It's the property owners, the one that's going to be living there. It's an older guy, and, you know, it's not going to be for immigrants. Just for clarity, Steph, can you put back on the photo of the actual structure of that? So that's what we're talking about, potentially some skirting on the side. Yes. Dillers actually, Dillers actually, that's what they're doing out there. They're just sliding it down so it can look like a built house. But inside of it, you know, it looks like that. That's what I'm talking about, Matt. I'm seeing there's no wheels on that. No, and the wheels, the actual axle and wheels are removed when they do a manufactured setup, a mobile home setup. And it looks like that, except it's not anchors. It's missing the anchors down. I see the axles remain. Well, this is in the dealer. It's just simply a matter of putting tires on it. Sir, this is still in the dealer, still not set. We still have to move it to the property, and then the wheels and axles are removed for it to be blocked and anchored. Is this the actual unit that's going on that lot, or is that just a picture? We're trying to get approved, but, yes, it's between that one and, yes, it's going to look similar like that, the siding. But, Melissa, had they gotten this on site within 24 months of removal of the previous mobile home, we wouldn't be here, right? Exactly. Right. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. We've already opened and closed the public portion, so we're going to bring it back to the board for discussion and or a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCU 2023-56. Second. A motion, second. Roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. David Dalt. And I am for the motion. Brooke Agnini. For the motion. Mike Hickman. For the motion. Tommy Addison. And Mike Schmidt. For the motion. Mr. Chair, it passes unanimously. We were going to do these mobile homes administratively. We changed the code last year about this time, and a lot of them have gone administratively, but there's a rush on lots now. Okay, thanks. Next up is LDCU 2023-66. 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. The subject site is located south of Avenue T, west of 36th Street, north of Avenue S, and east of Auburndale in Section 13, Township 28, Range 25. On March 5th, 68 Mathers are sent to area property owners. One board was posted on March 12th, and a legal ad was published in a ledger on March 20th with no response. And Aliyah Gleema is your planner. Second. I've got a motion to second and expedite. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case other than the applicant? Seeing none. Okay. I've got a motion to second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Expedite. You'll still get to come up and present your case. Good morning, Aliyah Gleema with Land Development, presenting LDCU 2023-66th Avenue South Northwest 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 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? Say none. Okay. At this time, would the applicant like to come up and present their case? See, I told you we'd let you speak. Name and address for the record, please. Andre de Leon, 550, Dutchess Court, Lakeland, Florida. I want to start by thanking you, honorable planning commissioners, for your time and consideration today. I am here on behalf of Avenue S to put a conditional use mobile home. I stand for questions. Any questions of the applicant? Seeing none. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, I'm going to open up the public. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come up and speak for or against this case? Seeing none. Close the public portion. Bring it back to the board for discussion and the motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve LDCU 2023-66. Second. Motion and second. Roll call, please. Bernie Heath. For the motion. Robert Beltran. David Dalt. Nine for the motion. Brooke Agnini. Mike Hickman. Tommy Addison. Mike Schmidt. Mr. Chair, it passes unanimously. Okay. Great. Thank you. Next case, please. All right. LDCU 2023-64. The applicant is requesting a conditional use approval for a special interest leisure school to open a soccer school in an existing structure. Subject property is located at 613 Schoolhouse Road, north of Schoolhouse Road, west of South Florida Avenue, south of the city of Lakeland in Section 12, Township 29, Range 23. On March 12th, 31 mailers were sent to area property owners. One sign was posted March 18th. An illegal ad was published in the ledger on March 11th. Staff has received no responses. And Amy Little is your planner. Good morning. Amy Little with the Office of Planning and Development. This request is for conditional use approval for a school leisure special interest use on a property that's located within a residential low 3 land use district. The proposed use will be contained within an existing structure with no proposed expansions. There are urban services available to the site. There's adequate parking that will be provided. And the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code. The use is compatible with surrounding uses and staff is recommending approval. Here you can see the general area where the site is located, west of South Florida Avenue, north of Goodwill, and east of Medulla Elementary. The property currently has a 5,000 square foot warehouse structure being utilized by Caribbean Pools. The applicant proposes no changes to the exterior of the building and no additions. So you can see the surrounding parcels are located within the residential low 3 land use district, but the adjacent properties to the east and west are developed with commercial uses. The closest residential property developed with a residence is approximately 170 feet to the southwest, which is actually a multifamily unit. And there's a single family residence 190 feet to the north. There is an intervening parcel between the single family to the north. It's unlikely to develop. It does not have road frontage. Here's a copy of the site plan. The applicant has provided the required parking for the use. There's ample property to the north where employees can also park. Staff fronts the request is compatible with surrounding uses. There's sufficient infrastructure for the use. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code, and staff is recommending approval. With that, I thank you, and I'll stand for questions. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, okay, thank you. Is the applicant available? Would I like to come up and present their case? Yes, sir. Yes. Name and address for the record. My name is Jason Streets. The address is 613 Schoolhouse Road. I have coached at Lakeland Christian School for the last 20 years, the soccer team, and coached within club for the last 15 years. And my brother and I came up with this idea of doing something for the community where we can teach younger kids how to play soccer. Soccer is very popular in Polk County, especially in Lakeland. And you either go to the club outlet or you go to the rec outlet, and there's really nothing in between to give extra training to young kids that are just looking to do something that's not quite as extensive as club. And so we want to purchase the building and just turn it into, like, a small school where we can teach kids, like, on a daily basis. So if you have any questions, I'll be free to answer it. Any questions to the applicant? Will this include after school? Any questions? Does that care? The classes from our models and other companies we are kind of mimicking, it will go from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. The classes will run in an hour increments. The building is 5,000 square feet, so the back portion of it is actually going to be turfed and be like a little soccer field. And then the front will be a lobby where the parents can sit and watch. and we'll have obviously employees out front and then our trainers in the back so Mike what's the building currently being used for it's Caribbean pools who they build presidential pool right okay portion of it is is actually a lobby and then the back oh it's a it's a steel building it is it's a metal yeah okay building yeah so we're not gonna do anything on the exterior just go inside and convert that back to like a little turf area any other questions to the applicant see none okay thank you at this time I'm going to open up to the public is there anyone in the audience I'd like to come up 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 to approve second I got a motion in a second roll call please Bernie Heath or the motion Robert Beltran David Dalton I'm for the motion Brooke Agnini Mike Hickman or the motion Tommy Addison and Mike Schmidt or the motion mr. chair it passes unanimously okay thank you next case the next case is LDC PAS 2023-32 Lakeland Highlands conference plan amendment small scale for a posh salon it's a future land use designation change from residential medium to office center on point six one acres the property is located south of State Road 570 the Pope Parkway east of counter at 37 B west of US highway 98 north of Lake Merriam Drive surrounded by Lakeland City limits in sections in section for Township 29 and range 24 property owners Koi properties LLC the property is also in the transit supportive development area the advertising is 114 mailers were sent to area property owners on March 5th no response was received one sign posted on March 12th and a legal ad published in the Lakeland ledger on March 20th the case planner is JP Sims and the board of county commissioners date is May 21st thank you good morning JP Sims land development so the case in front of us LDC PAS dash 2023-32 is essentially taking an already approved office center and expanding it further to the east after speaking with the one of their people who came to DRC a little while back it looks like they are planning on potentially using the space for additional parking that's going to go on the already approved office center space so this is just expanding out what is already there the closest other office center is actually more than two miles away so there is a need for office center in this area as a mission dimension is south of the Polk Parkway this is a site from above there is no other office centers anywhere nearby the subject site and it is compatible surrounding uses with the multi-family to the north and the school to the south this is a close-up of the subject site so we're going from a residential medium to expanding it to office center this was the sketch of description given to us by the applicant so as I mentioned before the office center is already approved to the west so we're just expanding it further to the east a subject site looking east on the site you see there's nothing currently being developed there and it does exit out onto the lighted intersection right there on Lakeland Highlands so like I said there's multi-family to the north and the school to the south and then looking south on Lakeland Highlands obviously I got there at a good time of day not very many cars the subject site would not really allow for residential developments there's no anticipated impact to the schools there are no students that will be generated it is in close proximity to all emergency services of capacity is available at all the Lakeland utilities and there is available capacity on the roads as well justification is that like I said it would allow for the already the looking to build the office right there on the site this would allow for additional space for any parking that is necessary for the site and the closest office center is over two miles away at the Watson Clinic on County Road 548 to the south and the surrounding uses does make it compatible with what is going there and it is consistent with our comprehensive plan and with that I'll stand for questions any questions of staff see none okay thank you at this time is the applicant available like to come up present their case name and address for the record please I have not been 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 I do Danny Kovacs five one three seven South Lakeland Drive tracked engineering here today to present the Lakeland Highlands land use amendment that we're looking to do as staff has just mentioned to the board that we're just looking at to expend extending the existing office center just to add more additional parking for our proposed use it's and I based on kind of our the county's minimum standards for parking we'd meet that without it but we want to make sure there's adequate parking for the for this facility so that's that's the purpose of the expansion so I'll stand for any questions from any questions the applicant see none okay thank you at this time I'm going to open it for the public is there anyone in the audience like to come up speak for or against this case see none I'm going to close the public portion bring it back to the board for discussion and or motion mr. chair I move to approve ldcpas 2023-32 second and motion second roll call please running Heath for the motion Robert Beltran David Dalton I am for the motion Brooke Agnini Mike Hickman Tommy Addison and Mike Schmidt motion mr. chair it passes unanimously okay thank you next case please the next case is ldcpas 2024-1 it's a small scale comprehensive plan amendment Dundee Road LR it's a land use designation change from business park center to leisure recreation properties located south on the south side of Dundee Road west of US 27 north of Overlook Drive and east of Carl Floyd Road west of Winter Haven city limits in section 25 township 28 and range 26 property owners are Southern Pines RV Resort LLC the parcel is about 18 and a half acres in size it's in the urban growth area and in terms of the advertisement 72 mailers were sent to area property owners on March 5th no responses received one sign posted on March 14th a legal ad published in the Lakeland ledger on March 20th the Board of County Commissioners date is May 21st and Robert Bolden is the case planner moved expedite second I got a motion a second to expedite is there anyone in the audience that like to speak for or against this case other than the applicant seeing none and we'll bring we've got a motion a second expedite all those in favor aye opposed motion carries expedite thank you good morning Robert Bolton with land development pardon me the applicant is requesting future land use designation change from business park center to leisure recreation in the urban growth area on approximately 18 and a half acres staffs recommending approval the subject is located on south side of Dundee Road west of highway 27 the city of Winter Haven is to the northeast and south of the subject site the subject site was approved and is an operational RV park the park was originally approved in 1987 at that point in time it had a zoning of C3 and under C3 it was allowable use with the adoption of the land development code and the comprehensive comprehensive plan it became a BPC and has been BPC since then RV parks are not a use within BPC so the request will bring this back to a allowable use as it historically has been and the it is in a good location with good access to US 27 and all the amenities throughout central Florida it has full public services water and sewer will be coming from the city of Winter Haven and it is consistent with comprehensive plan and land development code and with that I'll stand for questions any questions of staff seeing none okay is the applicant available like to come up present their case good morning Tom Woodridge with TDW land planning here for the record just to answer any questions that you have Robert made a brief presentation been here since 1979 is a RV park looking to expand we have utilities we have fresh road improvements on Dundee Road to make this a safe entrance and exit everything looks good from what we've gone through so far so if you have any questions let me know any questions of the applicant okay thank you at this time I'm going to open it up to the public anybody in the audience would like to speak for or against this case seeing none I'll close the public portion bring it back to the board for discussion or a motion Mr. Chair I move to approve LDC PAS 2024-1 motion a second roll call please Bernie Heath for the motion Robert Beltran David Dalton I'm for the motion Brooke Agnini Mike Kickman Tommy Addison and Mike Schmidt for the motion Mr. Chair I pass it unanimously okay next case please the next two cases I'll read in together the conference of plan amendment and the land development code text amendment the land the conference of plan amendment LDCPAS 2023-34 Florida Farms conference of plan amendment small small scale change in the future land use designation from agricultural residential rule to leisure recreation and change the text of section 2.135 of the conference of plan to limit the intensity of the leisure recreation activity on the site and the case is related to LDCT 2024-1 the property is located on the south side of County Road 630 1.6 miles southwest of State Road 60 and County Road 630 intersection it's a little over 7 miles east of the city of Frostproof in section 16 Township 31 range 30 the property owners are Allen and Meredith Akuka the property is a little over 20 acres the parent tract is 100 acres however it's also in the rural development area and in terms of the advertisement for the conference of plan amendment 72 mailers were sent to area property owners on March 5th and no response was received one sign was posted on March 14th and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on March 20th I'm sorry I read the previous case forgive me sounded familiar yeah there were two signs out there right so yeah 87 mailers were sent to property owners on March 5th one email was received with concerns two signs were posted on March 19th and a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on March 20th for the Land Development Code text amendment a legal ad was published in the Lakeland Ledger on March 20th and an email with concerns as well and the LDC text amendment is an amendment to Appendix E of the Land Development Code where we include conditions for cases such as this where we reference in the comp plan that they have development standards in place Mark Bennett is the case planner and this case is going to go to the board for approval on June 4th but will yeah but has a the text amendment will require two public hearings thank you okay okay is that it Mark here we go okay as Shonda just mentioned there are two actions here on the same property that's why they're being presented to go I'll go through some slides that provide the specifics and details I do have a brief narrative to discuss about the case and then I'll be ready for questions this is the site here as Shonda mentioned overall this is about 100 acres that the applicant owns identified and read as a parent parcel the subject property that's up for the change to consider changing it to LR as outlined in yellow and this is relevant because the applicant has secured a conservation easement on approximately 80 acres of the site that being the portion of the site that's going to remain ARR this next area here is a little more zoomed in detailed the key point of this slide is the show surrounding uses the Canopy Oaks RV Park is to the east Indian Lake Estates is to the north as you all know it's a residential community with a variety of uses in there this is the current land use map again the parent parcel you can see the site outlined in yellow to the east property is already designated leisure recreation to the north within Indian Lake Estates there's property designated ROS recreation and open space the X is in reference to the I believe it's a neighborhood plan out there for Indian Lake Estates so the point of this slide is that there are uses designated recreation next to the property and this would show the proposed land use if approved I won't go through the details of this but this is the proposed text or the change to the text of the comp plan amendment basically it's referring to the land development code text change this designation here provides a description of the property and then the next three slides here contain the proposed text for the land development code change the key point of the first slide is it does list prohibited uses that are contemplated as part of this amendment those uses are primarily aviation related uses and uses and activities that would have a concentration of residents mobile home parks, RV parks, etc. the rationale behind that is that this property is next to the Avon Park Air Force Range and it's in a military compatibility zone I'll talk about that in a minute next slide contains additional site development standards and the last part of the proposed text change is a figure that shows types of lighting that would be allowed and correspondingly would not be allowed the intent of this is to minimize glare which in turn by keeping any light pollution within the property it's not affecting base operations next slides here show our aerial views and ground views to the left is the Canopy Oaks RV Park entrance this entrance here is primarily to the owner's residence here all of these pictures are basically looking south or southeast or southwest normally when we take aerial photos we get all four points of the compass we couldn't in this case and what Julia told me she goes up and takes the pictures is that the range was hot that day so they couldn't fly around the site because of the activities at the range but anyway this is the eastern portion of the site as we keep going west route around 630 this is I've called it the eastern driveway where there's I'll call it agricultural activities occurring now as you go further down the road you'll see the western entrance again agricultural activities during my site visit there was like wood cutting operations and things like that and I think that's it ground view from the eastern driveway looking west this is across the street down the road to the east and the eastern project entrance this I put this slide here because this is the key concern that staff had about this project that being its proximity to the air force range and that it's in the military compatibility zone the intent of the military compatibility zone is to ensure that land uses and activities are compatible with the operations of the range in order to protect the health and safety of residents and preserve the mission of the range please allow me a minute or two to explain the importance of the statement that being to preserve the mission of the range some of you may know I spent 30 years in the military in the army reserve about two and a half of that was active duty time my resume was modified that's in your packet to show my military career if you're interested that was also why I was assigned the case Mark you understand military stuff you deal with it and it's been years but I actually have done training out of that range so let me explain there's a saying in the army train as you fight and what that means is that when you're conducting training it has to be as realistic as possible so that when you're deployed you know what to expect and you know how to deal with it to conduct training that is as realistic as possible you can't have situations or circumstances that affect that training that's why the additional restrictions are being suggested that's why they're proposed to be in place here to ensure that that realistic training occurs while preserving the mission of the range and at the same time ensuring the safety of residents let me provide a couple examples of the importance of realistic training early in my career I was a when I was a lieutenant captain I have to go out in the field quite a bit we always had to adjust our training based on the location of the red cockaded woodpecker which is a prominent bird here in the southeastern U.S. it's an endangered species certain areas we couldn't go into we'd have to adjust our training and I get it it's an endangered species fast forward to 2004 I'm in Baghdad Iraq and I can assure you I didn't see any red cockaded woodpeckers there nevertheless all my training previously had been you know had to deal with red cockaded woodpeckers frustrating later in my career I commanded an Army Reserve Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Training Battalion basically I was like a high school principal or school superintendent if you will the unit would go to different posts and conduct training those types of Army specialties there were a few times when I was the commander I had to restrict or modify training based on environmental considerations wildfires primarily we couldn't use certain kinds of munitions however I can assure you that the enemy does not adjust their training and unilaterally restrict what kind of munitions they use based on environmental considerations just another example of how training can be impacted I provide these examples to explain to you the importance of tough realistic training and how training needs to occur in such a manner that it's not minimized by civilian activities for this project the applicant has done a lot to mitigate those concerns 80% of the sites in the conservation they've agreed to certain restrictions on land uses they've agreed to additional development standards however as we did mention in a staff report staff is concerned that the cumulative impact if any future projects come in the military compatibility zone could have an impact on operations of the range I like to think of it this way you can put a house anywhere almost but it's hard to move a range staff is recommending approval we do need two actions because of this and thank you for listening and I'll stand for any questions any questions staff do we have any correspondence approvals whatever from the range I didn't see that yes I was concerned reading these two cases until across Mr. McLaughlin's letter yes he joined us today so the letter he fully approves of the actions any other questions cumulative actions as well is that a concern of yours that this and then the next and then the next is that I'll pipe in and say I think we deal with each one on a case by case basis but that's just something for us to be aware of because our goal I mean we literally work in long range planning so we're trying to keep an eye out for the future and I didn't mean to speak for you any other questions of staff okay thank you at this time I'll ask the applicant to come up and present their case still and good morning Tom Woodridge TDW land planning I'm going to bring something up real quick I have just a brief couple slides to show you just to give you a little background Mark did a great job providing a lot of the technical information you need for the conference plan and land development code considerations of the case just to give a little bit of the feedback the background for where we came from and how we got here this project started three years ago and well regardless any questions that you have moving forward no just to give a brief background we've worked with the client they farm they farm the property for a number of years they produce botanicals such as goldenrod honey saw palmetto rabbit tobacco some things you may or may not have heard of sumac a lot of the things that come naturally on this site that are harvested and then exported to a variety of different manufacturing facilities to create medicinals and other beneficial products for consumption or for use that we probably don't know we're using probably come from Florinda Farms after a while of speaking with the applicant they had found that a lot of people have come through the community as it's grown the surrounding area like you mentioned in New Lake Estates and Canopy Oaks and other areas even the single family lots down 630 have grown up quite a bit in the years every time we went the site went down 630 it seems like there's a new structure somewhere along 630 a new home new outbuilding barn what have you it's growing out there and the neighbors come to this property curious as to what's going on seeing the farming walking the property wanting to go for hikes it's a beautiful piece of property and this request put into the mind of this entrepreneur that we have as a client the Akukas to say maybe I could serve that need with outdoor recreation some recreational low intensity recreation and maybe restaurant those sorts of activities to support the ongoing area so we began this discussion with county staff and met with met with them about three years ago on site three years ago we met with Buck and appreciate the Air Force's coordination through this the Central Florida Regional Planning Council and planning staff and began the conversations of what would be an appropriate use we started with a lot more acreage about 80 acres 88 acres originally in our request and then shaved it down to the 21 that you have before you today after going through the process of securing conservation easement on the property for part of the Central Florida Wildlife Corridor a very important section of the necessary land to preserve the wildlife corridor which is one of the state's priorities as you've probably all seen through the legislature and then working with Buck and getting make sure we've got conditions and appropriate protections in place we reviewed the stuff that you have in front of you today the policies and the language that you have in front of you today with Central Florida Regional Planning Council staff of course here at the county and the Air Force to make sure it was suitable for the protections that were needed and they all gave us their support and so I'm here today just to answer questions that you have but I wanted to give you that background to show you the depth that we've gone to get here it seems like a complex product but I want to describe this has gone back quite a ways to get to where we are today are there any questions any questions the applicant say none okay thank you at this time I'm going to open it up to the public 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 discussion and or a motion Mr. Chair I move to approve LDC PAS 2023-34 second I got a motion and a second roll call please Brenny Heath for the motion Robert Beltran David Dalton I am for the motion Brooke Agnini Mike Hickman Tommy Addison and Mike Schmidt for the motion Mr. Chair it passes unanimously okay now we have a second one Mr. Chair I move to approve LDC T2024-1 motion and a second roll call please Brenny Heath for the motion Robert Beltran David Dalton I am for the motion Brooke Agnini Mike Hickman Tommy Addison and Mike Schmidt for the motion Mr. Chair it passes unanimously okay great thank you next case please all right next up staff recommends approval of LDC T2024-3 this is a county initiated text amendment to land development code to modify recreational camping and RV park conditional use standards in section 303 for the record a legal ad was published in the ledger on March 20th with no response this is a level 4 review with the first reading scheduled before the board on May 7th and the adoption hearing on May 21st move to expedite I got a motion to expedite do I have a second I got a motion to second is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this case seeing none we got a motion to second all in favor say aye opposed motion carries to expedite we'll get at this one very simply the current standards for recreational camping in the code are too stringent for smaller users who might want to operate a handful of campsites for therapy retreats or things of that nature as opposed to higher intensity RV resorts what this amendment accomplishes is tweaking a handful of the requirements in section 303 the conditional use standards for one we require all recreational camping to have access to a collector road but we require an agricultural residential rural recreation open space land use districts that might not have a collector close by and not be ideal for camping so what we've done is we've reduced this requirement to just have access to a paved county road or private road meeting county standards the current recreational camping conditional criteria require minimum lot sizes or camping area sites well there's all different types of camping facilities from tents to glamping to the park models to RV slots so we're removing that lot area requirement in favor of a maximum intensity of four campsites per acre which is already in the code this we hope we've had a handful of users come in and ask about doing these kind of camps and find it too restrictive so staff has taken upon themselves to make these changes and that is compatible with the LDC and comprehensive plan I'll stand for questions questions to staff seeing none okay and also you are the applicant yes sir okay so 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 close the public portion bring it back to the board for discussion or a motion Mr. Chair I move to approve LDC-T 2024-3 motion second roll call please Bernie Heath for the motion Albert Beltran David Dalton I'm for the motion Brooke Agnini Mike Hickman Tommy Addison and Mike Schmidt for the motion Mr. Chair passes unanimously okay great thank you moving right along that's right let's see agenda item 16 this is LDCT 2024-44 and for the record enhanced land development staff recommends approval of this county initiated LDC text amendment to add EV charging stations and spaces to accessory uses and to provide standards to require speed limit signs on level 2 plans and to modify the definition of right-of-way to count for private roads for the record a legal ad was published in the ledger on March 20th with no response the first reading is set for May 7th with an adoption hearing set for May 21st moved expedite second got a motion and a second to expedite anyone in the audience who'd like to speak for or against this case seeing none I got a motion to expedite with a second all in favor aye opposed motion carries all right again this is very much customer service oriented and pedestrian safety oriented with speed limits but we have applicants who come in and ask about EV charging station and spaces and standards for and we have nothing in the code right now so this is providing a definition and some very basic standards for these charging stations don't leave the cables or put one of these stations in the middle of a pedestrian area things of that nature it's more or less copied from the APA and from Orlando City of Orlando standards second component of this is roads and drainage has asked us to put a requirement on level 2 reviews for residential subdivisions requiring 20 mile an hour speed limits what often happens is these plans go through without speed limits required and defaults I believe 30 miles an hour afterwards people move in they feel that's too fast for a neighborhood and then request to have it reduced which requires a study and a board agenda item and is a long process apparently so roads and drainage has asked that for going forward that we have indications on our site plans that it's going to be 20 mile an hour speed limits on local internal roads and show locations and where these speed limit signs shall go that's about it one little minor thing we've had a couple instances with applicants arguing what right away is because the definition now does not apply to or they don't think it applies to private roads so this clears all that up so this amendment is just a handful of little things to help with customer service and make things clear and consistent with comprehensive plan and land development code I'll stand for questions which is the staff and the applicant on those speed signs there is that for all new subdivisions then is that yes sir that'll be required for the internal roads of new subdivisions correct well isn't that a HOA you know decision as to what they how they want to govern their subdivision that seems to be the problem is that they come in and then there's a mandated 30 miles an hour and they get this backlog of wanting to reduce it after the fact so this is something roads and drainage have been asking us to do for about a year now it is an extended process I'm not sure I understand the demand for that because most of the HOAs regulate speed limits and if they're in the private roads okay so so a gated community they're going to determine you're talking about something that's public access and then they have to go before the county to have some change yes sir is this 20 mile an hour throughout because there's often feeder roads coming in these will be for all internal roads everything yes sir okay even if it's a community development district they would they could do what they it's a public road you're right you're right it is okay all right any other questions at this time we're going to open up the public anybody in the audience like to speak for or against this case seeing none close the public portion bring it back to the board Mr. Chair I'm going to approve LDCT 2024-4 motion and second roll call please Bernie Heath for the motion Robert Beltran David Dalton I'm for the motion Brooke Agnini Mike Kickman Tommy Addison and Mike Schmidt for the motion Mr. Chair it passes unanimously okay thank you next case all right last one and we'll have one slide here anyway Ian Nance Land Development for the record and this is LDCT 2024-5 a county initiated text amendment to chapter 3 section 303 vehicle oriented recreation to allow administrative approval for boat ramps to be open 24 hours in recreation open space land use districts March 20th a legal ad was published in the ledger with no response the first reading for this case is May 7th with an adoption hearing set for May 21st to be clear boat ramps themselves can be administratively approved in the recreation open space land use district now but allowing a ramp to be open 24 hours requires board approval this amendment removes that requirement for just the ROS land use district it will remain board approval for 24 hour operation in every other land use district where vehicle oriented recreation is permitted this is a step over the next couple months here and Mr. Mullins is here I'm not sure if he wants to speak or not you'll see a series of comprehensive plan amendments to bring some of these boat ramps into the ROS designation because of the facilities I've listed 44 facilities 56 three are currently in ROS so there's an effort to bring them a reconciliation I think was the term we used here so with that staff recommends approval and I'll stand for questions any questions to the staff and the applicant see none okay thank you open to the public portion is there anyone in the audience I'd like to speak for or against this case Casey Mullins Senior Planner for Parks and Natural Resources we would very much like your support on this initiative commissioners thank you very much okay thank you you got a question you got a question here Mr. Mullins when the ramps are open 24 hours is security provided or security is provided by Polk County Paris Department just because I know there's been some issues fun activities going on when it's late at night thank you these ramps are often located kind of deep into the park what happens to the park if the ramp is open 24 hours a day what is access ingress egress to the park itself going to be similarly regulated opened up for 24 hours a day most of our boat ramps in recreation open space areas are actually stand alone properties a lot of our boat ramps are the end of streets so and where people have traditionally have fished we've provided boat ramp facilities normally we don't have we have hours for the park but you can drive through the park to the boat ramp but the park is closed so you can get access and egress to the boat ramp but not to the park facilities any other questions okay thank you anyone else I'm going to close the public portion bring it back to the board for discussion or motion Mr. Chair I move to approve LDCT 2024-5 second motion and second roll call please running heath for the motion robert beltron david dalton i'm for the motion brook ignini mike hickman tommy addison and mike schmidt for the motion Mr. Chair it passes unanimously okay thank you anything else that'll do it move to adjourn so moved all on paper say aye aye thank you thank you