call the workshop to order uh during the workshop sessions the planning commission will discuss agenda items considered additions uh deferments withdrawals from the published agenda ian do we have any changes to the agenda yes sir ld cpas 2024-29 the rifle range road cpa has been continued to april 2nd this was on an early version of an agenda published on wednesday has since been removed from the current agenda but mailers were set and i know there was one gentleman here earlier asking about it so uh just kind of a fyi okay so if you're here to hear to listen to the case highlighted in yellow that has been deferred that's ldcps 2024-29 rifle range road we will not be hearing that today um so please just make plans accordingly just for everyone's information with that anything else to discuss for the workshop yes sir okay so we're going to go ahead and adjourn the workshop and we'll start our meeting at nine o'clock now nine o'clock we'll go ahead and call the meeting to order uh let's go ahead and start with roll call mr bishop over beltram present david dalton present earl bishop i'm present renee heath here mike smith president linda schultz kevin updike adam bass yes sir mr chairman we have a quorum thank you let's stand for the pledge allegiance all right uh the meeting minutes have been handed out to the board can i have a motion to adopt the meeting minutes from last meeting so moved we have a motion and a second all in favor aye all right just for confirmation of the agenda although the published agenda was is as stated with the 11 cases but just for the audience's information case ldcpas 2024-29 rifle range road cpa is being continued till april 2nd so if you're here to speak on that behalf of that case we will not be hearing it today and just want to make sure i clarify that all right with that we'll turn the floor over to mrs howard thank you mr chair 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 land development case planner will then 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 planning commission will then discuss the case and vote on the matter 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 the recommendation of the office of land 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 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 any party decides to appeal a decision made by the planning commission with respect to any level three review he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made the record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing each person or party that qualifies to file such an appeal must independently exercise 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 further 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 must waive their right to speak during the public comment portion of the public hearing regarding level 4 reviews pursuant to section 907 of the 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 regarding ex parte communication the planning commission receives numerous communications from the public unless otherwise stated it should be presumed that ex parte communications have been made to the members of the commission regarding the matter during the hearing the applicant organized oppositions and the public may request the commission to disclose any ex parte communication or site visits they have had regarding the matter and question the members regarding their communication or site visits unless the commission member accuses themselves he or she has determined that they are able to hear the case and fairly and impartially make a decision on the matter based on the substantial competent evidence in the record mr chair would you like for me to swear in the witnesses for today's cases please thank you if you intend to address the planning commission on any case today please stand up raise your right hand and answer out loud to the following question this applies to all cases so if you believe you may speak today please be sworn in do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you provide to the planning commission today is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you 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 without any opposition to their admission can we please have a motion to accept staff as experts in their field of land planning so moved second motion and second all in favor all right thank you secondly if we have any experts of applicants then you may tender them at this time or you may wait until your case is called finally the planning commission must review quasi judicial land use cases quasi judicial means the action entails applying land development policies to a specific land development application in a fair and impartial manner the commission's review is limited to two areas consistency and compatibility regarding consistency the commission must determine whether the application is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and the land development code the staff report and presentation will provide expert analysis and opinion regarding the applicable criteria as well as the recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria regarding compatibility the commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area the commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing both written and oral by law the only evidence the commission may 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 substantial competent evidence evidence evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria and 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 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 consists of generalized statements that do not address the land development criteria are not competent substantial evidence for example fear that the project will cause increased traffic or crime is not competent substantial evidence lastly when expertise is required for technical issues like traffic engineering drainage wetland impacts schools 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 so we'll begin now with the new business uh for today the um just really quick some general housekeeping notes if you have your cell phone please put it on silent uh if you're coming to speak for against a case please step forward in the middle of the aisle and speak at the podium here you'll be granted three minutes make sure you say your name and address for the record before you start with that i think we're ready to get started mr all right first up on the agenda is ldwa 2024 61 the mcguire access v easement waiver and robert bolton is your planner good morning good morning robert bolton with land development i'll be presenting ldwa 2024 61 the mcguire waiver for the record 12 mailers were sent to area property owners on february 18th 2025 no responses uh by the public one sign was posted on february 17th 2025 legal ad was published in the polk sun on february 19th 2025 and submitted into the record of the staff report site plan application in final order mr chairman move to expedite we have a motion to expedite do we have a second very good we have a motion and a second everybody in favor aye aye oh sorry is there anyone here in the audience speak for against this case before we are you here to speak against okay i'm sorry so we will not be expediting this case and we'll go back to a regular agenda uh and just for a also point of clarification this uh is the first time you'll be i believe hearing an access via waiver over a quarter mile long that will not go to the board of county commissioners we had had that uh change month or so ago thank you this is an applicant uh uh request to uh a waiver to the land development code 705.b1.c to allow for access of four or fewer residential lots on an access easement exceeding a quarter mile or 1320 feet in length there will be no subdivision of any lots the request is compatible with the surrounding use and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and left land development code and staff recommends excuse me the site is located in a rural part of the county on the west side of lake buffum road east south lake buffum road north east of lake buffum and north of us highway 98 west of the city of frost proof this is the current future land use map the subject area is located within a large agricultural residential rural district district or arr the nearest residential type subdivision would be the west lake quail estates located generally northwest uh of the site this site the existing access uh easement is on the west side of lake buffum road is 60 feet wide and approximately 2 698 feet or 1.51 mile in length and crosses the applicant's property and provides access to the property to the west this is an existing easement the improved portion of the existing easement is improved with an asphalt paved surface for approximately 1 920 feet or about 0.36 mile at which time the pavement turns south to serve the two residential properties to the south before it gets to the applicant's property there's about 70 feet of an unpaved grassed area that will be crossed this is the site plan that the applicant provided showing the easement and the placement of the residential dwelling on his property also showing the two residences that also utilize the existing easement to the south which are the the same as these two areas outlined in orange it's noted that this this is an existing easement and it provides the access to two different landlocked properties and there is no other suitable access to these properties this is the existing access easement from lake buffum road east and it shows the beginning of the paved portion of the access easement from the west side of lake buffum road east this is the western extent of the improved portion right here with the two residents that talked about just before bending off to the left with their entrance of going southerly down here this would be the access to the easement access to the property the applicant's property and it would bend sort of to the south along his property to the wooded area which is the property to the west the easement is existing providing access to rural rural landlocked properties and is currently utilized by two residential users the applicant does not have another available suitable access to the property given the rural landlocked nature and conforming lot sizes the easement is not considered to be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public where welfare the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and staff recommends approval with this i'll stand for questions any questions any questions for staff yeah i just for clarification the distance that this easement to get to his property is that the the entire length that you're talking about that we're waving or is that the entire easement all together i mean what is the distance that you can actually access onto his property that is the 1920 feet from lake buffum road to the edge of his property the existing easement crosses his property right and connects to the other property so there there is that easement the western property has not come in for any sort of residential but the waiver we're being requested to approve is only to get to his the applicant's property correct so if someone else west of there wanted to use that easement they would have to come back for a request okay any other questions for staff all right is the applicant here would like to come forward and speak my name is bernard mcguire and i bought the property in 2014 prior to your changing the law in 2018 and you agree with everything you've heard everything is thank you mr mcguire all right so now we'll open the floor for a public comment anyone here to speak for or against please step forward um i'd like to thank the commission for allowing me to speak today and also my fellow citizens um i'm rita reich um i'm a physician and i own i appreciate these photos and i wish i had them and i apologize because excuse me i need your address as well i'm sorry three four one five lake buffum road east thank you yeah right it's adjacent to the mr mcguire's property so this is our property we bought it in 2012 two years before mr mcguire bought this property and the portion that's under discussion is an old asphalt driveway that's crumbling and uh is one we're going to ask you to stop for a second and let her put that up on the screen so we can see it oh perfect yeah sure thank you also this parcel right here that she's referring well it's where you switch so we can't see what you're pointing at at this point there we go thank you staff all right we're going to reset your clock and let you start over now i can't see what i'm pointing to for you yeah you can tell it's pink or let me grab it back okay all right so in 2012 uh two years before mr mcguire bought his property we bought a property uh adjacent to his or or what was going to be his and that is that pink square um it was originally kind of an l-shaped property but it was adjacent to a an abandoned orange grove and we ultimately bought the remaining uh 50 some acres of abandoned orange grove so now it's a it's almost a perfect square the portion that we're talking about today is that sort of yellow green line that i drew and i'm glad that you showed pictures i appreciate that i was hoping that i could show some pictures it is an old asphalt driveway that was put in probably about 20 to 30 years ago it's crumbles and it's one lane and it's boarded on each side by like lawn that we have been maintaining for all these years at our personal expense as well as the deterioration of the driveway so it's not designed for like heavy vehicles heavy construction it's certainly not designed for any kind of two-way or uh you know heavy traffic it's it's just been those two residential homes way back in the woods that you saw that have used it very lightly for all these years and mr mcguire has used it to access his cow pasture for all these years but now we have concerns as homeowners there that any development of his cow pasture might involve heavy equipment driving across that driveway and no um you know no means of or support for maintaining the driveway or widening the driveway to make it accessible the other concern we have is that we we bought the property because we run a horse rescue so we're kind of animal lovers and we also have endangered species all over the property we have gopher tortoises that actually graze in the grass on the both sides of the driveway all the way up and they have been run over inadvertently by delivery trucks who have to pull off the driveway when another vehicle like a car is coming the other way so there's no way two vehicles can pass each other without endangering the gopher tortoises so they have a lot of burrows under the fences along there there's been indigo snakes there caracara salamander they're all been seen from the driveway including things you don't like like rattlesnakes so there's concerns about that um and you know we are in opposition to it as it stands now because as much as we like mr mcguire and as much as we have helped him protect his cows all these years this seems a little bit um you know not aligned kind of with how um our us and our neighbors have envisioned the property moving this property is um was you know bought for our retirement and the mission we have for rescuing horses and it will be passed on to our children and families so um it's kind of a personal thing and i do really appreciate um your listening to my perspective if you have any questions um i'm happy to answer them thank you all right thank you go ahead and come forward if you're here to speak for or against this case come forward please oh not you you're you come back in a minute the other gentleman yes we'll have the applicant come back and you have a chance to to speak to anything you heard mr mcguire hello my name is steve lowry i live at 3411 lake buffham road east i'm the other neighbor um from this road access my objection is um to the application stating that four or fewer homes i object to any subdivision that would take place on this property my concern is that if you approve an easement for four or fewer homes the next step will be trying to subdivide into five acre lots and sell off those lots and then the next step will be homes being built in that area and we need to keep the uh the country country in polk county i think there's plenty of building going on plenty of development there's a huge ranch on cruise road and um abc road alters babson park road that has just been sold and it's our understanding that it's all going to be developed and uh so the the growth is happening it's coming our way the city is pushing towards us and we're just concerned that we we don't overbuild in the county and that we we keep our rural areas and our agriculture as is so that we can raise cattle and and have horses and and also crops that are help sustain the state thank you sir anybody else here to speak for against this case please step forward and thank y'all for allowing me to come and speak to you um my name is diane starling i live at 8757 mccoy road fort mead my property i have a cattle ranch and my property borders i am on the north side and the east side of the property that they're wanting to put these houses on and i am totally against it i'm trying right now to do a conservation easement on my property to try to stop the growth here in polk county we're going to wind up if y'all keep allowing this to go on we're going to wind up with nothing no place for the wildlife no place for our children to to be able to get out and see horses and cows and swim and play and and that's really a shame our this country was founded by farmers and ranchers and we're losing all of them y'all see what's happened with the the citrus and it i have nothing against this gentleman i'm sure he's a wonderful gentleman but i just am totally against it um i i don't know what else to tell y'all i do know that that at one time i had spoken to the land development or whoever they are about an easement and they told us no uh several years ago this has been a long time ago i tried to give my children property on the lakefront to build homes on and they would not they told me i had to have a 75 foot wide this was after coming for two years and every time i came i had to speak with someone different every time i talked to somebody different they told me something different the last time they finally said you got to have a 75 foot roadway back to each residence from the hard road off of north lake buffum road and that was ludicrous i mean i've got four kids i would have had to have made a 300 foot wide thing to get back there i think all these easements you were given to go on all this rural land i i mean i'm just totally against them um i'm sorry and i hate to stand up against you and it's like i said it's nothing personal it's just it's for everybody's benefit we live out there for a reason thank you for thank you for your time anybody else here to speak for against this case please step forward all right seeing none we're going to close the public portion of this meat of this uh case and we're now back to the applicant or staff would you like to speak for come forward mr mcguire um in retrospect in 2014 when i bought this property um i expected to build and i went through a change in my life i got divorced so that went on hold but 2018 january 1st this would not have be appearing here so on january 1st 2018 i was eligible to put a home on the property everything that you're hearing here is correct um the reichs they bought the 90 acres they bought it in the last last year and i have no plan of building a home on the lake thank you mr chairman any questions for staff so you only intend to build one home correct not you can put so that the the application for the waiver would allow up to four but that's not your intent not my intention but he could do it i guess i mean if he had relatives that he could add three more to that that the the way the code is is the easement it's already got two homes on it okay okay he will be the third third okay okay i i got you on his property if he on the site planning so it shows him going to the north if he decides to go down to the south he could add one more he would be taking away the right uh for the fourth home okay for the property owner to the west so the he would have to come in for another waiver not only for over quarter mile but also over the four uh on the excess easement this is not sub i'm sorry thank you for that question mr bishop that's a good one so most he's going to be able to build with this approval will be two on his lot on his right on this easement on this easement even going to the property to the west or maximum without coming back for some additional back and if the property owner to the west wants to build he would need to have to come back in as well thank you for that clarification i have one more do you intend to use any heavy equipment in your farming ranching operation talk to us a little bit about the condition of this easement okay so in retrospect i can use the easement to deliver hay the heaviest equipment i have is a f-350 with a trailer and typically 10 round bales of hay on the other hand my neighbors have 18 wheelers they didn't say that here but so 18 wheelers go up the road and i have a f-350 f-250 that's my input to the road okay i got yeah further question go ahead um what we're seeing here doesn't seem to match at all what that hand uh drawn sketch is or or maybe i'm just not understanding i see no easement to the south but there appears to be one on the uh on the plan am i i the only thing we're considering is that yellow easement right correct okay the and you're looking at from lake buffum road east effectively to the property to the applicant's property line right okay the yellow is an existing easement the gentleman that owns this property here has the right to be able to access his property for recreation for cattle whatever but not at this point in time to build a residential structure within the arr so is there another easement that goes south that shows on this hand sketch that you're talking about yes yes or right down here that is a continuation of the paved access right here this is heading south is that not i did not research those two property owners the road sort of meanders on and off at least by gis the two property owners if they have a recorded legal easement between themselves i did not research their access but they do have this portion is miss reich's property that the easement goes the recorded even goes over or dr right may i ask where these other people are located according to the um okay oops sorry let me just flip so and there is and the first lady i i see that property okay this property here and it and it goes on out lake buffer right by her i just was showing the the property that sort of involved that then mr and mrs lorry i believe is how you say it own this property as well as the strip that goes north and south right here so it sort of splits right down here to get to the reich's and the lorries that's not our consideration that is not our consideration any other questions for staff yes i have one um who who owns the underlying fee rights where that easement falls uh currently currently currently up until uh about 60 i think it's 60 or 70 feet uh from lake buffum road to just shy of 60 or 70 feet east of this applicant's property are the um landowners to the south uh dr reich's okay and then the 70 feet strip that goes south is fee owned by the lowries okay one more question if you don't want um regarding the uh rights to subdivision out there what what does this easement this easement access does it allow further subdivision what would the landowner need to do for subdivision out there by easement alone it does not okay you subdivide they would have to wind up being able to acquire the land to build a road to county standards so they would have to acquire the underlying fee rights where that easement lies and then okay so the max that they could build out there right now would be two homes on their property and in order for them to do any future subdivision or additional building they would have to acquire that the land that easement is on and then come forward for approvals all that and uh this is all arr yes sir so depending on what you know concerns and density there would also be a cpa land use involved in that so the current landowner that that property traverses across would have to sell this property to the petitioner in order for that to even be an option that's correct okay thank you you suggested that that's landlocked there's no other it's it's not landlocked because of this easement but without this easement it would be landlocked i got a quick question for you staff um so this is a private easement i assume right and so is there by granting him any rights is there any requirement for him to help maintain the infrastructure on the easements my understanding is that that would be a a private uh private transaction between the parties how how that's maintained is okay between easement can he restrict access uh please clarify who he is this gentleman that that is applying uh he could access you know to his property but he would not be able to restrict access to the gentleman who owns the property to the west of him because it is an access easement for the property to the west so they have to work together yes that's the way easements are right very much okay make sure any other questions for staff or the applicant mr chair i have one uh mr bolton did the public testimony change of view on the case at all okay thank you all right any other questions we'll take the item back to the board for discussion and or motion mr chairman moved to approve we have a motion to approve in a second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion royal bishop i'm for the motion renee heath for the motion mike smith for the motion uh linda schultz for the motion adam bass for the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you next case please go ahead thank you all right number two on the agenda is ldwa 2024 60. this is the pit road access via easement waiver and aliyah anglima is your planner good morning aliyah anglima with land development presenting number two on the agenda ldwa 2024-60 the pit road waiver the applicant is requesting approval of a waiver to ldc section 705b to allow the issuance of building permits for four residential lots to gain access solely via easement the subject site is located north of alturas babson park cutoff road east of reynolds road west of pit road southeast of the city of bartow in section 17 township 30 range 26 on february 18th 16 mailers were sent to area property owners one sign was posted on february 17th and a legal ad was published in the polk sun on february 19th with no responses from the public the property is in a rural area of the county just southeast of the city of bartow is seen here the subject site is located in agriculture residential rural future lane use and in the rural development area four of these lots will access via easement and the other three lots will have fee simple frontage on pit road here is a site plan for the easement and here is a view of the site and the proposed request is consistent with the ldc and the comprehensive plan and i'll stand for questions any questions for staff all right uh is the applicant here would you like to come forward and say anything okay all right uh we'll open the this up for public comment anyone here to speak for against this case please step forward name and address for the record please jackie radford um 3180 gate road bartow florida but i do have property on pit road uh it's called zero pit road at this moment i'm just wanna i'm just curious as to the 70 acres what their plans are for that because that's behind my property the applicant could come to speak to that after anything out you'd like to ask that's all i want at this time to know what's going on there thank you so much all right at this time we'll close the public hearing not the applicant step forward for any further comments name and address for the record uh richard saunders um 4031 county road 555 bartow you pretty much see what the intent is there it's going to be um i think there's what 110 acres it's basically just doing a one-time split on it is the intent on it so that 70 acres i mean it's about seven acres of upland the rest is in wetland so there's not much you're going to be able to do with that other than a single-family home so that you know there's there's nothing because that's a drain that continues through all the way i think from the lake down south so there's not much you're going to be able to do with that it's all wet so appreciate your testimony any questions for the applicant from the board all right seeing them we're back to staff anything else to add yes sir all right take the item back to the board for discussion and or motion mr chair i'm going to approve ledwa 2024-60 second motion in the second roll call please mr bishop robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion royal bishop i'm for the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion linda schultz for the motion adam bass for the motion the motion passes mr chairman thank you next case please all right number three on the agenda is ldcu 2024-40 the martina's mobile home conditional use kyle roguess is your planner good morning kyle roguess with land development presenting ldcu 2024-40 the jeanette martinez cavell town site subdivision mobile home the applicant is requesting conditional use approval of a mobile home to be located in the cavell town site subdivision where fewer than 50 percent of the lots are mobile homes on february 18th 36 mailers were sent to property area owners one board was posted on the property february 17th a legal ad was published in the polk sun news on february 19th we have received no response from the public staff finds this request compatible with the surrounding uses and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code staff recommends approval mr chairman moved to expedite okay we have a motion to expedite in a second anyone here to speak for or against this case all right seeing none you're the applicant okay uh we have a motion in a second all in favor to expedite all right all right we're under expedited procedures just to give you guys a brief summary so this is part of a subdivision that's part of the larger cable subdivision of the 79 units that are on this subdivision approximately 29 are going to be or 23 are going to be mobile homes so that brings the composition to about 29 of mobile homes the surrounding subdivisions are going to be larger than that uh 29 with the unit one going to be 40 split between these two subdivisions highlighted in yellow and then the larger subdivision unit two is going to be approximately about 66 percent mobile homes so it is consistent and with that i will stand for questions all right any other questions for staff seeing none we are under expired procedures just to double check no one's here to speak for against this other than the applicant with that we'll close public hearing applicant anything you'd like to add we're good all right i'll take the item back to the board for a motion and or discussion mr chair i'm going to approve ldcu 2024-40 we have a motion do we have a second second motion in the second mr bishop robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion bishop i'm for the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion linda schultz for the motion adam bass for the motion the motion passes mr chairman all right thank you next case please number four all right number four on the agenda is ldcu 2024-37 the positive reserve short-term rental case and kyle rogas is your planner again good morning kyle rogas wetland development presenting ldcu 2024-37 the posner reserve short-term rental the applicant is requesting conditional use approval to allow 240 short-term rental units within the posner reserve phase 1d plan development on february 18th 68 mailers were sent to area property owners six boards were posted on the property february 17th a legal ad was published in the polk sun news on february 19th we have received no response from the public staff finds this request compatible with the surrounding uses and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and staff recommends approval the site is located uh north of ernie carterville boulevard south of interstate 4 east of us 27 west of grandview boulevard northeast of haynes city in section 17 township 26 range 27. subject site is located in a regional activity center land use district in the northridge selected area plan posner reserve phase 1d plat book 20 20 203 pages 34 or 35 through 40 approved on december 14th 2023 but was not been sold the subject site is surrounded by the racx future land use district the area is characterized by a mixture of multi-family residential and regional retail shopping centers the request for short-term rental units is compatible with the surrounding uses and the racx land use district is where we depend or really see these developments providing regional uses such as hotels motels and short-term rental units intended there are currently five hotels located in the interstate off of i-4 and us-27 providing the same needs is what this request for short-term rental aims to address directly north of the site is this is the springs at posner ldres 2019-45 which is an apartment complex comprised of 288 multi-family apartment units west of the development contains a mixture of regional shopping centers and restaurants here's the site plan from the plan development ldpd 2020-43 that was approved at the planning commission hearing on april 7th 2021 at the time of the approval short-term rental was not contemplated requiring an additional level three review short-term rental status shall apply to the entire subdivision a note shall be placed on the construction plans plat and sales documents indicating division to be utilized as short-term rentals and then here are the site photos from our sign postings this is what the structures are typically going to look like about two stories and then this is where the development is currently at right now staff recommends approval the request for short-term rental is compatible with the surrounding uses and what the racx land use district was intended for there are currently five hotels located at the intersection of i-4 and us-27 providing the same needs as what is requested for the short-term rental at this at the time the planned development short-term rental was not contemplated the proposed request is consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan and with that i will stand for questions any questions for staff mr chair uh for you mr rogers uh so the conditions from the prior approval still hold correct that is correct okay so basically all we're taking here is this site plan and just allowing the short-term rental option yes that is okay easy enough thank you all right any other questions for staff seeing none we'll go ahead and open the floor to the applicant the applicant here all right let's put that on hold for a second anybody here to speak for against this case please step forward all right so we have no objection to the case the applicant isn't here in the past we've proceeded with it there's no sorry if there's no opposition i don't think the applicant has to be present okay all right so the afternoon isn't here but we presented the case any questions or further questions from the board first staff since the applicant's not here all right seeing none i'll take the item back to the board for a motion and or discussion mr chairman moved to approve second motion and second mr bishop or beltram for the motion david dalton or the motion merle bishop on par the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt or the motion linda schultz for the motion adam bass for the motion motion passes mr chairman thank you sir number five all right good morning ian nance land development staff recommends approval of ldct 2024-28 an applicant initiated request to amend residential development criteria and i4 selected area plan for the record a legal ad was published in polk sun on february 19th with no response this is a level four review and a staff is asking for your recommendation to the board for hearings set on april 1st and april 15th the i4 sap was created in 1991 as the county's first selected area plan and created the tailored development that would arise between lakeland and auburndale when polk parkway was completed in the late 1990s the sap led to the creation of a cra and a dri which established a planning vision for this area by 2010 the parkway had been completed and the cities annexed much of the original sap at this time the board adopted a deviation to the dri reconfiguring land use districts and instituting unique development criteria this included mapping proposed multimodal collector roads which provided for pedestrian bicycle facilities this also introduced an incentive based tier system that would allow residential developers to build by right if projects met certain benchmarks and standards including participation in building the excuse me including participation in the building of these mapped multimodal roads to opt out of this requirement required a planned development and continues to do so today this is today's future land use map showing the i4 sap and the purple hatching you can see the city of auburndale has further bifurcated the area where sun tracks is now florida poly has long been open and the roadway improvements to pace and braddock roads realize aspects of the multimodal concept in 2016 the dri was deemed to be built out and the cra was dissolved by the board in 2019 so today as a planning tool there's not much utility or usefulness left in the i4 sap those tiered development standards remain in the land development code which have presented problems in implementation due to conflicts with other development criteria adopted since then or an incapability of meeting the standards for example to develop to seven dwellings per acre residential medium which is allowed by right everywhere else throughout the county the i4 sap requires participation in tier three for many of the tier three requirements land development code down forces as a standard rather than incentive what remains as incentives are some excuse me what remains are incentives that cannot be attained for instance tier three requires mixed-use buildings but an rm and i4 sap commercial uses are not permitted the map multimodal roads concept is outdated and not achievable in places due to development that did not participate once upon a time further complicating matters is the transit corridor overlay that was adopted by the board that comes with its own development standards most of which are focused around providing the very same ideas that the multi-mobile concept road concept outlayed most of this sap is within this overlay which guarantees densities by right if the overlay development standards are met in short there are too many conflicting or overlapping policies between the sap the land development code and comprehensive plan which are confusing to not only landowners but public and staff as well the solution proposed here by the applicant is very simple and supported by staff remove the tier and density schedule for the i4 sap from the land development code and incorporate the standards found throughout the rest of the county that is not an sap again the i4 sap has outlasted its utilities a planning tool the board has approved multiple residential development standards since its adoption that render the tier system redundant as you know the new comprehensive plan is coming and the i4 sap in its entirety is likely on chopping block but we have no timetable yet for that action that i think you will stand for questions all right any questions for staff all right seeing no questions for staff staff is here i got one question oh sorry yeah no um with with these removals and taking the sap and reverting it to uh to uh existing land uses what um can you just explain to me real fast what you think that will do as far as from a planning standpoint and from densities it'll help you guys with approvals it'll help with um kind of better planning is what we're going for here what what exactly or does it achieve starting from the most complicated working backwards is really kind of this transit corridor uh overlay here which uh allow us higher densities than would otherwise be allowed throughout the county that's in our comprehensive plan that's not necessarily incorporated in our land development code so we have conflict between the lec and the comprehensive plan now there's policy in the comprehensive plan that says the development standards in the overlay supersede those of the sap but there's kind of reverse language there too so it's just okay it's word salad for a lot of it just a comment listening to all that i can't help but feel like this is all my fault but uh we had good intentions intentions that's what we were thinking yeah we're here here i wrote it okay it's not your fault we had good intentions then it's shonda's fault all right perfect enough blame to go around for everybody no problem this is just cleaning up then that's right all right so with that does anyone here from the public speak for or against this case please step forward seeing none the county is the applicant in this case so no no it is oh i'm sorry sorry excuse me didn't mean to exclude you i do not feel excluded and this is not the fault of merle or shonda but um for purposes of your record my name is tim campbell law firm clark campbell lancaster workmen and air 500 south florida avenue lakeland florida 33801 this is a matter that the staff is cleaning up i represent some developers who've looked in this area and all the problems you heard ian discuss the conflicting provisions because of adoption of additional regulations over time requirements that cannot be met you know multimodal road where other properties have been developed it was an impossibility without a lot of variances to move forward so in talking to staff there they were amenable they said what we need to do is clean this up and so we we made the application this issue is our already been presented in a workshop to the board of county commissioners as part of some other cleanup in the code but when you when you represent developers the application was an effort to expedite the matter so that we're not dealing with this six months or 12 months down the road and so we support what staff has said we we think it makes sense we've lived it and so those impossibilities and struggles are real because of the conflicting provisions and it really is you know florida poly has been developed been a lot of development that has occurred sun tracks all these things have happened the county has adopted additional and new regulations that replace and improve some of some of them that are in place some of the site plans that came out of this you know it required the multi-use non-residential buildings within a site plan and so they weren't very popular when they were presented and and some other products so basically we've made the application we agree with staff stand available for any questions that you may have of me but this is really a an appropriate staff and county cleanup to remove these provisions and revert to other better and replacement provisions that already exist in the code so thank you very much thank you mr campbell sorry for my confusion i misread something here may i add one more thing yes ma'am so this is very tied to the polk commerce center dri in the time when dca was very heavy-handed and we had to make extraordinary policy adjustments based on the orc so there's a lot tied to the dri because the dri is not in existence anymore it's not under one developer anymore these policies don't make sense neither does the sap thank you so much any other questions for staff the applicant and we've already been out to the public and close that part of this meeting so with that i'll take the item back to the board for discussion indoor motion mr chairman i'll make a motion to approve ldct 2024-28 second we have a motion second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion merle bishop i'm for the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion linda schultz adam bass with the motion mr chairman the motion was approved thank you thank you mr chairman board members thank you next case number six please next case is ldc pal 2024-17 the stewart property thornhill road case and mark bennett is the case planner morning bear with me here while i get set up yes for the record mark matt land development i'll be presenting ldc pal 2024-17 stewart property thornhill road as far as notice requirements go 38 mailers were sent out on february 18th two boards were also also posted the legal ad published in the polk sun no public response staffer recommends approval this is a level four review this will go before the board county commissioners on may 6th for the transmittal hearing and july 1st for the adoption hearing because this is a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment has to go to florida commerce for their review and comment do you mind adjusting the microphones sure thank you i'll speak with a command voice how about that well you're so tall it's tough to yeah okay here we go all right uh what's going on is a request to change about 326 acres from arr and residential low plus residential low to residential medium and change part of the site from a rural development area to an urban growth area the map on the left shows the general location north of bartow south of state road 540 and west of a city eagle lake the map on the right shows a little more detail at south horn hill road and west of spirit lake road this is an aerial photo of the site outlined in red the property is split by the central parkway project that i'll show some additional photos on later and it's uh south of thornhill road this is the current future land use map the site's currently designated residential low specifically residential low one and arr you can see by the different colors excuse me i'm showing this slide because this was the original proposal that staff received uh we the original request was to designate 53 acres of the site as residential high shown in brown in this area here when staff reviewed this initial request we had a lot of concerns about impacts on public services and facilities and also compatibility residential high allows up to 15 units an acre is characterized as labeled in our comprehensive plan by you know multi-story multi-family units however um based on subsequent discussions um staff is is recommending this the applicant has accepted this this designation shows approximately 17 acres of residential medium residential medium by contrast has a maximum density of 10 units per acre it allows seven by right but you have to obtain a plan development approval from this board to get 10 an acre additionally residential medium is characterized by single-family duplex and does allow some multi-family so this picture before you is is uh what staff is recommending approval i'll run through other slides quickly here the current development area designations urban growth area and also rural development area the request is to change the remaining properties from rural development to urban growth area staff found this appropriate because um the road bifurcates the property it just didn't make sense to have a little strip of it rda next to existing urban growth area on this side one of the criteria for designating urban growth areas that has to be next to a city well that's the case here with the city of bartow to the south so for those reasons it's consistent with the comprehensive plan um site does have significant floodplains uh this is zone a some zone a e which means there's been an elevation established as shown here also there are some wetlands on the site these factors will have to be taken into account in any subsequent site development i'm going to show some aerial photos to give you all flavor the an idea of the area these were taken actually yesterday afternoon this picture is looking east you can see thornhill road you can see the parkway under construction and the two sites this is also looking east this shows the eastern half of the project again another view of the eastern part of the property this is looking uh the west half of the site this is looking north northwest and again you see the the parkway coming through thornhill road here and this is looking southwest way in that's lake hancock in the background as a reference point i'll show a couple pictures of the site from the ground this is looking at the east half of the property from thornhill another view of that you can see some of the construction activity there and then this last picture shows fussle lane fussle lane is next to the western half of the property impacts on facilities i outlined in the staff report that if it were to be built out at the maximum there may be a potential for impacts on schools and sewer of course i'm emphasizing the word if because we don't know what the ultimate development plan will be justification for approval um i'll be blunt this was a challenging case on one hand you look at the area you drive out there very low density residential nature when i did my analysis the most of the lots were almost an acre in size with the exception of one off a fussle which was about just over half an acre the applicant in their support documentation emphasized the fact that the parkway was coming through on one hand the fact that the parkway is coming through in and of itself isn't a reason just to change land uses however you know staff does recognize that the parkway coming through you know and and and the subsequent walls that will go up for the overpass and then let me mention this is not going to have an intersection it'll just be an overpass nevertheless we realize that it's going to change the character of the area most of the sites already in a designated urban area so to summarize we found it consistent with the comprehensive plan it is compatible any site development needs to be done carefully to address any future concerns environmental concerns and with that i'll stand for any questions thank you any questions for staff mr chair i have one for staff um the portion of rm to the north that seems to stop before that first portion of wetlands just the south of it is that is that correct right and the intent was using the what we believed was the wetland boundary yeah that was the intent is that have that line generally match the wetland boundary okay perfect thank you any other questions for staff yeah i've got a couple go ahead mr bass you're go ahead i appreciate it um i just have a going back to your justification um i understand the urban growth area um however the existing uses do not seem compatible to me for this type of a change can you speak more to that please i mean you said it most of the lots out there are an acre in size um the site is basically an entirely a wetland um can you justify that for me a little bit more mr bennett would you rather the applicant yeah yeah whoever well i'd like staff's uh interpretation of that okay yeah go ahead okay well um that's why i started off by saying this is a challenging site yes sir um on you know the environmental constraints they can be addressed they're going to have to be addressed through any site development um do you think from a planning standpoint that that's a good thing for us to do that's my question the recommending approval so yeah well that's yeah i'm wanting the justification behind it yeah um the justification is we you know we found that it is consistent with the comp plan the fact that the original request went from residential you know we would have recommended denial of residential high because of the stark difference in density that's why we felt residential medium was more appropriate other things to consider with residential medium is that potentially allows the opportunity for more housing types to occur um can i pause so again i'll just go to that real quick i understand the desire for more housing types in the county but again from a surrounding land use i understand what i understand what the planning says but the actual on the ground does not to me seem like a good idea to put a cluster of density surrounded by one acre single family is that can you speak to that i and i would acknowledge that yes sir um the flip side is that um to be blunt we do planning with the future in mind and and as i mentioned in the report this area is urbanizing it was designated as an urban growth area back from um when the comprehensive plan was originally adopted this area was intended for urban growth so those are other factors we take took into account and i agree that like this is a tough case if you look at compatibility immediately around it yeah there's concerns you look at from a larger perspective the areas urbanizing you see that there's rl3 rl2 existing subdivisions close by drive down the road some on spirit lake there's subdivisions so i understand that yeah i'm just saying i think it'd be a stretch to say that you're going to acquire all those individual parcels and make a new subdivision out there so that's my question just boots on the ground versus concept so okay well thank you appreciate it mr bass with that we'll turn the floor to the applicant thank you and if you want to address some of mr bass's questions as well as you speak um good morning commissioners for the record bart allen i'm a land use attorney with the peterson admirers law firm my address is 225 east lemon street lakeland florida i'm here this morning on behalf of the property owner um the stewart family this is coming out of the wh stewart side so this is uh i have with me this morning miss carlson stewart on behalf of her and her sister um they've been the property owners out here for for some time um with the family obviously most of this land ultimately came from the stewart family and any of the development that's around has kind of occurred over time from from that ownership um i also have with me mr jason alligood from the kimley horn engineering firm he's been involved in this land use planning and and uh effort um appreciate all of his efforts in helping us get here appreciate staff's presentation um their their uh cooperation as as we have worked through this process this has been um a project that's garnered the number of conversations between the applicant and staff a number of meetings we've been working on this for some time just a little bit of kind of history on the property this property has been impacted twice by eminent domain which is why it is in kind of the configuration that it is this is um unusual to even be impacted once but to be impacted twice on the west side that is why you see kind of the jagged property line that was part of the lake hancock level restoration mr beltran i'm sure you're intimately familiar with some of that and in those reasons that's why the western boundary is the way it is and then obviously most recently the central pole parkway bifurcating this site i'm going right down the right down the middle of it with uh with not just the limited access road they're putting a fly over over thornhill road which will be third 30 feet in elevation adjacent to this parcel at times so yes it is you know the the the timing of this application is being driven by the fact that the parkway is now split the property in half it has made it to where it is almost nearly impossible to use for agricultural operations anymore because of all the activities that are going on out there to the extent that the property recently just lost its agricultural exemption because of the construction activities because they did have to cease some of that so the fact that there boots on the ground observations are that this area has significantly changed in the past several years and future land use planning and things and things of that nature are just that perspective looking that's why it's called future land use we don't have a developer in tow 90 of the time that i'm in front of this in front of this board i am here with the developer i'm here with the landowner because we are doing some land use planning looking forward to what's next on the piece of property and that's exactly what we're that's exactly what we're here to do and we're looking not just at our property we're looking at the adjacent properties we're looking at the trends in this corridor the thornhill corridor i mean i was here three months ago with a pd that is just a few hundred feet away from here for single family development so this area is growing it is urbanizing and you're seeing a significant investment in infrastructure whether it's roads utilities into this corridor and i think and i think while staff may have said that this apple this request was difficult i i wholeheartedly disagree i think this apple this request is actually fairly straightforward and i'll show you why this the the exhibits from the future land use map that you saw um through the staff's presentation really narrowly focused in on just our boundary well if you if you zoom out there is you can see this is the last effectively last piece of agricultural rural residential land use classification in this area all of this white over here is owned by the southwest florida water management district it was previously part of the hampton sister property all acquired this pd was previous has been acquired by the southwest florida water management district as part of their ownership as well as this piece of arr just outside of the green boundary the balance of this is residential low residential low two residential low three residential medium a variety of land use classifications all in this area and we are building and just connecting right to those what we are asking for is residential low adjacent to residential low and residential low allows by right one unit per acre without coming back with the pd and we're not asking for any of that at this time so this request is for residential low against residential low yes we are asking for some residential medium we we understood staff's concerns we heard that we talked about that several times and ultimately we agreed to go to the residential medium which residential medium adjacent to residential low occurs throughout this county it is not it is not uncommon to find residential medium that is the next step up when so when you talk about transitions and adjacency when you look at it from a comprehensive planning perspective from a compatibility perspective from a consistency with your comprehensive plan perspective it meets all of those criteria um this is the request i wish i could make my colors match a little bit better i am not that skilled with powerpoint and uh but as you can see we are filling in the gaps this is the central pole parkway residential low against residential low resident you know again residential low here all of those areas are also in the urban growth boundary this these are the only pieces that are not in the urban growth we are we are connecting significantly to those existing boundaries those existing designations and that's why we feel that this is um not only compatible but it's it's more appropriate to designate a residential low than it is to leave it as agricultural residential particularly in light of the fact that we have a limited access highway with a 30-foot flyover that's coming over thornhill road that's going to significantly impact this piece of property and what gets developed there and how it gets developed yes we do have a significant amount of floodplains and wetlands on the site we're well aware of that we're well aware of the comprehensive plan policies we're well aware of of coming ordinances and things that are being discussed as it relates to stormwater drainage modifications in in the county those are all things that we will have to deal with or a developer will have to deal with miss miss stewart and her sister are not developers we are here in a forward thinking land planning exercise to establish a more appropriate future land use on this piece of property um this is the proposed again this is similar to what you what you saw but i just want to point out here on this on the south mr bennett pointed it out that he's correct that is the city of bartow that is previously part of the old florida plantation that was a dri that was approved by the city of bartow many years ago that had over 4 800 units over 200 something thousand square feet of commercial development not to mention office institutional and other uses embedded within that dri there is urban has been urban growth planned for this area it's not owned by the it is owned by the district it's owned by dot i recognize that it's been condemned it's been acquired through that process and those values were paid but the point is urban growth was anticipated into this area going a long time ago so this isn't a new this isn't a new concept you've also got county institutional just immediately to our southeast um and then again just to kind of point out this is the pd that i was referring to that we just that we just reinstated several months ago um it actually it will be single family development there um and then you can see all the different colors the light that the darker the color gets the the more intense the the land use and zoning is on it so with that um we also know we will have to go through or a developer will have to go through all the level two concurrency we'll have to meet capacities for schools transportation utilities all of those things those occur further down the line um but with that this is just a map this is the the city's the city's map just capacity as it exists today under the under the theoretical maximums of the um road network we believe that is compatible and when you look at what what's happening when a road comes through this is this is an example this is the turnpike this is a blank piece of land right here right now that at least as it exists on this aerial right that is a multi-family project right next to a variety of different single family that is the pros lakeside development it is under constructed it's fully built today i didn't have a current aerial again i don't have the sophistication to find more than what google earth provides me on a daily basis but that's a multi-family project right next to an elevated road with access with single family immediately around it just to demonstrate that this isn't unusual in our county it's not unusual in our region you can look up and down most limited highway roads and see where development has followed it shortly thereafter um site planning on this site will be extremely important there is no doubt about it but we're not there yet and and when a developer comes through they will have to deal with those all those issues but with that we'll stand for any questions we i'm sure there's some folks here that'd like to speak to this and and we'll address them would request a few moments commissioner sure of course at the end all right so just for the record that is city of lakeland that's not unincorporated that's correct yes that's polk county it's city of lakeland unincorporated city of lakeland yes all right any other questions from the chair i got one or two yeah now i'd just like to note on that pd referenced just next to the property um what was the uh what's the land cover type is it primarily wetlands it's got a it's got some wet on it but it was primarily upland and it was um previously approved for mobile home park that we converted to single family yes sir and then to your point about the uh the site to the south the old florida club um why do you think it was condemned can i ask that question is that an exception what is your question what what was the reason for south florida wanting to or southwest florida wanting to acquire that probably for the same reason they condemned property off the the front edge of this piece of property which was for lake hancock but mr belcher and will know it has to do with the raising the lake levels and impacts to the development yep um so my only question comes yes that site that plan to the south was planned long ago and to your point planning is forward thinking do we think forward thinking would be appropriate to impact the amount of wetlands that are going to have uh we're not impacting any wetlands by virtue of this land use change okay any in theory any development that would come in has to avoid to the greatest extent understood wetland impact so just from a planning standpoint we're not impacting any wetlands by virtue of changing the land use yes sir understood but at the at the end of the day we land we change this land use we allow for a much higher density that's in the area on a corner we also open it up for a developer to come forward with a plan that will have significant impacts to those wetlands there's no way around that correct even with a good site plan we will have some impacts we have to avoid wetland impacts to the largest extent possible could we go back to the wetland map that was brought forward real fast i know that i had one okay i think staff did that's yeah presentation yeah go ahead thank you you can help them out that'd be great tell them which one mark that one there it is okay recognize the uh i recognize the recognize the shape i think it's right up above that one right above that one i think the one he wants to work with the area won't these issues be addressed at level two they will i'm just asking because this is a planning commission and we need to be forward thinking that's right so um just for clarity this is the floodplain map yes sir a floodplain map yes i understand but i i don't know i just wanted to look at that map and ask you how you've done a lot of these mr allen and you you see a really good opportunity to not impact wetlands here i do okay i appreciate it all right i have one question go ahead all right i'm gonna play referee here well i realize this is premature you haven't done planning on i'm just curious though uh i think transportation access is going to be a challenge here regardless with you on that the the and it looks like dot didn't leave us give us much right when they condemned no exactly it looks like fossil lane is the current potential access on the west side we have our own frontage i would expect that i mean i just don't see how you're going to access that west side that's going to be it will be tight we have 50 feet as our minimum width across there it looks smaller than that on this aerial but even as it gets narrowed down that's 50 feet wide so we do have enough room to fit in infrastructure um however again those are all level two issues that we have to deal with on the road what i would say is is that this site also lends itself to something that we don't see very often in the county which is transfer of density rights transfer of density from the west side to the east side and use the east side as the development side save the west side for the for conservation and open space and floodplain comp and you know those kinds of things again those are all issues that are not really germane to the question as before us today they're not relevant to a land use change and they're not i understand i can i can see you disagreeing with me commissioner bass but respectfully they're not and um you know we are we are here asking for a land exchange if and when a site plan comes forward it will be a pd in all likelihood um and we'll deal with those issues at that time mr schmidt do you have any questions um two eagles nest on that one on each parcel on each side of the um you might want to speak at a microphone yes please i said two eagles nest uh locations have been found one on each parcel um what is the provision for that that is well eagles hat eagles have protection they have certain radiuses i think it's 660 feet um that you have to go around you can construct in certain times you can't construct in certain times again all of those issues are engineering and site planning and construction level two type issues that we have to avoid and deal with at that time not the change in the land use has no impact on the eagles and i would just add that in my mind is yet another reason please speak in the mic yeah yeah this to me is just another example of why ultimately this project needs to go through a planned development process and perhaps some sort of um transfer of development rights i thought the same thing so thank you couldn't agree all right any other questions for the applicant before we go to the public portion of this meeting just a statement just to go back to that i understand it's not where we're at today but it is a step-by-step process and the first step is where we're at today so i'm just looking at that forward look appreciate your comments yes all right with that we'll open the floor for the public anyone here to speak for against this case please step forward name and address for the record please uh dewey craver 1755 beth lane live right off of thornhill road been in our family has been living out there since uh 1982 and swift mud happens to come down to a bayhead that's on our property and they happen to check it and there's a hundred year mark on there and i believe these people are very wrong that wetland when it rains it gets high and it impacts and also this is our aquifer that feeds over to lake hancock and down into peace river and goes on down if you develop that now we're just going to be washed away because right now we already got the impact from the new uh parkway that's coming through and i didn't think a parkway just going over a piece of property constituted to make it a urban area we're rural we're agricultural people have their horses cattle out there this is what feeds our state what keeps things going and we're going to lose it and uh just travesty that we do it i got up this morning before i came down here and i watched the wild turkeys walk across the piece of that uh west side right next to our property my property is right next to that west side butted up against it and if they build i had to build our home up back uh i built my house back in 1991 they had to raise it up 40 inches above the plane there for the perk test had to bring it up so if you build this and you develop it they've got to at least come up where's that water gonna go over to my property flood me out then who do i what i do i have to get a lawyer and i have to go after a developer and we could save a lot of this time and keep this thing like it's supposed to be we butt right up next to uh what the hampton ladies gave to the county to preserve i think this area should be preserved for the wildlife and let our families and all enjoy this we don't have to cover and put houses on every single piece plus i hate to say this you could still fence that part off and they can still use that for agriculture next to us there's no reason they can't use it i can use mine a little bit of acreage i've got my 10 acres and my two and a half they can dang well use that and fence it off and put cattle out there and use it for agriculture like it has been and i do thank y'all for listening to me mr bass i really like you sir thank you for your comments anybody else here to speak for against please step forward good morning my name is michael harrison i live on 1871 beth lane uh i've lived there for 24 years i brought in 270 loads of dirt to build my house on that property and when it when the hurricanes come the only piece of property within 30 acres of me is our houses out there and it looks like an island that we live on an island and there's water all the way around us we've had to use boats to get to our homes and to get out back to the road if you bring this steward property into a subdivision or i do have one question when you said is this multi-family or is this one uh dwelling per acre can somebody ask me that the applicant can respond once you're done with your portion the applicant will respond uh the bald eagles fly i i drink coffee every morning on my back patio i see the bald eagles i see the fox squirrels i see the turkeys i see the hogs i see gopher turtles in the pastures the wildlife habitat will not survive this impact if you uh agree to this this proposal um i think that the reason why we live in a rural area is to keep it rural there is time and place for people to build this area is not it the impact of the flooding is going to be tremendous on us if we even disturb one shovel of dirt in this area we're already dealing with the uh parkway uh we're going to hear that right next to us we're going to have to uh evolve with that but bringing in more urban uh subdivisions is not the answer in this area i appreciate your time i hope you come to the right decision thank you very much thank you sir for your time and your comments anybody else here to speak for against this please come forward hi uh jared craig four three seven one fussle lane uh i might be a little bit early on this as there's no uh site map or plan or development plan but i'm at the end of fussle lane where i'd assume the access to the west side will eventually be um when they did the surveys for the central polk parkway they altered the survey and re-uploaded it to the property appraisers website shrinking my property by about 20 feet i'm assuming that was done to guarantee wide enough easement into the western portion of the property for eventual development so that's my main concern up here that's probably something you know that i'll have to deal with at a later time but my main concern is obviously where would the access be why would we change the zoning for that if there is no access um and how how wide does the access need to be i just saw this guy up here trying to build one house he had 60 feet of access uh they just said 50 feet for a uh high development neighborhood so can i ask you where your house is located or can i have a an image of it if i can show an image so i'm all the way south he's going to call up a map real quick give him a second do we have a map of the area that we can see where his house is you're at the very end you say the very end of fossil well sorry this one maybe if you can zoom in so where's your home at the end of fossil line yeah so basically on that corner right here right there right there thank you and so you're telling me the property to the east of that red line and i know it's far out you owned the property all the way up to the parkway or you did the stewart ranch owns the property between mine and the parkway okay they're saying is 50 feet so they're saying it's 50 feet that they own 50 feet okay thank you but i i think that they got it to that 50 feet by uh a change in the survey that was recently changed i don't know if you can go back on records and see but i bought the house in in 2012 there's a long-standing property line and fence and uh suddenly you know their new property line shows about 20 feet over where i've been maintaining the property line for many years 12 years it's possible that your defense wasn't located on the proper property line but we'll let the applicant speak to that any other questions or comments just uh is that that that west side is that plan for development i know like i said i'm early i know there's no site plan or development plan right now we're considering a lane use change if so how would it be accessed anyway i mean okay we'll let the applicant speak to that to my experience sir sir to my experience there's it's never too early to address your concern never too early yeah i mean i just see it coming and it just doesn't make sense to me and that only access point there um is just straight through a wetland anyway so unless there's some sort of road coming up from the city of bartow on the west side i know bethlan's a private road so that's off the table i just don't even see how the entire western per you know portion of the property could ever be a development uh anyway so we have discovered survey discrepancies all over the county trust me on that oh yeah i understand all right thank you thank you appreciate it anybody else here speak for against this case please step forward all right seeing now we're going to close the public portion of this case and move on back to the applicant to respond or provide additional information thank you mr chair uh just quickly um start with the last gentleman first thank you we are not aware of any change we don't have any ability to change this property line um without some sort of a conveyance or a deed uh certainly that's something that that is news to us um we have not modified and nor do we have that authority nor does dot without it without a taking uh so i'm sure that there's um some discussion to be had there however based on the property lines and the surveys that we do have um we do have approximately 50 feet in that area we could fit a public road through there it would be tight i recognize that um probably would limit some things that occur on the site in the development but that exists today whether we change the land use or not um that's that's a that's a fact on the ground that's again an impact from the eminent domain as a result from both the central pole parkway but also the um uh water management district the even in the arr portion of the site i can depending on different processes depending on size and acreages and things like that i could pursue an rrd i could pursue an rmd under the arr that lets me get to one dwelling unit an acre today that lets me get to two dwelling units an acre today under the arr what this is doing is consolidating all of the land uses into one specific land use for the entire property again a land use a land use effort to establish a cohesive land use classification within one one boundary and one district for the property under the urban growth area that is existing and and all around us um the people the the gentleman from beth lane the general the other gentleman who spoke both of those properties are designated residential low one today which is exactly what we're asking for so again we're not asking on that side of the on that side of the road we are asking for 17 acres of residential medium on the north end on the east side but again that's that's right up on thornhill road where we have plenty of road frontage and access to get in and out um so i just want to bring it back to that and it's no i'll use i'll use oh goodness we are way zoomed in you look at the overall area the entire area out here is residential low of some sort with mixes of commercial residential medium institutional uses things like that the request we're asking for is consistent with all of those with all of those designations it's more appropriate for this to be residential low than it is to be arr at this point giving given what's going on in this area um with that i think i've addressed their concerns we do realize that there is a lot of work left to be done on the site by a developer but we're here on behalf of a landowner who's owned this land for a significant period of time the stewart family has been involved in pole county for centuries probably um in this area and agricultural of agricultural activities business activities of a variety of sorts this is a good project this is appropriate land use when you look at the existence of the of way the property lays today again not discounting any of the the constraints that will have to be dealt with in the future but for purposes of today changing the comp plan in the future lane use map to residential low with the 17 acres of residential medium is appropriate you've got a staff recommendation that finds it consistent with your comprehensive plan compatible with the surrounding areas we've got a drc recommendation of approval and with that we will i'll conclude my comments we would are available if you have any questions um but otherwise would request a favorable recommendation of the board of county commissioners okay let's take this one at a time mr schmidt go ahead um the rm on these different maps is significantly different um wider longer further down that little neck of of uh land up there and i'm i'm just trying to get a grasp on the ratio proportion if you want to call it that of of what that specific uh rm is going to be um i know you don't have survey 17 acres approximately out of the 330 acres so i can't do that math standing here at the dais but and officially i welcome those of you who can you're keeping it to the wetland line even though your map is slightly different that's correct and that was that's correct we're taking it back to the wetland line which is not dissimilar to the distances that you see it already on the south end as well as the north end of on the north side of thornhill road just just to our east um so similar similar depth which i think probably weighed into some of staff's consideration as well oh there was one question uh rm would allow by right seven dwelling units an acre um through a pd anything more than that would require i could get up to 10 but that's what the that's what the comp plan allows so on that 17 years mr schmidt any follow-up questions or you could yes but i'll just keep them to myself okay any questions on this side all right i got a couple quick questions for you mark um so if you go back to the floodplain wetland map that we were looking at it it looks like to me just looking at it is that there was probably some impacts from the roadway that came through on the number of those wetlands yeah maybe you can zoom out on the bottom right corner there you go thank you so i mean just the bifurcation of the site there looks like it's probably impacting those wetlands obviously i'm sure those were all permitted and mitigated for some sorts in some way i would assume and so the characteristic of that is probably different today than it is on this aerial or this map that's correct okay and the wetland do you know the wetland on the left for the entrance that you were talking about where it's 50 feet i assume that was probably severely impacted by the road coming through there i don't know specifically within that area i haven't yeah yeah you're not there yet we're not there yet but yes you're correct there there's significant impacts to to the property based just on the improvement that's occurring today and that was a big discussion from what i understand through the no i wasn't involved sure but as as the uh imminent domain case was occurring was how does all of this work and how does it function hydraulic hydraulic hydrologically after after the after the implementation of the road i find words to be tough too sometimes i get it um so in that section where the 50 foot entrance is that is a flyover at that point so we're probably 25 30 feet off the ground vertical walls for the most part all the way down so basically the left side of your rm areas this pretty much shielded off from anything pretty much shielded off by a by the by the by the vertical wall of the that's correct okay and then to the right of that or the east of that that's residential this would be residential this is residential okay thank you and then you've got some non-residential stuff as you kind of track further to the east thank you all right those are michael and then south of that the land is still owned by the district or part of it's owned by the district part of it's owned by turnpike dot yeah yeah okay thank you all right any other questions for the applicant all right seeing none we'll bring the item back to the board for discussion and or motion or comments mr chair move to approve we have a motion to approve second we have a motion to second let's pause for a second any other just make a comment yeah i got a couple i i hold on hold on hold on go ahead sir we have a motion in the second we're going to open the floor for discussion go ahead discussion yes sir um i am just compelled to state that i i do not see the same consistency and compatibility that the developer is going to um i i i see the the resistance from our staff maybe not the best word but um i just don't i just can't track with that and i'm going to have to vote accordingly appreciate your comment mr schmidt anybody else like to make well i just comment um i'd certainly feel better about this if they had some sort of development plan to look at to figure out how they're going to do it but i understand that's not required here i have no problem with changing the arr on the east side of the parkway because that certainly is i guess useless as arr because it's already r1 the part that gives me a little concern though is that block of arr on the west side of the parkway that's adjacent to the uh the water management district and the conservation area um i just that's just a comment i'm not sure how i feel about the motions okay any other comments just comment i i i'm sympathized with the landowner on the uh on the ag uses i know there's quite a few cattlemen out there though that would probably snap that up so just want to speak to that and then uh at the the other end of that i agree with merle on this i think you know east side of the road you have limited wetland uh benefit there with the bifurcation of the property but i i question the change on the west side of the road it's primarily surrounded by conservation area and i just i don't think it's a good move okay thank you all for your comments any other comments i have a comment um it's not the property owner's fault that this was the property was bifurcated and i think it is would be very unfair for them to see all of this development going around them and then they just have this property that's split in two that they can't do anything with um you know so that's why i i'm second the motion so we have a motion and a second we've had a discussion and we had a lot of good questions uh with that we'll go for roll call robert realtor i'm for the motion david dalton for the motion merle bishop i'm for the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt against the motion linda schultz for the motion adam bass against motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you please refrain any comments next case please the next case is ldcpal 2024-14 point c in a subdivision and mark bennett is the case planner y'all hearing me all right we're here okay what was that again huh i used to be in the artillery oh all right i'm sorry um yeah for the record mark matt land development i'll be presenting uh ldc pal 2024-14 known as the point sienna subdivision comprehensive plan amendment as far as notice requirements uh 92 mailers were sent out on february 18th two uh signs were posted on the same date and legal ad was published in the polk sun there was no public response staff recommends approval this is a level four application because it's a large scale comprehensive plan amendment so there will be a hearing before the county commission on may 6th it will then go to the florida department of commerce for review with an adoption hearing proposed for july 1st the map on the left shows the general location of the site east of hayne city within point sienna i'm sorry i didn't explain what the actual request is here it's a change 160 acres from arr to rl and concurrent with that a change from rural development area to utility enclave area so this is a the map on the left the general location the map on the right is more specific within point sienna this is an aerial photo of the site the key points on this is that there are roads accessing the site you can see to the south and west and to the north and to the west there is existing development as part of point sienna land use designation is arr the adjoining land use designation of dri is there to recognize the point sienna development and also you see there's 17 acres of institutional that's actually owned by the school board and the proposed map changes to change the property of rl and specifically rl1 currently it's in the rural development area proposed to change to utility enclave area and bart i have the same challenges with coloring and powerpoint also i must have spent 20 minutes trying to get the color i hear you a couple of aerial photos of the site to try and give you an idea of the area this is looking south southeast the site key figure on this slide as you can see chinook road goes into the site here but you can see it's a single family residential this is another view of the site looking northeast uh halibut road here is is where the site would be accessed from the south and then this is a view of the site looking northwest you can see point sienna lake marion off in the background this is a google maps view of the chinook road entrance and then when i went out and posted the sign i took this picture there is more residential development occurring in the area and then the entrance from halibut road impact again worst case scenario there could be impacts on schools water and sewers provided for by toho one of the issues in our review of this project was whether toho had adequate capacity the app did provide a letter it was including the staff report and i followed up with toho staff to confirm so um with that our justification for approval it's next to an existing urban area um proposed use would be compatible and it is consistent with our land development code and comprehensive plan without staying or any questions any questions for staff seeing unless the applicant to come forward good morning again commissioners uh just for purposes of the record bart allen i'm a land use attorney with the peterson and meyers law firm my address is 225 east lemon street lakeland florida i am here this morning on behalf of the applicants with me this morning in the back of the room in the back right i've got mr ian prince and mr brandon ekin road um they've been they are um currently the developers of this project unlike the last one where i was not with a developer i am with a developer here um this is a you know as mr bennett's kind of pointed out this is fairly straightforward this is a literally an out parcel of the poinciana dri i don't know the history on that it was not included in the dri but it's adjacent to it on every boundary with the exception of kind of the north end as it goes out to the lake um we're asking for for a residential low lane use classification along with changing the development area to uea the uea is again one of those unique uh development areas where there is where service is being provided by a private party in this instance in this instance it's toho water authority which is really public but it's it's it's private in that it's not polk county is is my point um as mark bent as mr bennett indicated we do have a letter from toho indicating that they have the capacity they have the willingness and they have um the want to to serve this piece of property but because it's not in their service district right now we are actually there's actually been a lot of discussion between polk county utilities as well as toho water authority and there is a local bill that is being uh moved through the state legislature right now um as of yesterday that has been favorably reviewed and has gone through don't ask me the how tallahassee works i do not understand how a bill goes from a bill to law but it is moving through that process and um and should be finalized and official assuming it gets a favorable vote in the house and the senate in the next 60 days and then the governor's signature 14 days after so we're looking really good on getting the actual uh boundary of the toho utility service area to cover this and it no longer be polk county service area i just wanted to give you that background to let you know that utilities are real they have capacity and everybody is working diligently to get this served you can see from you know kind of even mr bennett's i didn't do a powerpoint presentation in here on this one um but even even the roads the existing roads chinook road and and halibut road were designed to stub out to provide future access in into this property and that's exactly what we're doing there will be a pd that follows this assuming of um assuming an approval of the land use change and the development area change there will be a pd that comes along and connects those roads and you'll see all of that in the site plan um you're looking at around 430 potential homes on the site um in in this area which is you know similarly uh in in intensity and density as as to what you see existing around on the immediate boundaries with uh point sienna so with that we'll stand for any questions if there's anybody here that'd like to speak from the public we request a couple minutes of rebuttal but we would request a favorable favorable recommendation of this um to any questions for the applicant i have one who do you know who owns that property to that vacant property to the east that block i used to because we were actually looking at mr bishop and off the top of my head i can't remember i've got a number of other things in my brain right now so but that's not part of point sienna no sir that's not part of point sienna either we we are providing through the pd there will be the ability if somebody were to want to develop over in that area that will be do you have any idea how that property is accessed today no sure i do not okay i don't see any okay i do not does both polk county and oh have capacity because i don't have a whole lot polk county has capacity the problem is polk county does not have any utility lines anywhere near this area and and they would have to go around the world around toho's boundary to get there it would be in that area is already recognized to be toho service area other than this parcel for the dri okay any other questions for the applicant seeing none we'll open the floor to the public any con anyone here speak for against this case please step forward seeing none we're back to any other questions for the applicant or any closing comments mr allen you're good all right we'll bring the item back to the board for discussion and or motion mr chair i'm going to approve ldc pal 2024-14 second we have a motion second roll call mr bishop robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion earl bishop i'm part of the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion linda schultz for the motion adam bass for the motion mr chair of the motion passes thank you next case please next case is ldcpas 2024-34 orchard springs and jp sims is the case planner mr chairman before he gets started if i could uh i'm not affiliated with this developer or development company that owns this however but but the closeness that i do operate within this company with the abundance of caution i'm going to have to recuse myself okay so noted go ahead jp thank you so uh next case ldcpas has 2024-34 the orchard springs cpa the request is changing 2.55 acres of a total 5.84 acres of residential low one in the urban growth area to residential medium in the urban growth area closest proximity is to the city of winterhaven is located south of county road 550 west of lake daisy road north of cypress gardens road and east of carl floyd road staff does recommend approval um i'm not sure what happened with my amount of mailers right there but i believe it was um i think it was 19 19 they were sent out to property owners on february 18th 2025 we did receive one email in opposition i did have a chance to speak with uh one of the people who had questions about the site they were concerned that this was going to impact the site to the east but i'll get into that in a minute there was one sign posted on january 17th 2025 and then we went and posted a new one on february 17th to make sure that we were ready for this case and there was a legal ad published on polk sun on february 19th so like i mentioned we are going to this east of the city of winterhaven so if you look at the site from above you can see that the total parcel is outlined here in red you have development already along county road 550 which leads into overlook drive a closer look at the site the out the total parcel is the one outlined in red there is currently single-family residential to the west and to the north we do have two religious institutions to the northeast and to the northwest and this big parcel right here that is undeveloped on the east side is part of the green horizons land trust so it is like a preservation site that they use to keep the environment intact this parcel is not part of that land trust it is currently owned by the orchid springs development corporation so right now it is designated as rl1 the blue hash line on there is what we have currently designated as like a wetland area what we are changing is the upland portion of the site to reflect the residential medium and you can see that there is residential medium already to the north on the north side of the road and that does include the emily estates development that is directly north of the property so anything south of where we have designated as wetland lines would not be impacted by this land use change looking west on county road 550 you can see the site is currently undeveloped on the left there was uh sufficient capacity on the roads as far as our tpo is concerned with our roadway network looking east on the road again there is sufficient capacity and then looking directly at the site again you can tell it is undeveloped and we're only affecting the upland portion of the site so any portion of it that is considered wetland would not be changed now the site would allow for up to 25 units to be developed on it with the 2.5 acres of residential medium at 10 dwelling units per acre there are anticipated three elementary students one middle and one high school from what could be max built out based on our calculations there are parks nearby there are sheriff and fire services readily available i did confirm with the city of winterhaven utility department that there is water and wastewater lines that run along that road that would be available to help with development of the site and as i mentioned before there is available capacity on county road 550 which is an urban collector which is appropriate for residential medium use the land use changed from residential low to residential medium would be compatible as the site abuts rm to the north the density is anticipated not to be intrusive to the surrounding developments as they could build a max 25 dwelling units county road 550 as i mentioned before is an urban collector which is appropriate for me in residential and the future change would allow for up to the 25 units of townhomes other than that is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and for that i'll stand with questions okay do you have any questions for staff seeing none at this point we would ask that uh applicant to come up and present their case good morning commissioners uh for the record uh john bannon with wooden associates engineering uh 1925 bartow road uh lakeland florida um here on behalf of the applicant um and just quickly uh thank you to staff for the report thank you for the recommendation um it's a small site the overall site's 5.8 acres again just requesting the rm on the upland which is about 2.55 acres um just on the density to get to 10 units an acre it would it would require a pd so seven units an acre um is all that we're looking at doing um so it's i think at two and a half acres you get about 16 units there so um looking at you know um 16 like townhome units so when you look at the overall site that's only about uh 2.7 units an acre when you factor in the overall site that area of overlook you've got kind of a mix of uses there you've got you've got commercial further west you've got institution um as far as churches and you've got um some apartments further west on orchid um and again there's rm directly across the street so um happy to take any questions you guys have thank you any questions for the applicant seeing them we'll open the floor to the public anyone here to speak for or against this case please step forward right seeing none we're back to the applicant any further words sir you're good all right we'll bring the case back to the board for discussion and or motion mr chairman i make a motion that we approve case ldc pas 2024-34 second we have a motion and second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion merle bishop i'm for the motion renee heath abstain mike schmidt for the motion linda schultz for the motion adam bass for the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you next case please all right number nine on the agenda is ldpd 2024-21 the tyner road rrd and alia and gleema is your planner good morning alia and gleema with land development presenting number nine on the agenda ldpd 2024-21 the tyner road rrd the applicant is proposing a rural residential development to develop seven single-family lots on approximately 7.94 acres the subject site is located south of penny lane north of lake hatchena hall road west of tyner road east of the city of dundee and section 13 township 28 range 27. on january 21st 16 mailers were sent to area property owners one sign was posted on january 17th a legal ad was published in the polk sun on february 19th and one email in opposition was received mr chair moved to expedite we have a motion to expedite anyone here to speak for against this case all right seeing none do we have a second second we have a motion and a second all in favor to expedite aye please expedite the site is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and i'll stand for questions wow i like that she even picked up the pace on the talking so all right any further questions for staff is the applicant here okay you're good you want to come on up you're good all right everyone's good with that i'll bring the item back to the board for discussion and or motion mr chair i'm going to approve ldpd 2024-21 second we have a motion a second roll call please barbell trail for the motion david dalton for the motion roll bishop i'm for the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion linda schultz for the motion adam bass for the motion the motion passes mr chairman thank you sir next case please all right number 10 on the agenda for the record enance land development staff recommends approval ldpd 2024-20 a request for 249 dwelling units consisting of a mixture of multi-family multi-family townhomes and single-family detached lots on approximately 37 acres the subject site is located on the southeast corner of south wabash avenue and ariana street north of faye street west of southern avenue west of the city of lakeland and section 26 township 28 range 23 for the record on february 18th 85 mailers were sent to area property owners four signs are posted on february 14th and a legal ad was published on february 19th and staff has received no response this is the subject site in the southern wabash area and close to multiple collector and arterial roadways including ariana harden us 92 south florida avenue and polk parkway schools grocery retail parks and an elementary school are located nearby and a gas station is across the street as is a vehicle repair business this particular project is in an area surrounded mostly by the city of lakeland but within the county's transit supported development area and residential low for future land use districts which allow residential densities up to seven dwelling dwelling units per acre by right the application is here today because multi-family is a c3 conditional use in rl4 and the detached single-family lots will go below 6 000 square feet which is the rl4 standard here's a closer look at the site to the east and south are unplatted single-family lots many of which have old mobile homes or even rv trailers and many of the lots are vacant the wabash community centers to the northeast this area has been pretty well developed since the 1980s well prior to the comprehensive plan and land development code this property is actually mapped within the wabash redevelopment district a county designation that identifies areas in needs of affordable workforce or special needs housing and one other note to this site the planned southern wabash extension is located on the western side will that will eventually connect this area to harden to south lake lakeside village and lakeland and provide additional access to this site this is a pretty unique plan development request here that really checks the boxes for much of what has been planned or what the plan has directs to this area in terms of density and housing types what is being proposed to make sure 249 townhomes and single-family lots the townhomes will require the conditional use approval and generally multi-family uses in residential low are limited to four units per building as this is intended to encourage townhome developments rather than apartment complexes exceeding this though is allowed through the plan of commission approval only in the tsda where this is located the townhomes resemble single-family homes in nature and be limited to two stories the single family detached units are described as patio homes essentially these are detached townhomes with a zero lot line layout according to the applicant minimum lot size will be reduced to 2550 square feet side setbacks will be reduced from seven to five feet on one side and zero feet on the other the rear yard though will have setbacks at 15 feet more than the 10 foot standard required in rl4 wetlands on site will not be impacted by lots and there is ample open space in the form of landscape stormwater ponds that will feature walking paths along the perimeter large amenity center is planned with internal sidewalk connectivity to all recreational spaces this is a brief preliminary impact assessment the site is very well located and has urban level infrastructure available nearby sidewalks will be required along the front edge to tie into the existing sidewalk network that will connect the site to two city parks bus stops and an elementary school site plan shows multiple ingress and egress points that will diffuse the traffic impacts across the adjoining roads and lakeland's utility infrastructure is located adjacent to the site so all that these items will be further reviewed at the time of level two review of note here wastewater connection is currently being evaluated by the city as they approve their system in the area the site is within a stress basin which will require a higher level of stormwater treatment and right-of-way dedication and a major traffic study will be necessary to improve the roadways and further identify any inefficiencies in the system and of course the wabash extension is going to have an effect on this whole area here's a quick look at the site plan over the property type b landscaping is going to be required along the eastern and southern property lines the surrounding development is certainly older but remains mostly residential in nature with uses that support residential development around it again staff recommends approval the site plan allows for a diversity of housing types in an area identified by our comprehensive plan as eligible for higher density and which encourages affordable workforcing housing choices aside from the traditional single-family detached lot urban level services are present that are projected to have capacity at the time of the level two engineered site plan review the location is excellent with multiple urban collective roadways in the polk parkway in proximity schools parks and mass transits are all connected by existing sidewalks with retail and grocery centers nearby multiple large employers also within a couple miles of the site the request is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with land development code and comprehensive plan with that i think you will stand for questions any questions for staff i have one quick question you may have said this i missed it uh the city of lakeland planning reviewed this and get any comments from them yes i've been in communication with the city of lake and i know the applicant has too there's talk about a connectivity of the roads and of course the extension of south wall of ash did this involve an annexation agreement no they're not contiguous to the city side oh i know but i just wondered if you had an annexation agreement that when they become contiguous they annex go ahead we'll start go with the apple okay good morning commissioners for the record bart allen land use attorney with the peterson and meyers law firm my address is 225 east lemon street legland florida here this morning on behalf of the applicant meritage holmes of florida to answer your question before i get into some other things when we deal with the actual connection of the utilities and actually start moving forward with the connection of utilities i would fully expect to have to do a voluntary annexation agreement we have not had to do that at this point um we have been in lengthy discussions with them about utilities how to get utilities and things like that but they haven't moved to that level of um conversation with me this morning just kind of kind of get back i got a couple housekeeping things and um i wanted to introduce miss betsy jolly miss betsy's uh miss jolly's here from marriage home she's been been the for development manager on this on this project um intimate with this and um has done a lot of um projects with marriage and we can talk a little bit more about this project in just a moment um oh that's not what i'm looking for i also have with me um miss rhea hunter from rvi she is an aicp planner um she graduated from the university of mumbai with her bachelor's degree she has a master's of regional planning from cornell she's here in the event that there's any questions regarding the planning aspects of this of this project i also have mr brian jackson who is a professional engineer with atwell he's got his bachelor's from cal polytech and is a licensed professional engineer in both california and the state of florida we would request that to the extent that they need to speak that they would be deemed experts in urban planning and engineering respectively and have copies of their resumes for anybody to look at and for the record do we have a motion to accept them or do we want to pass them i have a motion that we accept second we have a motion and second for accepting of the expert all in favor all right all right i'm going to move through this pretty quick um a lot of what as is often the case a lot of what i put in a presentation tends to be a lot what staff puts in a presentation and as usual mr nance covered a lot of the things that i was going to cover but i think what we really want to bring this back to is we are asking to implement a site plan to allow a variety and a flexible development plan that will meet the in spirit and the intent of the comprehensive plan that allows seven dwelling units an acre on this piece of property so this is more about how we're getting to that uh seven dwelling units an acre more so than it is the actual request for seven dwelling units an acre the property has a residential low for lane use classification today it is in the tsda and as we've discussed that tsda by right allows seven dwelling units an acre and that's straight out of the comprehensive plan as well as followed up by uh an administrative determination that was made by the land development director in 2023 that recognizes that so without the pd the pd is required for the setbacks and the and the design criteria of the unit types that were that we were asking for it is not necessarily tied to the density interestingly this is one of the first projects that i can recall working on that's in actually in a redevelopment district and um so i thought that wasn't i thought that was important to highlight this is in an area where where your comp plan encourages increased density it encourages design flexibility uh there's even impact fee consideration even though we haven't discussed that for you know different different levels of impact fee consideration for these projects because these are areas that are in field development that that are uh that are looking to be redeveloped for purposes of these kinds of projects so i thought that was just really interesting and wanted to highlight that this is the site plan mr nance went over it with you in detail what we are asking for here is is design flexibility to reach that seven dwelling units an acre and this is a what we are proposing here is a combination of single family detached single fam uh single family attached townhomes which are now classified as multi-family in the in our codes but also looking at doing some zero lot line patio type units which are different than what you typically see and we'll we'll walk through that a little bit but the overall intent is to try to use a piece of property like this that and bring something that now becomes reaching more of that affordable um in that attainable workforce housing um as as best we can given the market conditions um but you know i'm not going to belabor the points of ariana street and wabash but this project does um evaluate the future wabash wabash extension we are not adversely impacting that there were some of those i've received some questions on that and i just wanted for the record we're accommodating it we're not adversely impacting the city's future wabash extension looking at kind of diving into into the specifics of what we're doing we are doing the patio homes are probably the most unique they're you know we're looking at smaller lot sizes but we're also looking at doing zero lot line and we'll talk a little bit about why we're doing that and that is meritage is not just a florida builder they build in other in other areas of our country specifically this is some you'll see some images that i'm about to go through that are pictures of this product being implemented in houston texas in other developments occurring today um just for the record some of those design criteria like 25 foot garage step backs that we have they did not have to abide by so so when you see some of these images recognize we are still meeting the county's code for certain criteria like that but we wanted to demonstrate how these products work in real life in other in other parts of the country so housing choices equals affordability that's the purposes of providing and you can see the different types of housing types whether it's the zero lot line townhomes kind of in the bottom right corner um how those elevations might look and function um in in real life but it brings affordability back to the market rather than everything being a single family detached home with a large yard now you start having smaller lots less maintenance or maintenance that's actually accommodated by the property owners association on a whole rather than the responsibility of individual property owners of course those decisions are to become to come later but those are the kinds of things that get that get built into these kinds of projects again some more examples of the patio homes kind of how they look what you know internal inside the homes kind of the backyards how they how they function with the patios these are some examples of townhomes that were built in other markets that were done by meritage all meritage projects again the townhomes is what is being implemented on the site plan today but we are also implementing conditions of approval that allow us flexibility to move some things around change unit types in and out things like that because we are fairly far away from knowing specifically what's going to be built here we wanted to provide as much flexibility in the pd as possible and we appreciate staff we we worked hard on on getting getting to that um i think it's also important to note that two car garages um every home we provided as you can see in the bottom right uh additional visitor parking which is a requirement of your pd but showing how that works and again in real life and other projects is important we met with your engineering department before we ever followed an application on this um to talk about these kinds of projects we had a pre-design meeting with them before we ever had a pre-design meeting for a for a pd to make sure that the engineering department all of the different disciplines were going to be satisfied that ingress and egress was going to work that we were going to be able to provide garbage collection that fire trucks and ems could get in and out of here hear their concerns and address them up front in the pd and and i commend meritage for going that extra mile to actually introducing the project to that level one of the other things that's kind of incorporated in this pd is typical in a typical single family subdivision you see sidewalks on both sides of the roads and that's kind of the you know how it works right and that's how the interconnectivity we are proposing to do some alternative sidewalk plans where they're not necessarily all just on the side of the road they kind of meander through the project they allow more interconnectivity of the open spaces and the um amenity centers and that's not always just on the road so still again meeting the intent of providing all that pedestrian connectivity but doing it in a little bit of a different more unique way so that's you know that's what and you can see here how these sidewalks don't just necessarily walk go along the sides they kind of meander around and behind and through through the development this this efficient use of land helps us keep costs low while still providing the amenities and the um the the type of living spaces that the market is desire desiring right now so it is this is again all in an effort to just promote affordability of homes monotony controls enhanced landscaping the firewalls those are all of the kinds of conversations that we had with the engineering and the fire marshal and your tech the more technical reviews because when you go to zero lot line the homes do get closer we have to make sure that we're designing them to the correct standard those things are already being incorporated one thing that i had not seen and i was new to me i'm not saying new to everybody but providing that the gutters and the drainage from the homes go directly you know the stormwater collection system rather than running through swales so they're all going to be directly piped those kinds of things will help manage stormwater flows and stormwater runoff those are the types of those are the types of improvements and enhancements that are that are built in that marriage is proposing to do so with that that's kind of the overview of the project we know there's a number of additional steps we have to go through full level two engineering design and permitting there's going to be additional environmental work done on the site whether that is from the species reviews and wetlands and floodplain things of that nature we have to go through transportation there will be a major track transportation study that's required from we have to solidify our utility connections with the city of lakeland schools we've already asked for a non-binding letter we received that on march 3rd for this project there is available capacity in the zone schools for this for this project so you know at least preliminarily we feel like we're in a good place as it relates to school capacity so we think this project meets all the spirit and intent of the comprehensive plan for a project in this area so with that i'll sit down we have a favorable staff recommendation we would request a favorable approval of this pd of ldpd 24 2024-20 if there's any residents who would wish to speak obviously this is a the opportunity to do so we would request a few moments afterward for rebuttal but we'll be i have my entire team i have my experts here if there's any technical questions that we can't handle um we you know we'll we'll be happy to answer them so thank you and we'll request approval thank you mr allen anybody have any questions for the applicant or any of their experts as you uh mr chair mr allen just can you touch a bit more on uh condition number two that talks about the swapping of the townhome units and the single family units so typically in a in a level in a in a pd type approval a level three approval what we we have a binding site plan right what the level two minor modification provisions allow they allow you to reduce intensity they allow you to move certain things around as long as you're not doing it creating a more intense issue on the outside as you move to the edge of the boundary what we're really doing is just kind of codifying that as part of our conditions of approval to recognize up front that we may switch units around and move things around and that's what that that's what that condition does it's really more of a memorialization of what's allowed at level two okay okay understood thank you all right any other questions for the applicant mr schmidt you're suggesting that the density and intensity is compatible with the surrounding area yes i grew up in that area and i know that area well i i i don't see anything even on your aerials that would suggest that how are you with the comprehensive plan indicates that this is residential low with the sub-district of four we are also in the tsda the tsda by by definition requires us to be at least three dwelling units an acre so we have a three dwelling unit per acre minimum requirement and then we have a seven dwelling unit per acre maximum and it is based on the comp plan the way that the provisions are written that is your policy that is what is allowed and by virtue of that now i'm not going to give you legal advice you have miss miss howard up here by virtue of that it is by per se compatible because that is what your comprehensive plan directs and allows outside of outside of any other arguments which how many units are here uh seven dwelling units an acre 249 units any other questions for the applicant all right anyone here to speak for or against this case please step forward all right seeing none mr allen i assume since no one may any more all right with that we'll bring the item to the board for discussion or emotion mr chair i'm going to approve ldpd 2024-20 second we have a motion and a second roll call please robert beltrane i'm for the member beltrane yeah when you flip it over i just wait i have to take study that a minute uh david dalton for the motion earl bishop i'm for the motion renee heath for the motion mike schmidt against the motion linda schultz for the motion adam bass for the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you mr all right three times is a lot but thank you next case please yeah number 11 on the agenda is ldct 2025-2 the institutional two sorry go ahead no problem number 11 on the agenda is ldct 2025-2 kyle roguis is your planner good morning kyle roguis for land development presenting ldct 2025-2 the institutional 2 outdoor storage and vehicle service mechanical land development code text amendment this is a county initiated ldc text amendment to chapter 2 section 205 table 2.1 the use table for standard land use districts to add vehicle service mechanical as a conditional use in institutional 2 land use district in chapter 2 section 2060 to allow outdoor storage in the institutional 2 land use district a legal ad was mr chairman moved to expedite thank you motion in the second exprite no one here speak for or against us seeing none all in favor aye please expedite uh just again this is the county initiated land development text amendment this is part of an ongoing effort by the county to conform existing facilities to the land development code and comprehensive plan standards and with that i stand for questions any questions for staff seeing none i'll bring the item nobody's here to speak for or against one of their expires procedures back the item back to the board for discussion and or a motion mr chairman moved to approve yeah thank you motion in the second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion royal bishop i'm for the motion randy heath for the motion mike schmidt for the motion linda schultz for the motion adam bass for the motion mr chairman the motion passes all right we have one more item on our agenda good morning good shonda bennett with land development division here to give you a update on the conference plan so my hook is the theme of it is 15 6 2 and may so before i get to that explanation i got to keep you interested randy um so i wanted just to follow up a little bit about last month we talked a little bit about um what we heard more specifically from the public outreach in the surveys that we got we drilled down instead of the bigger concepts and then we talked about um at the very end uh impact fee credits for sidewalks so i wanted to follow up on that concept specifically i did talk to um ben and ben and john bode and jay jarvis on are those eligible for impact fee credits they're not because they're not capacity improvements we don't have a multimodal fee in the impact fee but we chatted well could there be an infrastructure agreement or something so i just want to let you know i'm not going to ignore it we're going to keep that discussion which leads into my hook comment of 15 6 and 2. so the board of county commissioners some of you may already be paying attention directed us to delay the non-statutory type amendments the conference of plan by six months so that we can meet with a 15 member committee twice a month for about six months starting in may so what we'll send to you in june will just be the statutory required amendments to the tax to the policies like outdated policies removing 9j5 uh reports that said they had to be done by an earlier year get those out of there things like that so theoretically what you see in june shouldn't be controversial just more cleanup type stuff is that going to be just a draft or is that going to be the final version the what in june that you see it'll be a final version for your consideration to go to the board to see it before it gets here um that's the goal okay um thank you mr schmidt thank you um so uh that's really the update uh the board will pick two board members a piece staff has chosen five that was the direction that staff chose five school board member central florida development council polk vision polk county village association central florida develop regional planning council or those are the staff five and then we haven't heard the board members yet we're waiting on that and each board each board member gets to pick two for that committee yes sir yeah so that makes up with the five that this now that what you just named off is that the five that the staff recommending okay and miss howard will be working on a resolution that will go to the board sometime soon of uh the parameters of that and how long which is about six months the goal is to start and finish it in six months so no one on this board can be on that committee because it's coming in front of this board correct sandy's saying yes good thank you but just as a follow-up to that we are well that's a public meeting we're welcome to listen to the discussion absolutely yes and um we do have um three listening sessions that we are hosting in april and um i should have provided those states to you i will email them to you um so but even though we're not bringing to you these policies in june we still have to work on them anyway because um the board directed us to still proceed as if we were going to provide you those policy changes in june because what we want to do is have them for the committee but the goal was always in the scope to have three listening listening sessions with the community that we met with when we did the seven workshops here's the draft of the changes what is your opinion public and then we take those changes from that those what we hear at those meetings and then go into the committee in may with those changes and then bring the staff's recommendation the committee's recommendation to you all and the board uh and we also have uh hopefully planned an october 1st workshop with the board on the direction that we're taking with some of the policy changes based on the public input so what we're drafting is really based on the public input and what the we've heard the board members tell us as well so i have a question so go ahead does this since you're now extended at six months for the non-statutory requirements and i assume that that's uh amending the consultant's contract extending their contract so they're going to continue to work with the county throughout this process yeah okay absolutely absolutely um and that um okay oh go ahead you finished i just i can't remember the very end date but we had originally tried to get to the adoption of december but for the so the non-statutory ear-based changes the non-ear-based changes that's going to go to june ish probably fall for adoption go ahead runny you have a quick question i'm gonna um just for clear for my general knowledge when you the policies that are going to change in the comprehensive plan and apparently there's going to be some changes then you got to incorporate those into the land development code is that going to be done at the same time adopted at the same time i do not believe so we have yep mr fiscal so i stumped you is that what you're saying further clarification just further clarification good good morning for the record ben zisco land development director uh mr heath no they will not be done at the same time florida statutes requires us to update the land development code within one year of adoption of the comprehensive plan so once the comprehensive plan is updated we'll start that next process of providing that continuity over the next year i had a quick question on the schedule again i'm a little confused so between now and june we're going to do the stuff that's required the cleanup stuff at the same time you're drafting policies that from june till december another six months that will then come back potentially at the end of the year give or take i don't think it'll come to you by the end of the year i think it'll be winter spring that'll come to you because what we need to make sure is the changes that the committee recommends we may have to alter some data alter justifications etc um to prepare a new package of what that what that might look like um we've already discussed to this point potential land use changes that um are based on comments that we've heard from the public uh the committee might offer some others uh that we need to consider so it's gonna that'll take a bit of time to be responsive to the end result of that committee we're going to do what's statutorily required first at the same time you guys are starting to draft these concepts so you can start floating through the six month process and then it'll all come back here early next year potentially yes all right thank you and one thing i think um is something that to consider that we're considering is this the thornhill case that you heard today is a perfect example of changing ways to consider compatibility and you all should be very proud of yourselves not that you need me to tell you that but that you had a good discussion about really macro and micro compatibility and certainly mr schmidt mr bass you were thinking macro and micro others were thinking macro and those are two very valid approaches to compatibility um and we struggle with that on a regular basis i think uh historically we've thought more about micro over macro because we don't have zoning code so i just want to throw that out there that there's maybe shifting ways to think about some of that you know we have these conditional cpas that we have that can we can use um we have different methods of adding buffering and different standards to the code so it could be a shift and i think part of that shifting and how people view compatibility is and some are going i think either direction some are going more micro because the growth has been so fast and some to the citizens i think scary and then on the other side is well because we've grown so fast we have to think more micro macro so it's just there's lots of layers there and i just wanted to throw that out there about that consideration that i suspect that's some of the conversations we're going to have with more residents with this committee uh with the board um with you all when we bring this the the more substantive change policy changes next year so just food for thought and i can just add on those listening sessions they are posted online the three sessions in march um six to eight p.m on april 15th 17th and 22nd a different place happy to help the internet the internet the 15th 18th the 20th sorry 15th 17th and 22nd uh the 15th is in davenport at the tom fellows community center 17th is at the advent field house and the 22nd is at the magnolia building in lakeland and those are all from 6 to 8 p.m i want to thank you for the gold star we appreciate your comments of our great job so thank you good job thank you we do appreciate you mr chair uh will the content of those meetings be pretty much the same at all three is that correct yes yes okay okay good thank you at this point what we're thinking of it will have less of a big presentation like we did the other seven it might be more um we have different tables for different elements or different themes for the policy changes and have just kind of interaction discussion on what those would be an opportunity for people to write down comments or provide us comments so we're thinking more interaction we are big presentation okay yeah i was just trying to figure out if i should go to one or if there's any need to go to go to all three of them the website does say choose one of the date options implies that you just need to go to one okay thank you chandra when you guys get that feedback and you have a chance to summarize it can you bring that back to us yeah that'd be great absolutely just in case we don't make it to all three yeah so i can plan on doing that the may your may planning commission perfect i appreciate that any other questions for staff great with that i think we have no further business i'll take a motion to close second motion a second all in favor of adjournment aye aye thank you