Planning Commission on 2024-12-04 9:00 AM

and call the meeting to order a roll call mr. bishop robert beltram president david dalton president merle bishop president brooke ignini here mike hickman here randy heath present schmidt present alternates linda schultz and adam bass so it seems like we have our full board we appreciate you guys being here with us today if you guys have any comments to make during our discussions it would be great if not you're not voting today so thank you so much for your participation with that we'll go to the pledge allegiance and i believe in your packets everybody should have the minutes from our last meeting has everyone had a chance to look at that or does anyone have any questions or comments if not i'll take a motion uh so moved to approve the minutes from the prior meeting we have a motion we have a second motion and a second all in favor all right meeting minutes pass okay so just confirmation of the agenda the published agenda has some slight variations as you can see on your screen up there uh we had one case that was continued and one case that was withdrawn staff has done a good enough job to keep our numbered agenda the way it is on our things items six and seven will be heard together we'll have two separate votes on that and with that do we need a motion to adopt the revised agenda so moved we'll take one anyways second we have a motion in a second do we all in favor aye all right with that we'll turn the floor over to our new attorney our newest member mrs howard thank you mr chair good morning i'll now go over the general procedures for today's meeting the office of land development will introduce the case and disclose any responses to the notification which were not already provided to the planning commission in their packets the office of planning and development will present their staff report and recommendation anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony on a case will be sworn in the applicant and others in support or opposition of the case will be given the opportunity to speak the applicant will be given the opportunity to respond to any opposition testimony the commission will discuss the case and vote on the matter expedited hearing procedures may be used by the planning commission under the following circumstances if 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 with regard to level three reviews pursuant to section 906 of the polk county land development code 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 polk county land development code the applicant or any substantially affected interest may appeal the final decision of the planning commission to the polk county 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 the decision made by the planning commission with respect to any level three review then he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that verbatim record of the proceedings is made the record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing each person or party who 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 failed to file an appeal there will be no appeal or hearing on the matter before the board of county commissioners the application fee will not necessarily be refunded for such a withdrawal please also be advised that if a de novo application is filed with the board to be recognized during the de novo hearing as organized opposition you must either file the application for de novo hearing or receive written authorization from at least five entities or individuals to speak on their behalf against the application and they have agreed to waive their right to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing with regard to level four reviews pursuant to section 907 of the polk county land development code the planning commission's decision is a recommendation to the board of county commissioners the board of county commissioners will ultimately decide the matter at a later date mr chair would you like for me to swear in the witnesses for today's cases please thank you if you are going to address the planning commission on any case today then please stand up raise your right hand and answer out loud to the following question do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you provide today is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you may be seated i'll now go over some housekeeping items before we get started first we need to admit the county's land planners as expert witnesses they have all been accepted as experts in the past however if you would like to voir dire any of them as to their background or expertise then you may do so at this time are there any questions for that if not i'll take a motion so moved second we have a motion in the second hall in favor aye thank you secondly if we have any experts of applicants then you may tender them at this time or you can wait until your case is called finally the planning commission must review quasi judicial cases quasi judicial cases mean the action entails applying land land development policies to a specific development application in a fair or impartial manner the commission's review is limited to two areas first consistency second compatibility regarding consistency the commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the land development code the staff report and presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria as well as a recommendation on 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 may consider is competent substantial evidence this 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 evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria staff reports and staff presentations citizen testimony may be competent substantial evidence so long as it is fact-based and may include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise expertise such as aesthetic and compatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhood however popularity polls petitions testimony that is hypothetical speculative based on fear or consistent of generalized 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 cause increased traffic or 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 thank you very much all right so just real quick couple housekeeping calls if you have a cell phone we ask you to please silence them uh the uh we will present the case the applicant will then have an opportunity to speak the audience will then be called for any testimony that would be done and the applicant will come back up and have an opportunity to answer any questions we ask any comments the public makes be directed at the board again those comments will be addressed when the applicant comes back up or through maybe questions of the board with that we'll go ahead and get started on our first case when you do come up i ask you all to please say your name and your address for the record and you'll have three minutes to speak and we'll go ahead and get started with the first case again good morning alian glema with land development presenting number one on the agenda ldcu 2024-21 the east main street quad plexus the applicant is requesting a conditional use approval for two quad plexus on approximately 1.89 acres the subject site is located south of east main street west of reynolds road east of combi road south east of the city of lakeland in section 15 township 28 range 24 on november 20th 14 mailers were sent to area property owners one sign was posted on november 15th and a legal ad was published in the polk sun on november 20th with no responses from the public the subject site is just located east of the city of lakeland and is located within a residential low for future lane use and in the transit supportive development area this is an area of the county that needs diverse housing this development will provide alternative housing for people living within this community and here is the site plan for the two quad plexes and here's a view of the site the proposed request is consistent with the ldc and comprehensive plan and i will stand for questions any questions for staff seeing them we'll ask the applicant to come forward name and address of the record and i don't think the microphones do we have can you tap your microphone and see if it's working there we go there we go there we go can you do that one more time for us mike gonzarello uh 3522 sam allen oak circle plant city florida 33565. okay you have anything to add to uh no we agree with the assessment okay we appreciate that all right with that we'll open the floor for any public comments anybody here to speak for against this case please step forward okay seeing none we'll close the public comment portion of the meeting we're back to the applicant who i assume has nothing else to add we're good all right we'll take the motion back to the board for discussion and or questions mr chair move to approve we have a motion do we have a second second motion a second roll call please mr bishop robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion earl bishop i'm for the motion brooke agdini for the motion mike hickman for the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion mr chairman the motion is approved perfect thank you next case ian is your your microphone is your microphone not working chandra's no okay it goes now it's working try that one more time here all right number two on the agenda is ldsp 2024 the champions crossing monument signs case and alia and gleema is the planner good morning alia and gleema with land development presenting number two on the agenda ldsp 2024-1 the champions crossing monument signs the applicant is requesting to amend ldsp 2018-3 from five out parcel monument signs to six out parcel monument signs at the champions crossing development the subject site is located south of bella cedar boulevard north of double eagle drive east of highway 27 and north of the city of haynes city in section 36 township 25 range 26. on november 20th 52 mailers were sent to area property owners two signs were posted on november 15th and a legal ad was published in the polk sun on november 20th with no responses from the public mr chairman moved to expedite uh i think we have a public comment oh we do okay so we'll go ahead are you the applicant okay so you okay is there anybody else here to speak for against this case all right seeing none we have a motion expedite do we have a second motion and a second all in favor to expedite all right all right please expedite the site is compatible with surrounding uses and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and i will say all for questions all right no questions we have no one here to speak for against this case with that we'll take the motion back to the board mr chair i move to approve ldsp 2024-1 okay we have a motion in a second second motion in a second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion merle bishop i'm for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike hickman for the motion renee heath or the motion mike schmidt for the motion mr chairman the motion is approved all right that item passes next item please all right number three on the agenda is ldcu 2024-31 and kyle roguis is your planner good morning kyle roguis with land development presenting item agenda number three ldcu 2024-31 a conditional use approval for 150 foot monopole telecommunications tower with an additional four foot lightning rod to be placed in a residential medium land use district on november 20th 145 mailers were sent to area property owners one board was posted on the property november 15th a legal ad was published in the polk sun news on november 20th we have sent one email in opposition from the public staff finds this request compatible consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and staff recommends approval the subject site is located at 4754 cypress gardens road north of cypress gardens boulevard south of dundee road east of highway 17 west of us highway 27 in section 1 township 29 range 26. the subject site is located in the residential medium land use district and the county's trans supportive development area the site was developed between 1988 and 1994 with a self-storage facility monopole towers create no burdens on public services but provide a critical cellular coverage to the surrounding residents workers first responders and in the next slide you can see how much development has occurred in this area the site is one of the largest non-residentially used properties along cypress gardens road the surrounding uses in the immediate area are resident residentially based ranging in densities from residential low to residential high it was determined there was no existing available 112.6 or higher structures within a 0.6 mile search ring the proposed monopole communications tower should not cause any disruptive interference with any transmitter or receiver near the communication structure the greatest incompatibility with communications tower is predominantly visual especially around the base of the tower and the low risk of the tower collapses or loses parts that fall onto the ground threatening harm to nearby neighbors to offset the risk of falling debris the land development code requires a setback of the height of the tower from one uh from any off-site residential property lines the closest residential property line is approximately 150 feet to the west and the closest residential structure is approximately 225 feet to the south the land development code also requires landscaping around the base of this tower to offset any visual concerns and here you can kind of re-emphasize those setbacks from those property lines telecommunication tower infrastructure is critical for daily life business emergency services and government purposes most residents of this county have not only cell phones but other multiple communication devices including computers that rely on the constant transfer of data over the cellular network it is necessary for residents that these towers are located near their homes uh the provided overall site plan like i said re-emphasizes the closest residential property line is approximately 150 feet to the west and the closest residential structure is approximately 225 feet to the south meaning land development code criteria while providing a need for the residents the landscaping plan provided demonstrates that landscaping around the base of the tower to offset any of that visual concern and staff recommends approval monopole towers create no burdens on public services but provide critical cellular service for the surrounding residents workers and first responders the request meets the relevant criteria in the comprehensive plan and land development code staff finds no incompatibilities with this request and with that i will stand for questions any questions for staff seeing none can you have the applicant come forward good morning mary solik 121 south orange avenue suite 1500 orlando florida i'm legal counsel for milestone communications i have with me here today matt penning who is the project manager for milestone and drew pitts who is the engineer with kim and horn your staff has done a very thorough evaluation of our application we meet all of your code requirements i suspect you may have some members in the audience that want to speak to this request i'm here to answer any questions you have right now and i'd like an opportunity to come back and address the public comment any questions for the applicant from the board being done we'll give you a chance great thank you with that we'll open it up for any public comments if you're here to speak for or against this case please step forward okay seeing now we'll close the public comment would you like to add anything as the applicant closing thank you all right with that we'll bring the item back to the board for discussion and or motion mr chair moody approve ldcu 2024-31 second motion in the second roll call please mr bishop robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion earl bishop i'm for the motion brooke agnini against the motion mike hickman or the motion renee heath for the motion mike smith for the motion mr chairman the motion approves is approved thank you all right next item ian all right good morning ian nance land development staff recommends approval of ldcu 2024-34 to allow an elementary middle school at the site of an existing farm worker housing facility and daycare the subject site is located at 4440 academy drive south of state road 60 east of coronet road west of bailey road and west of mulberry in section 29 township 29 range 23. for the record 112 mailers were sent to area property owners on november 20th three signs were posted november 15th and a legal ad was published in polk sun on november 20th staff has logged one email in opposition here's the location west of mulberry with direct access to state road 60. as one finds in this area of the county there's a mixture of uses along 60 many of which are older industrial and higher intensity non-residential developments with surrounding single-family neighborhoods there is a solar farm to the west but that property is once used for agriculture agriculture which included a produce packing facility proximity to this facility was once caused for the approval of farm worker housing in 2006. formerly a religious institution in school the existing structures were utilized to house migrant workers with that approval daycare facility was allowed but restricted to the use of the migrant workers families this restriction was removed in 2014 to allow others to benefit from the daycare center and since that time the site has been planned for additional expansions to further to provide further services including this school the site remains in a residential suburban land use district where elementary schools are c2 conditional uses and can be approved by staff while middle schools are c3 conditional uses which require this hearing this is the submitted site plan the applicant is proposing two new buildings totaling 28 400 square feet accommodate 18 new classrooms needed to serve approximately 288 students site plan shows passive recreation areas and improved circulation for busing and student drop-off with an approval the site plan will be binding but the applicant could return for requests for just the elementary school which are grades k-5 and be administered administratively approved so when considering the middle school aspect of this request staff kind of thinks less of the structures proposed here and more of what else could be proposed here that would be accessory to a middle school such as sporting facilities and intensive recreation uses and fields that are not part of this request this is a better overview of the site and the proposed construction as i mentioned before most of the existing buildings are here from an old church the farm worker housing is shown to the southeast and new structures for the daycare have been added near the entrance onto state road 60. in 2018 the applicant completed a major traffic study for the daycare and these proposed schools a type 5 intersection was then constructed with accordance with these findings the findings of the study parking was added with a stormwater pond pond to account for the added impervious surface new buildings and parking will develop closer to the solar farm than the house the south the houses to the south the nearest on residential structure will be approximately 330 feet from the southern residential property line this is a quick impact assessment statement on supporting public services that are evaluated in the staff report most critical one to folks is obviously transportation schools do have a greater impact in morning hours than during traditional peak pm hours but again that major traffic study has been completed in coordination with fdot and polk county tpo and improvements have been made to accommodate this request pc will provide potable water all emergency services are operating expected levels of service and there are no impacts to wetlands or flood hazard areas at the project location again staff recommends approval as proposed by the site plan and application allowing sixth through eighth grades isn't going to increase the intensity of the site beyond what would be generated if this was only a request for 288 elementary students which again could be approved administratively the site plan shows compatibility with surrounding uses and this request meets the standards of the comprehensive plan and land development code with that i thank you we'll stand for questions any questions for staff yes so as i understand you have the staff has not approved the elementary school yet no sir no they came in together with this okay so if we if we were to deny this what would you do we just could staff still approve the elementary aspect yes sir yeah we're more or less voting for the middle school aspect of this right and as i mentioned now middle schools and high schools in our land development code are more or less lumped together because of the intense recreation facilities you might have on site the stadiums the ball fields lighting facilities such as that this is kind of unusual where you have i wouldn't say it's unusual because we find a lot with churches too we have elementary and middle school so have you addressed that with the applicant i mean are they amenable to putting in the sports facilities that would if they came back in to do that a gymnasium anything like that they'd be coming in for a modification for high intensity recreation any other questions mr i have one uh ian do you know if there's any plan for uh nighttime lighting on the existing site plan no sir and again that would be the same situation i came back in for lighted fields uh or any nighttime activity would be high intensity recreation and they'd have to come back before you okay great thank you in oh go ahead no go ahead there were only 88 trips peak trips uh for a student capacity of 288. this is what i was saying earlier the peak pm hour trips we usually judge traffic impacts on afternoon hours from four to six schools generally don't have that much and that's what this is showing here we have 350 a.m trips it's not something we normally judge for concurrency this takes into account the existing daycare facility and all uses on site too so it's not just the school that's creating that ian quick question on the sewer this is the news distributed system that we've talked about earlier in previous meetings yesterday uh this school has actually facilitated that change to our code to allow this distributed wastewater treatment system appreciate that okay thanks for entertaining all of our questions is this totally private i'm going to defer we'll defer that to the applicant okay we can have the applicant come forward please name an address for the record and go ahead and state your case please good morning richard mills with kimley horn and associates um 109 south kentucky avenue lakeland florida 33801 i'm the engineer of record for the project um and yeah ian did a good job uh yeah thorough job laying out the case um i'm here to answer any questions you guys may have i think there's a standing question from the board about is this a private institution it is not no it's going to be open to the public uh for um yeah to apply it's a charter school it's a charter school yes sir okay thank public public attendance yeah private ownership uh correct yes rcma is a private organization okay any other questions from the board from the applicant have you is the charter approved yet or you what you need this approval um that this is pending the approval yes okay any other questions for the applicant from the board all right with that we'll go ahead and open the case to the public anybody here to speak for against this case please step forward seeing now we'll go ahead and close the public portion of our meeting an applicant i assume you're good no other further comments you want to add thank you sir with that i'll bring the item back to the board for a discussion and or a motion mr chair moved to approve second motion and a second any other discussion items before we take a vote all right roll call please mr bishop robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion roll bishop i'm for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike higman for the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion mr chairman the motion is approved thank you sir all right next case all right next up number five on the agenda is ldcu 2024 33 the bradley junction farm worker housing edition and eric peterson is your planner hello eric peterson for the land development division uh this case was heard by you back uh november of last year uh for 100 workers the request is to go from 100 to 120 at this facility uh 25 mailers were sent area property owners on november 20th 2024 three signs were posted on the property november 18th a legal ad was published in the polk sign on november 20th uh excuse me mr chair moved to expedite anyone here to speak for against this case seeing none i have a motion to expedite do we have a second second we have a motion a second all in favor to expedite all right please expedite expediting um just one brief back story uh when they first proposed this they the the purchase was under contract since purchasing the property they've been able to go in and analyze the structures and everything and found they had a little bit more capacity under the h2a program so that's why they're back uh they didn't you know they have more information now this was the absolute best place to put a farm worker housing that i've ever reviewed so with that i'll stand for questions any other questions for the applicant mr just a quick question for staff uh eric the only reason really why we're here today is because we conditioned the number of workers in the previous case correct that is correct okay thank you we always have to put a number on it and at the time it was kind of speculative now they've done more analysis and can get 20 more and it was worth it okay thank you mr chair um eric so uh who regulates or who oversees the number of people living in the facility well zoning wise we set a cap by the land use district uh which is about 213 for a property this size then it goes to the state there's a state review of migrant farm worker housing which should be changed just to farm worker housing but uh that is is one level of review and then under the federal h2a program there is a separate set of criteria that gets reviewed by the usda so there's three reviewing bodies and each one has their requirements and things of that nature that set the capacity and essentially the the capacity they're seeking is based on existing structures if they were to build new structures they could probably put more on the site but but they could have applied to the county for over 200 yes they could have but at the time they wanted to keep it you know within you know manageable level any other questions for staff with that we'll ask the applicant to come forward and skate state the case good morning for the record sarah case next level planning and permitting my address is 3825 south florida avenue and that is in lakeland um eric pretty much went over everything and then your questions um answered the rest of the things that i was going to present but basically yes we yes we did get approval last november for a hundred persons to occupy a repurposed facility my client was under contract to buy it from the state he has since purchased it and it has operated with a hundred workers uh for last season it has been so successful that he did want to add another 20 it was conditioned by um your board for 100 persons but if you'll notice in your staff report um there is a a maximum of 16 workers per acre and that's where eric is coming up with the 213 the existing structures on site would not lend itself for that many um occupants and so you would most likely see it again should we add buildings in the future but it has been very successful um we were trying to get a letter from and from the neighbors but they had some hesitant um or there was some hesitancy last year and now that they've been there they've actually commented to my client that it's it really works very well they don't even know that they're there um and occupying so um we're very excited about that success there's been no police calls um actually funny story the owner himself set off the fire alarm and everybody came but that was um uh operator error i suppose but uh we we um again are just asking for an additional 20 people um to uh through the h2a program and having received those approvals as well so with that i'll stand for any questions and any questions for the applicant all right seeing none we'll open the floor to the public anybody here speak for against this case please step forward okay seeing none sarah we're good we're good we'll go ahead and take the item back to the board for a motion or discussion mr chair i move to approve ldcu 2024-33 we have a motion and a second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion bishop i'm for the motion brooke ignini for the motion mike hickman for the motion brandy heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion mr chairman the motion is approved excellent all right next item on the agenda just to remind the board six and seven are going to be heard together but we'll need two separate motions on this go ahead and introduce the case and mark bennett's the case planner and mark bennett sorry mr bennett the floor is yours thank you uh chair commissioners for the record mark bennett uh land development division and i'll be presenting agenda item six and seven that are both related to boy scout road rural cluster center cpa uh we'll first talk about the map amendment as far as notice goes 15 mailers were sent on november 20th we did post eight boards at the intersection a legal ad was published in the polk sun we did not receive any response the map here on the left shows the general locations about five to seven miles east of lake wales on state road 60 and the map on the right shows the specific parcel under consideration this is a more detailed view of the site you can see state road 60 to the north of state road 60 the intersection has boy scout road and then to the south it's known as walk and water road and again this is a close-up showing the site northeast corner of the intersection these are the current land uses in the area there's an existing rural cluster center land use designation at a portion of the intersection if you're not familiar rural cluster centers are a type of a commercial use primarily retail in nature oriented towards our rural areas of the county and this would be the proposed land use map change if approved included with the change for the comprehensive plan amendment is a text change to our comprehensive plan that would allow for the establishment of the what what's known as an activity center plan at this intersection for this activity center this is the actual wording that would be part of the change to our comprehensive plan this is a impact assessment really no issues or concerns the transportation number is big but that's a worst case ballpark estimate of what could go there let me also mention that we have not received any information or plans as to the proposed use here the application is only for the rcc designation justification for approval it's a logical extension of an existing activity center it complies with our criteria for expanding rural cluster centers and activity centers it's consistent with the area there's a commercial use at the northwest corner here that being a dollar general and the request complies with our land development code and comp plan i put a picture of the notice sign out there because one we're only needed to put two signs out there for the actual property but we went ahead and put eight signs out at each front edge of the four corners of the intersection basically to get the word out and the signs do show the location of the meeting and the date and time for the meetings i mentioned that because some questions came up i received a couple inquiries about notice so that was the additional notice that was provided so with that let me switch gears for a minute here and go to the activity center plan okay this text change is a text change to our land development code and the purpose of it is to adopt and establish what would be known as the state road 60 boy scout road rural cluster center activity center plan this is actually a joint application that was submitted by the applicant the nature of activity center plans is that because they cover more than just an area submitted by an applicant the staff also gets involved with the preparation and presentation of the plan so that's why it's a joint application as you can see by the bullet points those are the items that the activity center plan covers it does meet our requirements in the comprehensive plan and land development code for activity centers we are recommending approval and you see on the bottom that there was a legal ad published in the paper and no response there what's an activity center plan the first bullet is an excerpt from our comp plan it's to ensure activity centers develop in a manner consistent with sound planning principles you can see i highlighted that to emphasize the point and the development objectives of the county the second bullet the first sentence pretty states it pretty clearly a specific detailed plan for a specific activity center it can be initiated by either an applicant or the county and like i just mentioned in this case this was a joint application i'm going to show you a couple maps here this shows what would be the eventual build out of the rural cluster center primarily we would envision the southeast corner ultimately building out roughly five acres plus or minus and then perhaps another half acre expansion here there is a cap on the amount of acreage that can be in a rural cluster center roughly 20 acres which is the size of our neighborhood activity centers so that's the reason why specific acreages are identified this next slide shows potential roadway modifications one of the components thoughts concepts between an active behind an activity center plan excuse me is to provide a general plan a general layout of how the intersection would develop in the future currently there's a road known as road rose excuse me terrace it's a local road but it comes out right here which is really close to the existing intersection it it doesn't meet our distance requirements between roads at all this plan would envision perhaps an eventual realignment and then let me also talk for a minute about the intersection you'll see here at fdot median modification currently it's it's an open intersection and quite frankly it's it's pretty wide living in lake wells i've been out there quite a bit over the years uh going the flaming arrow and it's it's a wide open intersection there is some need for improvement there last february dot held a public meeting to discuss the concept of changing it to a directionalized opening i checked with tpo staff tpo staff checked with dot staff there are no plans currently to any changes um for this intersection there was only the meeting held back in february we put this in the plan so it's recognized that there may be some changes in the intersection but regardless of what happens with the plan or not the intersection under the control dot dot is going to do what they want to do with it but again the whole idea with the master plan here is the potential um transportation roadway modifications on the table so i've had some couple discussions with residents in the area that was overwhelmingly the main question concern they had was uh what about the intersection so the answer is we're showing it in the plan dot held a meeting last year we don't know what the future plans of dot are and one of the components of the activity center plan is trying to identify future access points so that's the primary purpose of this slide so to summarize um the text change is for um the adoption of an activity center plan best way i know to describe an activity center plan is the master plan for future development of the intersection it is consistent with our comp plan land development code and we are recommending approval and like i mentioned we'll need separate actions on the two cases so with that i will stand for questions any questions for staff okay mr chairman um mark is there water and sewer available out there from the by the county no no no there i say no um i mean the um polk regional water cooperative eastern set of wells is about three quarters of a mile up the road on the east side of boy scout but that's obviously for a regional system not direct users here so to answer your question no water and so i have a question realize i'm not voting today but question on the um possible expansion area is a staff pulled title and looked at um encumbrances on any of that property out there yet in that planning no on the southeast corner um is that southeast corner just knowledge that doesn't yeah today but it is in a perpetual mitigation bank as it sits today my understanding is that mitigation bank is more on the eastern side of the property yes sir it's completely covered so okay okay that i didn't know i did speak to uh chris colony who's um you know with with colony llc the answer of the property um explain them what was going on no questions sure so yeah the best answer i can give you is i knew the east side had the wetland bank okay mr chairman question for staff uh mr benny just kind of touched on this but um besides the six and a half figures that we're talking about today and that property owner have any of the surrounding property owners been involved in drafting the uh activity center plan or they've just been notified essentially um notified again i reached out to um chris colony because i knew him at the southeast corner i sent a separate mailer directly to the um three other property owners there's a gentleman from pennsylvania that owns the property where the dollar general's at um gentleman out of tennessee owns this tract and then a um landscape company with a lake wales 33898 address owns that property okay so um yes letter saying give me a call send me an email explain what's going on you got any questions i'm more than happy to answer okay thank you any other questions for staff i do have a quick comment i know that the county has utility system further south on walk and water road would this now spur them to have to create you know coverage up there are they gonna have to run lines or there's no requirement for that correct okay and then this area obviously not having any sewer would have to use the advanced systems as we move forward in time if i may shauna bennett for the record which rural cluster center is intended in the rural development area so it's intended to be a commercial designation that doesn't connect to water and sewer thank you all right any other questions for staff you said this is a joint application do we have an applicant here to speak yeah tom for the record do you sworn in okay you swear i affirm that the testimony and evidence you present today will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you for the record tom woodridge tdw land planning while these fellows are getting the presentation drummed up which somewhat reiterates what you've seen today but i wanted to give a little more background on the project we started this back in 2021 actually so this is a long range comprehensive overview of this intersection and of rccs in general i think mark was saying that this might be one of the first activity center plans that the county has done at least in recent memory that anybody can can remember so we need to look at this comprehensively because there's a lot of moving parts to what's happening here and um when we began conversations with the county there was kind of a well it kind of makes sense conceptually as you saw on the map from the land use layout rcc and where would it occur what's supposed to occur as all activity centers expand around a corner an intersection we meet the basic provisions and i wanted to show just a little bit more in detail um kind of where we came from on this so a lot of things have changed over the years of this intersection on the aerial photo it's a little bit deceiving uh from just looking at the rural nature of that but you can see the dollar general has popped up and then there's a food truck there uh to the left of it jb's the restaurant just to the to the west of that has been there for 20 25 years i'm not i'm not sure exactly but for decades i've been going to that restaurant so it's been there a while um the rest of the intersection is kind of responding i think to the growth that you're seeing out india lake estates if you all haven't driven out there it's incredible the amount of houses and rooftops that are going up uh you know by the dozens there's just numerous open permits it's ongoing all the time so when you look at this intersection you say well why here well there's a lot of growth that's occurred to the south of lake wales as well lake wales has put in place some plans that i'm sure you've all read about in the paper it's been the paper well they have big grand plans of what they're going to do with their outlying areas that were formerly or some continue to be in grove or some sort of agriculture but they're looking at the future and how they're going to manage that growth and how they want it to occur so they're putting plans in place and not just changing land use they're trying to do it more comprehensively and i think between here and what is growing largely at india lake estates which the county did a plan for probably 15 years ago or so to recognize the older zoning actions that have been in place but to kind of modernize them and update them and plan for the future at that location which is further east from here this sits about equally between india lake estates and lake wales so it makes sense to look at what are we going to do with passerby traffic how are we going to accommodate commercial and what are we going to do in general at this intersection so we started the conversation a few years ago presented something the county staff agreed that generally speaking with the changes that are occurring in this area that change needs to be made we have to update this rcc um through that matter we there was updates to the population support market area radius and general policy guidelines of rcc rural cluster center and we presented the 6.5 acre as a concept to say this corner you know as a balanced portion of the four corner growth is able to accommodate that 6.5 acres so i wanted to show this illustration just as a little better idea as to what's going on the my client owns the area in teal if you can distinguish that in there it's the 174 acres and the 6.5 acres outlined in red relative to what you'll see here is other commercial activity but the county water cooperative owns the parcel if you can see my cursor and the mouse these two parcels here for water improvement while it is a rural area i just want to show you the kind of things that have occurred in the area in terms of infrastructure mark mentioned the dot's efforts to increase the safety and functionality of the state road 60 and boy scout road intersection and then you can see i don't know if it's discernible to everybody but there's kind of a if you will a scar across the entire front of state road 60 that's just started to grow back in and that comes from the gas pipeline improvement from a number of years ago that went all the way across and you can see it even if you look carefully hint of the past went all the way to the east or excuse me to the west and actually jumps across the highway at some point so a lot of things have been occurring in this area to support both either state or regional or local growth needs and we we discussed those uh as part of our analysis i want to go through the um real quickly and mark should most of these but just hand on a couple last points and then we'll stand for any questions uh we we went through and provided these exhibits for county staff to help them evaluate what we're requesting and what analysis has been done we took uh the obvious which is the 6.5 acres that you all have seen in front of you as far as the land use parcel change that is a parcel that has been surveyed and has a legal description and you see that in your documents as well so it's been cut out of the 174 acres so the obvious change is what mark showed here but when we went through the background analysis again like you mentioned there's some opportunities to look at roadway alignments and what that would do to provide additional parcel in blue as you see and then of course potentially uh to the the southeast as far as a five acre expansion you know regardless of whether that's got an easement now or not in the future things could change uh so we're looking at balanced growth and our 6.5 acres still leaves that five acres for consideration in the future this is a plan that extends beyond our request of the 6.5 acres and we wanted to make sure that that was something that left that as a set aside and you know this commission or the staff or any other applicant may say listen i think that that that five acres to the east is is not coming uh maybe we could shave that down to two or three this is conceptual and if somebody came in on this grow for example and said on the other side of rose terrace i want to bring some acreage in and i meet the policies and i can demonstrate that i can fine then you shift that acreage around but the idea is to show you that we had an analysis done that there's a balance on four corners with what we are requesting the 6.5 acres on the northeast corner we still have some available to move around and other parts one thing also i want to mention on this corner is that if you look at the existing rcc along straight road 60 a lot of it is kind of functionally probably not developable there are setbacks from the right of way of state road 60 that really would cut back almost everything you see here in this little triangle triangle shape or polygon over here on the west side of the rcc and all this sliver really is within the setbacks and it's not developable so when you see a lot of the coloration here you think oh but you know look at all this land over here well frankly you can say there's probably even more that you could move around here but we didn't want to take rights away with our requests we wanted to say if we took everything balanced that on the four corners how does it look still looks a little bit strange with that little flag sticking to the west we recognize that but i wanted to point that out to say well you know and even to the south this is deeper than it you know looks you can see it might fit some sort of narrow plaza or some sort of element it is buildable along these collector roads they have smaller setbacks than the state road 60 does so but it is narrower and perhaps you can envision that if you took part of this off and part of this off and put it on the corner made more of a square it would make more sense to somebody but that's for future landowners at this intersection to decide for themselves but for the purposes of the analysis i wanted to highlight that for you all i'll stand for any questions but we've been working with staff for about three years on this two or three years on this and we've got a lot of work back behind this to show that we're consistent with the conference plan policies and have provided for future growth at this intersection as well so i'll take any questions that you have at this time any questions for the applicant mr chair i will go ahead yeah thank you um can we go to that slide about the uh that you showed with the neighboring properties and possible future growth and land use i think it was i apologize i think it was showing a larger kind of aerial where you're showing uh yeah blow out the blow yeah the neighboring properties yeah there we go perfect yeah um you know speaking to future growth and i understand the misunderstanding about the five acres to the south being a perpetual easement um do you know the property to the east and also to the north you know those landowners and the possibility of future growth uh are you speaking about the property in teal or further out no sir further out your neighboring landowners to the the larger portion no i'm not we haven't coordinated i i can't speak to that coordinate level of coordination but um seeing as my client owns the property in teal secretly buffering us from i was just asking because those are also state owned and perpetual familiar with it that there is yeah yeah and i you know um there are there have been discussions and there's been traction this question may be coming up here in a moment about the land in teal uh and that the county is considering that for environmental lands as well yes and yes i mean as you saw from the picture we've got some you know highly undeveloped land that supports a lot of native species and there's a wide variety of um environmental land purchases and uh things that are on the list in this area you know sumica is right around the corner so this area definitely supports that and i know there's uh a lot of activity even further to the north lake hatching hall there's a lot of telemetry data and i was going to ask if y'all done any kind of further um environmental studies uh as in regards to endangered species um an endangered species we'll have to do a site walk over on the site to ensure that we handle that appropriately but if we if we need to we have sufficient area on our own property to mitigate that at this time okay understood thank you yep thank you any other questions for bass you good i'm good thank you any other questions for the applicant the failure of fdot to consider any any intersection improvements is a little distressing considering i'm assuming what you're planning to do there um will this in any way move that off dead center for them i i've never known them to to do that but good luck it's yeah exactly um i i'm just i'm i'm a little resistant if if this is what you're going to be living with well and yeah and that's a good question we have i mean kind of like we're not the we're not the first guy in on this corner with commercial on the north side so if you talk about conflicts of moving across state road 60 people are turning in from a an eastbound direction on state road 60 to turn in to go to jbs or the dollars general or even up like i was mentioned boy scout up to you know the camps up there and and other other recreational opportunities north of here so i think we're we're the ones that be benefiting from the the call that has been occurring you know for quite some time to make some changes in this area but you know we won't be we'll be there as part of that and i don't think that we're going to compound that we don't have plans to develop immediately so we're not in a hurry up to to turn dirt and to to complicate this process we're setting up the plan in place putting the comprehensive look at the property layouts in this intersection and calling out really i mean i think this has been a good opportunity for for staff and others to to you know highlight this to dot and say hey here's another opportunity uh we've got something else coming uh that is a good justification to continue forward with that um directionalization of state road 60. if i may on that on that point i attended the meeting that marcus that talked about that dot held last february i attended that meeting and i had why why is this a good idea and i think it's the trend that you see with traffic circles etc so the idea is that there's only one conflict point with full median openings you have multiple conflict points i think that's the idea from the florida department of transportation so here you have to worry about come people coming south or people coming in multiple directions in a full median opening when it's directional all you're worried about is the traffic on the north side going westbound on state road 60. so that's the i think that's the trend um and i told them at that meeting that that was being contemplated for commercial and they're like okay thanks but we're moving forward it's not their idea so and i just want to add the point from the regulatory perspective is if that a site plan and application comes in on the northeast corner dot is going to be involved in the review of that project and they're going to require what they are going to require at that time anyway so you know statement of the obvious but any other questions for the applicant from the board i just want to make a quick statement that the pulk region water cooperative is a wholesale provider and they don't have individual connections so uh just for the information of the board all right with that we'll open the floor for any public comments anybody here to speak for or against please step forward name and address for the record and you'll be limited to three minutes i need to push do i need to push the vote nope nope that's all taken care of all right my name is ronald newingham i live at 2618 cedarwood drive and uh walking water estates i am the maintenance man for that area this intersection has been contention for a long time and i'm a four-year florida resident now moved from nebraska um just a week and a half ago there was a serious accident up there on this intersection i was at that february meeting with the uh department of transportation i worked for the department of transportation in nebraska and my opinion with all due respect they're dumber than a rock um every possibility that all the residents brought up to him at that meeting he rejected because it's not what they want and until this intersection has been kept under control because of all the death and accidents on that intersection i'm against any further uh growth in that area that includes any more traffic um into the area and it's three thousand some estimate was put up there three thousand passing now department of transportation wanted to close the intersection and divert traffic west to make a u-turn to go east and wanted west traffic coming off walking walk to go in a hundred and a thousand yards jump three lanes and make a u-turn to go the other way everybody at that meeting was totally against it i turned around and sent them pictures the department of roads what we did in nebraska about i asked two things if they could slow the speed down to fifth at a quarter of a mile from the intersection and past the intersection east and west both ways put a 55 mile an hour zone in there and put a stoplight in there well we don't kind of like that we'd like to end up getting a roundabout and i says well when are you going to do that well that would be after so let us close off the road and make a can make a worse traffic situation at that intersection by making people go u-turns and it's a disastrous design uh we everybody in the area from walking water all the way down to highway 630 county road 630 i guess it is and on the other side to camp road everybody said you can't close off that intersection and do that so it's in limbo right now because that was heavily spoken against it and until the department of transportation gets that situation resolved i would say that no more growth or no more applications for any traffic in increase of traffic situation uh would occur there and so i would like the board to take in common sense to deny this at this time until the department of transportation can get things resolved thank you thank you for your time anybody else here to speak for or against this case please step forward kim welch my address is 1005 fox hunt drive winter haven um our family owns property to the east the next property to the east of the shaded area which we have been in contact with um several different people to find out to become a um gopher tortoise habitat um rescue um which we're in the plans of doing that to make that we have we're capable of doing it now we're trying to do plans to make it so we can take more on to do that um there's several different species endangered species that they have found on our property um two years ago and recently as last week um there's um endangered grass that's only found on the ridge with all this property that you're talking about developing as part of the ridge development um they have been talk about a um wildlife corridor in that same area which concerns us and we purchased this property our family did two and a half years ago to keep it it is in land conservancy that was our family's goal is to keep it as it is to preserve it so that my grandchildren their children have this if not we're just going to run out of land florida's running out of land with the amount of people that are coming in and to see this happen is i mean that intersection is terrible we live we haven't we have a cut through to our property just from that and to get across there is bad enough but to get into dollar general if you add more people in there it's a disaster thank you thank you ma'am sorry sir you've already been granted your time anybody else here to speak for against this case all right we'll turn back to the applicant to answer questions i appreciate the input and support we are we are aware of these issues and challenges and we're we're obviously taking heat of them we we're not wanting to add more intensity we're trying to capture a lot of the traffic passerby that's occurring in this area like i said the area has grown we have we are double the population support that justifies a rural cluster center at this location so it's not that it's right there at the line or close now there's enough support to justify the land use of a non-residential nature or commercial usage at this corner and so we feel like in terms of the appropriateness of this from a from a need perspective we meet the comprehensive plan policies that shows that we're in the right location for that we understand the environmental sensitivity of the area and some of the ongoing efforts to to make efforts to conserve that i would argue though at this intersection of this corner especially what's already developed to the west and what's approved to the southwest it's a logical extension of the rcc within boundaries and i mentioned earlier with my map exhibits that we've even allowed for some additional space for expansion in the future desire that so we're not asking for more than is due on our corner or the more that's appropriate on our corner the other thing is is you know when we coordinate with dot in the future if whatever access is determined to be appropriate at that time we will we will take it and we'll work with them that's that's the way this that's the way this happens you can't just drop your development in there and not coordinate with the ot on a dot road so if they put a roundabout there if they directionalize it if they close it i mean we're subject to the same issues that the gentleman brought up we're we're the same kind of what's going to happen there that's why we're putting forth this effort this time to at least plan the land use and the appropriateness of the usage there and then the technical details of how it develops where your access is where are people coming and going you know if they completely close off that meeting you know obviously that hurts a commercial perspective but it doesn't make it so it's not viable for this there's plenty of traffic going in either direction and going northbound and people coming southbound from boy scout from the communities to the north so we what i'm saying is that we have anticipated that to the degree that it's an unknown right now but we think that this land use is the best for the future growth of the area it supports the existing residents and the anticipated growth and we'll have to deal with the same concerns that that people are expressing today whether it's the environmental surveys of the site and maintaining that or the transportation access concerns and challenges that are going to be in front of us when we come to develop all that is going to be on our plate as well any other further questions or comments from the board or the alternates do you have anything else go ahead mr pass i had a comment for staff or for i'm sorry for the board but um i would just say if i was voting i would probably vote against this um and primarily just the knowledge base behind this there is no future growth eth of that direction it's primarily all conservation land to the north east and south um so i don't see the point of that the environmental lands portion of this and the sensitivity of the site from a planning perspective we don't have much of that left in polk county um and they are going to have extreme challenges mitigating it and uh the impacts to that site so that would be my comment for the we appreciate your input mr passer so with that um i'm going to take the item back to the board is there any other questions for the applicant before we take the discussion to the board level it seems clear this comes down if you build it they will come that whatever you put there will be an attraction it will be drawing it'll be an rcc and a whatever else that you put in there and without some definite definition of approvals for the traffic i i just that's me and mine i understand all the environmental that goes with it but um i'm just compelled to may i address that yes um yeah sure and i changed my mind sure sure i mean the staff has pointed out and we evaluate this as well there is capacity available plenty of capacity for what we're proposing on state road 60. so we're not impose proposing anything that doesn't have the support of the current infrastructure the what if of the how the intersection changes like i mentioned earlier we're comfortable adjusting according to what dot's plans are in the future we'll we'll be rolling with that in either direction that it may go but there's capacity available so the infrastructure is there to support this and i know it can be challenging um as a as a you know from a conceptual standpoint to grasp you know what's it going to look like on the ground or how's it going to function uh but that's the challenge with all land use changes that you're there your applicant is asking for a land use map designation and we've provided the application and the data and analysis and the map exhibits to show you why we think that it's supported and staff has echoed that with their recommendation and their infrastructure support and those sorts of things um you know if we find something on the site that is going to push our development over to this corner or that corner to make it a better development that meets the you know policies of the land development code and other factors that we find yeah we'll have to do that when it comes to the design of the site but in terms of the um you know whether the demand is there whether we're creating a new demand our our perspective is that you know this is a lot of trip capture there's so much traffic going by and some people coming down from the south you can make an argument that the people coming down from you know the communities and from the developments to the north come down boy scout road could save themselves going down to the east or west by getting something at this corner then they're traveling further down 60 and needing to go across a median or or what have you um i'm sure people from walking water are coming up across 60 to the dollar general i'm sure people are coming from the west to that same intersection for people coming from india lake estates further down to the east coming back this direction to this intersection so there's a lot of activity already ongoing that shows that there's a traffic circulation that is already occurring that needs to be monitored and probably in the future as more residents occur that's why i mentioned in the lake estates it's growing tremendously so regardless of anybody here or not it's going to be a challenge to maintain how people get to and from the dollar general on a safe basis in the future so we see ourselves as providing another opportunity to hopefully have something on that side of the road that is capturing the already occurring trips we have enough trips available on zero 60 and we'll design this according to what dot desires as they communicate that to us during our development process some point down the road so i hope that helps okay any other questions go ahead yeah excuse me thank you um staff advocated and quite frankly pushed for the activity center plan because we saw this as an opportunity to do some master planning here instead of quite frankly dealing with stuff on an ad hoc willy-nilly basis here the intent here was to come up with a master plan obviously transportation is a key component of the master plan we've added things such as landscaping architectural design lighting and and i'll give the credit to my uh planning professional here he came up with the idea of special lighting to preserve dark sky um you know implement dark sky requirements it is a rural area so my point is that this is an attempt to do some master planning here um sound planning principles get good playing that accomplish quality development so thank you i got a quick question follow-up for you does that mean that we are kind of capping the number of acres that can be developed by having this plan correct right so that's kind of becomes the limit for this area right okay thank you mr chair a quick question for staff um mr bennett did you hear anything in the public testimony that changes your view on the case no uh the issue is the intersection the issue of the intersection is going to remain you know it's it's there regardless but as as today the uh request is still compatible and consistent with the comp plan and land development code yes thank you thank you i've got a question for staff yep um talking about sound planning and yeah and working on this plan were environmental factors part of that planning process yeah absolutely for example at the landscaping we're asking that um existing trees be considered in site design as opposed to um quite frankly clear cutting a site and replacing trees that have been there for decades with a two and a half inch wide stick and waiting 30 years for it to grow back so has uh staff been out to that site and made that yeah oh yeah staff is comfortable with the uh the land management practices of a scrub site because that actually does need to have another just curious yeah i mean i mean if it stays undeveloped the reason i asked the reason i asked is simply you have mitigation banks on either corner because of the sensitives the sensitivity of this site that's why i'm curious and and again if it stays undeveloped it stays undeveloped but if it starts to develop at least we have a plan in place right any other questions for staff with that i'll bring the item back to the board for mr chair move to approve ldc pas 2024-25 as presented today we have a motion do we have a second second we have a motion a second i just want to make sure no other discussion items for the board all right hearing none we'll take the roll call robert bildram i'm for the motion david dalton for the motion earl bishop i'm for the motion brooke agnini against the motion mike hickman for the motion for the motion for the motion mike schmidt against the motion mr chairman the motion passes okay so that was we have two items we have to take a vote on so just want to be clear so that was for the first one ldc pas 2024-25 do we have a motion for ldct 2024-27 move to approve second we have a motion and second any other discussion seeing none we'll take a roll call robert bildram for the motion david dalton for the motion royal bishop i'm for the motion brooke agnini against the motion mike hickman for the motion brini heath for the motion mike schmidt against the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you appreciate you appreciate your time thank you all right moving on to item number eight all right next up is ldct 2024-26 record drawings and appendix a minor changes to land development code and eric peterson is your planner this amendment is brought to you by our county engineer county surveyor rose and drainage division and polk county utilities uh collectively along with the contractors round table um i can explain in more depth but first off let me mention that a legal ad was published in the polk sun on november 20th 2024 this is an amendment that really accomplishes three things one it gets our terminology corrected throughout the code um for uh when we want an as built drawing versus when we want a record drawing and i'll explain more it defines it as well it also removes some outdated construction methods uh marshall mix and soil cement uh and lastly we change our terminology with how we inspect road construction using a different increment called lime rock bearing ratio versus florida uh bearing rate of bearing volley value and uh i want to want me to go into greater depth with those two i i i will i i'm prepared to but for the for the most part a record drawing um when you begin a project and the engineer of record takes an as built or takes a uh boundary and topographic survey and bases their drawings on that boundary and topographic survey in the beginning when we review plants at the end of the project once everything has been constructed and modifications have been made we take an as built survey and the engineer of record goes into that uses that as built survey as a basis for their uh record drawings which is accounting for all the changes and modifications that might have happened you know from plans to completed construction and essentially the you know the code has always put a lot of weight on the engineer of record they're ultimately responsible for everything that gets built and this is just the way we account for it uh so that in in that uh terminology a lot of times just like you know everyone calls a tissue a kleenex uh just like everybody south of the mason dixon line calls a uh carbonated beverage a coke uh as built drawings are have been used to say okay when we close out a project we need as built but we really mean record drawings based on as built drawings and that's essentially what we've clarified and defined in the code all kind of utilities in the utility code does the same thing uh roads and drainage uh when they do a project uh which they fund they want as built or they want record drawings based on as builds so it's consistent with all the other uh divisions and it has been something we've tossed around with the engineers with the polka county builders association and with the construction contractors that do site development road paving uh the other uh modifications the the difference in uh fbv versus lbr is gonna save the site contractors a little money because they won't have to do as many tests using the different uh ratio for testing the project so it essentially rather than having to test once every 300 feet along a road they're going their tests are reduced to once every 600 feet if you want me to talk about marshall mix and soil cement basically in essence marshall mix and soil cement are more expensive and less effective so if anybody wants to do it more power to you but it's going to cost you money and we don't really you know we aren't really fond of it either so with that i will stand for questions any questions to staff yeah i've got i've got one eric okay so when when a developer is done with a development and they submit as built drawings and the the county in this particular case the county engineer and the surveyor go through those drawings and and and figure out what you got out there is there going to be a change to where then the as builds are going to have and then the record drawings are going to be something separate from the as builds no the the record drawings are essentially what we're looking for at close out right the as built is a function i'll get it that's the the basis of those drawings forms on the as belt but the record but the as built drawings don't don't tell the whole picture of all the construction that went on an as built drawing is a surveyor goes out there and takes measurements tells you where the pavement begins the pavement ends and stuff like that the uh record drawings account for everything that's underneath the earth that you cannot see i understand that so what's the change uh it's just a clarification there were parts of the code that required as built but didn't require record drawings there were parts in the code that that uh called it record drawings when they were talking about as belts and this kind of rectifies all that so you're just cleaning the language just cleaning the language okay in the bigger picture i wanted to make sure it wasn't another process no no in the bigger picture this is um kind of the tip of the iceberg we've got a lot of changes to appendix a uh that have to deal with other things that need to be done monthly uh the engineers and the site contractors get together in what's called the contractors round table and they have a lot of discussions appendix a has sat on the shelf since 2000 construction methods have evolved there's a lot more technology out there's all kinds of things that need to change and so uh it's hard to take a document that sat there that long and make all the necessary changes one of the things that we are considering coming back to you with later on is to remove appendix a from the land development code and have a separate document that just like the polk county utilities code uh yes has to be ratified by the board but it doesn't have to go through the uh chapter 125.66 process every time we need to pull out marshall mix or or we need to change our our testing values or something like that it would go to a method whereby we all get together there's consensus among the the uh folks in the industry and our staff we take it before the board of county commissioners and it's adopted under their uh standard rules and procedures and not have to go to an advertised public hearing and go before the planning commission and things like that for what are basically you know detail you know uh development details that aren't really that much of a uh a concern of the public so much that need need this widespread advertising in full process so that's that's what we hope to do in the future but there's a lot of work to be done within the document so that uh you and the board can be assured that any of those minor changes that go through in the future are are not something that we'll later regret so the the code when it comes to our basic requirements for development is in chapter seven appendix a is the further detailed explanation uh of the of those requirements you know and we say we need a sidewalk well you know and and we even tell them how thick the sidewalk has to be and how wide it has to be but in appendix a we talk about how many different ways can you mix concrete and use welded wire mesh or use uh some kind of fiber or something like that you know details like that that really don't aren't really uh used or stood use it you know by the public and uh so it would be best to get those out of there so that we can be a little more agile with our new technologies and development okay thank you any other questions for our applicant you could everybody get all that huh everybody get all that yeah i did i got it he surveyed a bunch of as billed is the surveyor record drawings engineer got it um anybody here in the public speak for against this case please step forward all right seeing none we'll bring the item back to the board for a motion and or discussion mr chair i'm ready to approve ldct 2024-26 i can we have a motion and second roll call robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion earl bishop i'm for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike hickman the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you all right number nine good morning good morning shonda bennett with the land development division bringing up the rear here for you last case uh ldct that best for last i guess that remains to be determined yes it does thank you rennie i mean mr heath um ldct 2024-18 is the case um the case plan bennett and the legal ed was published in the polk sun on november 20th and no response was received mr chair moved to expedite we have a motion to expedite anyone here to speak for against this case okay seeing none i would take a motion do we have a second second we have a motion and a second everyone in favor aye please expedite awesome so uh i'll give you a little bit of background on what uh started this particular case um it was over the last several years the areas that you see outlined in yellow were different land use changes for business park center along drain field and county line road that really started this back in the 2020 21 22 23 time frame this part of the county back in the 1980s was rural conservation zoning you could see plant city on the left side the west side of county line road there's a subdivision there in the middle spring creek and that existed in the 1980s and now it's surrounded by business park center so the concern there and some of you i think were on the planning commission then about really um section 220 didn't have enough standards to really deal with these large warehouse facilities even just on the side of a subdivision much less surrounding a subdivision but based on the data that we've collected we looked at building separations throughout the different warehouses from the roof fin sizes to the larger cross dock warehouse facilities what different jurisdictions are doing in the state of florida the different counties that we research and also looking at the business park center land uses we felt the need and when we brought these cases to the board the board said yes try to bring forward some changes to section 220 to deal with that so in the end we have modifications to bring in agriculture residential role in addition to residential low residential medium residential high residential suburban as the residential categories that the compatibility standards are applicable to adding some buffering and fencing requirements in in section 220 so that that's my quick summary and i have any more questions i'm certainly here to offer some answers and certainly it's being recommended for approval any questions for staff i got a real quick one linus sites always a big issue with these cases was that taken into consideration um to a point it was it's hard when there's an elevation change this particular issue this area had some of that line of sight issue there's a chestnut and memorial also had a line of sight issues um you're gonna probably see some line of sight issues with some other business park coming to you in the spring um but it's harder it was harder to deal with that at this point so we were just trying to do some items that made sense to staff meaning so if there's trucks especially for the subdivision putting the fence up to block the lights from the trucks as they maneuver around the site so but if it's elevated higher or lower that's a different story thank you any other questions i'm seeing none uh anybody we're under expedited go ahead will this be existing building separations this is not going to be imposed on existing no no no no no no i was just using this as an example as some of the catalyst for the generation of this amendment so we're working under expired procedures we asked earlier is no one here to speak for or against with that we'll bring the item back to the board for a motion and or discussion mr chair i'm going to approve ldct 2024-18 second motion is second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion royal bishop i'm for the motion brooke agnini for the motion mike hickman for the motion bernie heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you i believe that's our last item on our agenda any other things to discuss or if not i'll take in motion to move to adjourn second all in favor thank you turn this off