i'm going to go ahead and call the meeting to order today's may 7th uh roll call robert beltram present david dalton present royal bishop present mike hickman present renee heath mike schmidt president linda schultz present and alternate kevin updike i'm here yeah and because mr heath is not here we'll ask mr updike to take action on all the items today come on up kevin he'll says in his behalf please represent him well all right so let's stand for the pledge of allegiance our next item on the agenda is the adoption of the minutes uh i understand according to our workshop that those will be postponed to our next meeting yes sir that's correct all right and just final converse uh confirmation of the agenda we should take a motion on the revised agenda yes sir do i have a motion for a revised agenda i move mr chairman second we have a motion second all in favor aye all right with that we'll turn it over to our attorney 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 notifications 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 one there is no opposition to the case present at the hearing two the recommendation of the office of land development is for approval be all 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 a party decides to appeal a decision made by the planning commission with respect to any level three review he or she will need a record and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made the record includes all testimony and evidence given at the hearing each person or party that qualifies to file such an appeal must independently exercise 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 be further 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 that public hearing regarding level four 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 communications or site visits they have had regarding the matter and question the members regarding their communications or site visits unless the commission member recuses 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 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 firm that the testimony and evidence you present 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 dear 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 we have a motion and second all in favor aye 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 a recommendation as to whether the application is consistent with those criteria regarding compatibility the commission must determine whether the application is compatible with the surrounding area the commission will be presented with testimony and evidence at the hearing both written and oral by law the only evidence the commission 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 competent substantial evidence evidence that is fact-based and relevant to the applicable criteria staff reports and staff presentations citizen testimony may be competent substantial evidence so long as it is fact-based and may include testimony regarding subjective matters that do not require expertise such as aesthetic incompatibility of a project with the surrounding neighborhood however popularity polls petitions testimony that is hypothetical speculative based on fear or consists of generalized statements that do not address the land development 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 thank you and we'll go ahead and start with our new business there is no old business items uh just as a reminder please silence your cell phones and we're ready to introduce our first case all right first up on the agenda is ldcu 2025-4 the mendoza mobile home case and andrew grachowski is your planner good morning for the record andrew grachowski presenting ldcu 2025-4 the elena mendoza mobile home case the applicant is requesting a conditional use approval to replace a now demolished manufactured home with a mobile home to be located at 101 lee's road on approximately 1.23 acres had a mobile home been located adjacent to the subject parcel or if the property was greater than five acres additional approval by the planning commission would not be necessary nonetheless there are two mobile homes on the same street as the subject request and staff finds the request to be consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan and recommends approval the subject site is located at 101 lee's road south of old dixie highway also known as county road 546 and east of the polk parkway the subject parcel is approximately 1.23 acres within the residential suburban future land use district the general location of the property is in the fussels corner area where the likelihood of finding other mobile homes is commonplace two examples of this are mobile home parks near the site location on december 12 1989 a mobile home park consisting of a golf course and recreational facilities also known as the hamptons received board final approval to begin construction of 829 mobile homes in addition on may 21st 1991 the board granted final approval to develop a 55 plus mobile home park known as schmarr creek consisting of 116 mobile homes on 33.6 acres these and these two retirement communities have remained in existence since then and are and are in close proximity to the subject site of about a mile or less give or take here is a closer view of the subject area lee's road is a neighborhood that consists of six residentially designated properties including the subject site last year the applicant demolished in 1970s manufactured home and wishes to replace the building with a mobile home in the general vicinity and specifically to the west of the site location there are a significant number of mobile homes that are interspersed throughout the area site built residences are indicated with red circles while mobile homes are indicated by the green triangles for reference there are two mobile homes on the same block as the subject request two platted subdivisions to the west contain mobile homes that comprise 67 and 80 percent of their respective neighborhoods the site plan submitted for the record indicates the mobile home will exceed all required setbacks in the rs district the subject site has about 184 feet of frontage on old dixie highway a publicly maintained county roadway with driveway access coming from lee's road the proper the proposed development will utilize an on-site septic tank and private well here are some photos taken during the site visit two mobile homes already exist along lee's road while the nearest mobile home to the subject site is approximately 70 feet away to the north across old dixie highway as you can see on the image on the bottom left staff recommends approval the request meets the compatibility standards set in section 220 of the land development code code and all required setbacks in the rs district as previous previously mentioned mobile homes are found throughout the fossils corner area with two large mobile home parks nearby and subdivisions with the with the majority having mobile homes the property is not anticipated to cause any public safety concerns nor place a strain on existing infrastructure schools or emergency services as it is replacing what was already an existing residence and with that i thank you and i stand for questions any questions for staff seeing none is the applicant here please come forward state your name and address for the record the applicant is not here is there anybody here to speak for or against this case if there's nobody here to speak for or against it i think we can proceed all right with that we'll come back to staff any other questions for staff if not i'll entertain the discussion or motion on the board mr chair i'm going to approve ldcu 2025-4 we have a motion in two seconds um roll call please robert viltram for the motion david dalton for the motion roll bishop i'm for the motion mike hickman mike schmidt for the motion linda schultz for the motion i'm for the motion mr chairman the motion passes thank you all right next item good morning next item is ldcpas 2025-3 small scale conference plan amendment and jp is the case planner good morning jp sims of land development uh ldcpas-2025-3 is the lake gibson estates comprehensive plan amendment we are looking at changing 2.52 acres of residential low three in the urban growth area to the in the tcco corridor to residential medium the subject property is located south of markham east of us highway 98 west of norton road and north of daughtry road and east of the lakeland city limits there were 55 mailers sent out to property area area property owners on april 23rd i received no response from the public there was one sign posted on april 23rd and the legal ad was published in the polk sun on april 23rd as well so in the county we're going north of i-4 on us highway 98 near markham road if you look at the aerial from above in the context you can see the daughtry road right here now the site in particular is highlighted in yellow it is already surrounded by development that is existing so the site itself is undeveloped but everything around it is already built us highway 98 is in close proximity to the site so on a close-up what you can see is and this is something i want to make sure i go over because when you look at what the future land use is going to look like on the map with the color change it's going to look a little out of place however if you look everything around it is already currently developed with a similar fashion so to the north of it those are all duplexes that are up here along the road to the north every one of those site is currently a duplex this assisted living facility over here to the east does have 62 units inside of it i did confirm that with staff on site and there is single family residential to the west and to the south so the site itself originally was already approved for a planned development with 12 duplex units and the increased density that they're going for residential medium will give them 16 duplex units as well so we're increasing the units on site from 12 to 16. so as i mentioned before this is currently residential low three there is community activity center to the west and you can see over there in the corner the city of lakeland city limits is a little close by but daughtry road itself does have available capacity the water is going to be serviced by a company called aqua utilities and there is a city of lakeland wastewater lines that do run in proximity to the area so if you do the color change like said it will look out of place almost like it's spot zoning or something of that nature however when you look at what's actually on the ground and developed on site the duplexes that the applicant is wanting to develop on site is not out of context with what is currently surrounding it so looking west down west daughtry road you can see that the site has already been cleared out because like said it was already approved for a planned development now we're just looking to go for an increased density looking east down daughtry again in both directions you can see not a whole lot of traffic coming in this is middle of the day on a friday so not too bad and then looking at the site itself as i mentioned it does have some clearing already to it but it was already approved for development which going for the increased density now as far as impact is concerned it does have close availability with all emergency services there's available capacity on the roads there is water and wastewater lines available and the schools itself the elementary school is fine the middle and the high school are right there at the capacity but with the one anticipated students the concurrency will have to be done once the actual development has occurred so as far as our justification of approval like said the site was already approved with a planned development we're going from 12 duplex units to 16 dwelling units per the applicant's request it's already a budding duplexes to the north and assisted living facility to the east and it does access directly onto an urban collector road which is appropriate for residential medium uses and there is an arterial close by on us highway 98 to the west it will have access to water and wastewater lines which is appropriate again for that usage and the change is consistent with our comprehensive plan and land development code so with that i'll stand for any questions for staff i had a quick question just can you go back a couple to the land use map that you were talking about and can you talk to me you said next to it was a facility had 64 beds i think you said 62 62 was that grandfathered in or is i mean it doesn't seem like it fits the zoning that's there um i'm going to be perfectly honest i didn't look at the origin of that facility okay but i did call to confirm just to see how many people that you have on site just because i wanted to make sure what the density was appropriateness to what's being requested so is there a need to come back and fix the map a little bit to what's actually there at some point in time in the future i mean one of the things we've always talked about is you know whether or not the future land use itself should reflect directly what's on the ground or if you know we anticipate for what's there in the future but i mean you know shauna would you be able to speak to that maybe as far as how we approach that the institutional policies in the conference plan do allow these kind of facilities in all land use classifications which that means in the code it would be a level three or level four review so it's not that it's non-conforming but yes the map doesn't reflect the facility so certainly it's grandfathered in so the choice for them would be if they want to expand it's potentially a public hearing or then at that point if they do expand we can talk to them about well do you want to do institutional or do you not want to do or do you want to stay um uh we don't always do a county initiated amendment in these kind of situations uh but it's something we consider we just haven't thought about that here because they haven't complained yeah yeah i was just curious i appreciate that all right with that is the applicant here please state your name and address for the record good morning chad brooker with traditions engineering address 900 orchid springs drive um i don't really have anything to add to this i think uh the county did very well covering it so i'll stand for any questions you have any questions for the applicant all right seeing none anything any uh is there anyone here to speak for or against this case please step forward all right seeing none we close the public hearing portion of the meeting back to staff any closing words staff if not i'll take a motion or a discussion at the board mr chair i'm going to approve ldcpas 2025-3 we have a motion in the second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion roll bishop i'm for the motion mike hickman for irish mike schmidt or the motion linda schultz for the motion heaven updike mr chairman motion passes next case please next case is ldcpas 2025-5 it's the lake hancock road conference plan amendment and jp's the case planner still here so you have to deal with me all right so jp sims uh land development so ldcpas dash 2025-5 is the lake hancock road comprehensive plan amendment this is a request to change the future land use designation from business park center 2 to residential low 1 on 2.28 acres of property in the transit supportive development area the tcco corridor and center and the us 98 selected area plan subject property is located south of state road 540 winter lake road west of elam road uh i'm sorry west of elam road east of us highway 98 north of lake hancock road and the us 98 selected area plan north of the bartow city limits uh there were 18 mailers sent out to property area owners on april 23rd 2025 we received no response from the public one sign was posted on april 23rd and the legal ad was published in the polk son on april 23rd 2025. so we're actually still along the us 98 corridor we're just south uh of there over the previous case so now we're looking south of the parkway uh near highland city so us highway 98 right is uh running right here lake hancock road runs along right here you can see the highland city uh publics that's down here so on a close-up of the site you can see that there's not direct development to the north of it even though the business park center 2 is the current designation there is a house that slightly overlaps on the parcel line but if you go to the property appraisers website the only thing is officially constructed on the parcel is a pole barn over here on the side so currently it does says business park center 2 the applicant is requesting to change it to residential low that way they construct one additional house on site and it does have a private easement that accesses the site directly off of lake hancock road so with color change like i said we would go to residential low one residential low four is to the south and to the east and then to the west and the north is the business park center 2 which is currently undeveloped so looking west down lake hancock road from the beginning of the easement you can see that there are um like cemetery markers right there so that was the small bit of institutional that was on the prior map and then looking east down landcock lake hancock road again you can see the beginning of the easement right here where i'm standing which accesses the site to the north and then looking directly down the private easement the site is at the end of the private easement as far as impact is concerned there is available uh capacity in all of the items that it would need city of lakeland utility service area runs water and wastewater in this area there is capacity in the schools there are nearby parks and emergency services and the road lake hancock road does have available capacity for any additional residential development but like i said we're only looking at adding one additional home so would not negatively affect it justification for approval and use change from business park center 2 to residential low 1 is compatible as it has already developed residentially in that area the sites abutting the subject site are all residential to the south and the east and the bpc2 that is directly adjacent to it to the west and the north is undeveloped lake hancock road is an urban collector which is appropriate for residential load access onto with close proximity to us 98 to the west and the applicant is requesting the future land use change for those construction of single family residential or one dwelling unit this change is consistent with our comprehensive plan and land development code and with that i'll stand for question any questions for staff go ahead so this site is on water and sewer is that from what i saw on the map yeah okay and uh that private easement how many homes are on that private easement now uh i believe there's three okay and what's the limitation for access on private easement yeah four total that's all thank you okay thank you there's three on it now yes and they're asking for two more what one more okay and if they need more in the future they can come back yes okay any other questions for staff so if you said four on an easement how do they how would someone come back and put additional homes they'd have to come back before the planning commission to exceed four but they will do that if they choose to in the future but i mean in the past have they has the planning commission done that not a bigger case but another area yeah yeah no i'm just yes okay any other questions seeing none is the applicant here in the audience please come forward state your name and address for the record and i don't believe you i think you guys here got a little late we're gonna need you to swear in before your testimony okay and we're the ones requesting okay hold on one second and you need to look can you lower the microphone for us and wait one second a lot of instructions if you'll just raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony and evidence you present to the planning commission today will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you now go ahead name and address for the record then anna maria baker 4136 lake hancock road lakeland florida 33812 okay anything to add to what you've heard from the staff there was a question about water and sewer it's it's septic and and well at this time it would be septic and well i thought that was odd that sewer would be out yeah yeah the gis line did show like there was a line right there and with reference to the easement uh the other homes on that um easement actually each home has its own easement so the easement that you're showing is is connected to our home which is connected to that property so there would actually only they're all flag lots then they're all correct yes any other questions for the afternoon that was it i just want to make sure you understand that that business park center is zoned right to the north of you right oh yeah okay we're very aware all right that's it all right uh with that we will thank you have a blessed day yep we'll turn the floor open anyone here to speak for or against this case please step forward all right it's been a fun day today um seeing none we'll go back to staff anything to add staff or no sir all right discussion and or motion mr chair i'm going to approve ldc pas 2025-5 second we have a motion a second roll call please robert beltram for the motion david dalton for the motion roll bishop i'm for the motion mike hickman for the motion mike schmidt for the motion linda schultz have an update for the motion motion passes mr all right that concludes all our cases for today now we have a update from staff and staff you have two minutes to get the record here for 9 30 minutes go ahead good morning there's shonda bennett with land development division so if you may remember a few months ago the planning commission asked that the consultant for our conference plan update be present at today's specific meeting of course that was when we thought the full rewrite was going to be presented to you in june we have altered that the board's altered that for us eric's going to go into that a little bit eric rosh with inspire placemaking we'll go into that for a little bit with you and also the ear based amendments evaluation and appraiser report based amendments that you'll hear next month you received part of the documentation already with your packet the data and analysis for the ear update and a nice it well put together long spreadsheet of state statute changes and how we have to reflect that in our conference plan and then after eric is done and any questions you have uh mr ziskell is going to get up and talk about a few legislative changes in state law that might impact how we proceed so thank you thank you miss bennett good morning uh for the record eric rosh with inspire placemaking um great to be with you here today to talk about the comprehensive plan update um got a brief presentation i understand you've been provided some of the background materials for your review i'll talk through the project overview i'll give an update on the data and analysis that has been prepared to date talk through our public engagement we had a significant amount of public engagement on this project so i'll try to summarize that concisely i'll talk about the evaluation and appraisal report and the statutory changes of course this effort's been broken up into two parallel paths so i'll talk through that process the full rewrite which is what you're likely to see in 2026 and then i'll talk through the next steps for today so just an overview backing up i'm sure everyone on this commission is well aware what the comprehensive plan is you make recommendations and determinations regarding the policies in the comprehensive plan on a monthly basis but it's a state required document all 67 counties have them all municipalities are required to have them as well it really presents the vision for the long-term growth and development of the county so it helps to coordinate local decision making there's requirements for intergovernmental coordination and it also has some very important regulatory aspects policies and maps that regulate density and intensity and uses throughout the county so why are we updating it this just allows us to take a fresh look at you know the growth that's occurred since the last update the original plan was drafted in the early 90s and it's been updated from time to time had a major update during that time period but you see these periodic map amendments and text amendments that are presented by staff so this really allows us to step back and look at the totality of the plan and it allows the county to really you know proactively plan for new growth rather than just react to the applications that are being presented on a monthly basis it allows for us to take temperature of the community step back and see what issues folks are facing from not just a land use perspective but looking at transportation and conservation and housing those types of issues and then finally it's required by florida statutes so we have to go through this process every seven years so this effort will satisfy those requirements so the original process we were going to do the data analysis would you know it's where we're updating all of the maps and and all of the gis data and things like that based on the growth that's occurred since the last update public engagement where we're out talking to the community we had seven workshops on this and i'll i'll talk a little bit about that process recognize some some faces from those workshops appreciate those who showed up and then we were going to update the goals objectives and policies take it back to the community for a series of listening sessions and then go through adoption so initially that adoption hearing the first one was supposed to be next month in front of this commission we have had some changes to that the county asked to form a stakeholder committee to really dig in a little bit deeper to the updated goals objectives and policies so what we had to do was really split this into two efforts we have a statutory compliance deadline of having an adoption of the statutory changes in july so that means you will see the statutory changes next month at your meeting and then they'll be presented to the board of county commissioners in july on a parallel path we've got the full rewrite which is going to go through this newly formed comprehensive plan advisory committee to provide feedback to us so there's two separate items the statutory changes are really just cleanups and then the you know the the full rewrite is where you're going to have the bulk of the changes that we're going to discuss today so digging into the data analysis you know we did population projections for this effort and this is for unincorporated county only we're required by statutes to look at not just permanent population but we're required to look at seasonal as well so uh we're projecting out through 2050 which is going to be the new horizon year of the plan so 25 years into the future um and our our projection is you know there's going to be about 858 000 folks in unincorporated county at that time which we need to plan for we also looked at uh the ability of the existing future land use map uh to accommodate that population growth through the horizon year of 2050 so we did an analysis looking at all the future land use classifications we evaluated all the vacant property we had to make some assumptions obviously it's a large area fourth lodges county in the state so we had to to make some assumptions we know that all the future land use categories aren't going to build out to their maximum density so we put in some development factors and things of that nature to make it more realistic eliminated a lot of environmentally sensitive lands from the analysis and we found that we have the capacity to accommodate over 382 000 folks through the horizon year on the map today so that's a surplus so you you don't see this too often when you're working communities within florida but there's entitlements now today on the future land use map that would accommodate a surplus through 2050 so 90 000 people it's about 30 000 dwelling units through 2050 so that affords us a couple things one the luxury of not having to amend the future land use map to accommodate statutory changes we're required to plan for at least the medium population projection as determined by the university of flores bureau of economic and business research so we can accommodate that with no changes to the future land use map which makes the statutory changes that much easier can i ask a quick question yes sir is the population projection is that the medium projection or is that that's a good question commissioner bishop we um we use the medium high uh we had evaluated the medium and work with staff uh if you look at the last five years you're far above the medium so uh we we looked at it and went with a medium high yes sir what is the high uh i have a full memo it's in the back of your ear okay okay there's the full uh report and yeah it was it was significantly higher than that so yes sir um so the big takeaways from our our dig into the data we're anticipating around 261 000 residents through 2050 we're going to need about 109 000 housing units to accommodate and we've got the capacity on the map to do that today there's significant environmental resources within the county we've heard a lot about that through the public engagement i didn't really touch on it in the dna but we do have a full map series and evaluation of the environmental aspects of the county and we need to consider uh public facility capacity so we're talking about schools we're talking about utilities transportation parks all really important as we plan through 2050. excuse me just a moment um you're showing 193 000 housing units 157 000 of those occupied what's why do we have so many empty housing units what's the explanation for that i will i will dig into that question um is that you're referencing the ear memo in the table well both in the table and your your notes below that table i will i will dig into that i don't have the answer for you on the fly but i will definitely research it and get back with you i'm going to be back here next thing that 30 of them are unoccupied when we yeah they could be seasonal there could be other reasons for that but i'll certainly uh research that and again i'll be back here next month uh with uh you know with the statutory changes so anything that comes up today i'll prepare a response for uh for that meeting yes sir i got a quick question on the population side of it you said you're using medium high beaver yes sir i think the water management districts for the region water supply plans use medium for their planning is that create a disconnect between the two um well from our perspective we want to make it as realistic as possible for the trend that we see within the county um we um we evaluated it initially what we do because of course um beaver doesn't project just for counties uh they they do the totality of the county including municipalities so we have to tease out all of the municipalities um to to net those and they also don't project project seasonal so we have to do our own seasonal so it differs a little bit from what the water management district does it differs a little bit from what the folks who prepare the lrtp uh use uh but we feel that it's it's probably the most realistic number uh assuming that um the cities are going to grow as well so that's and you mentioned earlier that the last five years the number was at high but you still feel medium high is the right the right number i do and if you look at the the five years before that it wasn't as high as the last five years oh that was my next question let's go back further than five years yeah okay and you know we also had to look at the percentage of the county share um that's going into unincorporated versus incorporated which historically you know going back to 1970 it was about 50 50 but recently it's been about 60 40 going in unincorporated versus into the incorporated areas so as i mentioned earlier the districts use beaver medium for their projections and it's state statute the way they're permitting set up is there any kind of state reference for your guidance on using medium high or anything like that yeah we're required to use at least medium um but we're allowed to use higher i got you okay thank you question one of your first charts about population the lines were permanent and also transient i tried to read that and find a definition for that obviously permanent you know affects schools and other things the transient is that tourism what can can you give me some insight because that that transient line was you know 100 000 and i forget what it was exactly 140 000 something it's a good question and um yeah the seasonal population really that's going to include all of your snowbirds the people who are living here typically you know six months or less um so those folks do provide impacts to the county i mean you're gonna you're gonna see them on the roads and maybe not as much here but there's some counties within the state that it's the population really swells during the season so um but yeah that's the we have to plan for that yes sir all right um i'll move on into the public engagement we had uh eight stakeholder group interviews uh with internal groups within the um within the county we did three community pop-up events so we were trying to meet people where they were we understand people can't just get to a workshop on you know a tuesday evening from time to time so we were out at the hispanic festival we were out at a an event lakeland airport just trying to meet people where they were we did seven county-wide workshops we spread them around geographically we went you know down to frost proof one night and gauged the the sentiment down there um and then of course we're in bartow lakeland all over um we did three listening sessions those just wrapped up just last month where we presented some of these concepts and got feedback from the community we had over 5 000 website visits we had almost 600 surveys that were taken and there's been a full report prepared on what we heard 944 website contributions in the last visioning workshop we had about 4 500 preferences tallied for solutions that folks wanted to see to achieve the goals that were were essentially provided through the public engagement process so we talked to as many people as we could we're still talking to more but this is this is what we've done to date and these were the five key themes i mean i could talk about the public engagement you know for an hour but which really tried to distill it down into five themes that we heard the number one thing that we heard from the community was we need to preserve the natural environment we heard it time and time again at the workshops it was by far the most popular response to the survey so that's something that we're really taking seriously maintain and improve existing infrastructure folks don't want to just see capacity expansions they want to see maintenance of existing infrastructure ensure future water supply provide affordable housing opportunities and then folks really wanted to concentrate growth to existing urban areas i think the idea of kind of building up and not out extensions of cities rather than areas they're leapfrogging into into the rural development area so jumping into the evaluation and appraisal report you know these are just the statutory changes this is what you're going to see next month really the goal here is compliance with statutes we're going to update the planning horizon to 2050 uh the more substantive changes there are some septic to sewer updates that have been prepared by staff miss bennett has has been working on those and we'll incorporate those into the document and then some changes to the policies related to historic resources that was kind of a separate effort for this the ear memorandum you have it in draft form there are going to be some changes to that i've got a couple things in there that need to be updated but it's just it's a limited data analysis that includes the population projections evaluation of land uses transportation infrastructure and parks so you will be getting a final version of that prior to your meeting next month and then the process for that's going to be one planning commission meeting as mentioned next month and then it'll go to the board twice for transmittal and adoption and these are some of the element changes that you're going to see in that all the elements as i mentioned we updated the horizon year dates statutory references agency names all these things have changed since the last update for example what was once the department of community affairs became the department of economic opportunity and now is florida commerce so there's numerous references to to different departments and divisions that needed to be updated so those have been made in terms of future land use we updated the reference to the community vision there was a reference to previous efforts we updated that to the current one we have added references and policies for specialized uses those are all required by statute specific legislation has required those we've added those policies for historic preservation infrastructure we removed some out-of-date waste capacity tables that reference to 2020 horizon we updated the level of service which is being used today and not changing and then added that septic to sewer language housing we removed language on historic resources that's covered elsewhere within the plan we added some statutory language regarding prop share mitigation in public schools facilities cie that's capital improvements we changed some outdated level of service language and stats and project references and then there is a glossary in the plan and there's some changes that required a lot of those terms based on statutes so we made those changes so we anticipate that's going to be the easier part the the more challenging part is going to be the full rewrite to the comprehensive plan and that's what we're always tasked to do and that's what's going to be evaluated by the committee and ultimately come to you in the future but some of the the the bigger changes that we're talking about with the full rewrite i'll run through those now first is the urban service boundary there's currently an urban service boundary in the plan it's referenced as the tsda transit support development area but realistically the the county's providing urban services to a lot of other areas for example the uga you know that even the sda is getting water right so uh we're we're proposing to redefine the urban service boundary as all of those development boundaries without outside of the rda outside of the rural development area and then adding some criteria for expansion so that criteria would include contiguity requirements it would include the need to expand so you'd have to demonstrate that there's a a a need to go into the rda with additional with additional growth the reason we're doing this is because um when you look at the carrying capacity you know there's plenty of land within the existing development areas uh to accommodate the population through 2050. uh so we heard loud and clear at the at all of the workshops and public engagement folks really wanted to build out those existing planned development areas first before expanding further into the rda so that's that's the proposal here i'm sure this will be debated at length within the committee and perhaps at this board as well but that's the proposal there uh locational criteria uh really looking at those non-residential future land use criteria specifically the the bpc warehouse uh residential compatibility criteria that was something that came up during the public engagement as well and then restricting the expansion of the sda so those are the areas that are going to be on septic um we've got all the new policies regarding septic to sewer there's state involvement and state requirements regarding that now so really want to restrict the expansion of those sda areas i think you know it's probably more appropriate uh if if development areas are going to change maybe those sdas become more ugas and you look at the provision of wastewater in those areas to accommodate growth rather than doing it on septic uh so that's that's really kind of the the concept there uh we're evaluating and proposing a transfer development rights program there's one in the plan today uh unfortunately there hasn't been much implementation for it um currently the the polk green is the sending area we're proposing to keep that and expand the polk green so those are areas that have been identified as environmentally sensitive areas um we're using the fegn um for uh to determine what the um the polk green ascending areas really are you can see on the map here uh the existing uh is in green and uh we're proposing to expand that to include some areas that are shown in yellow those are the fegn areas one to five so the idea here is you be able to transfer development rights outside of those areas that we really want to protect and incentivize people to to preserve their land in perpetuity in the rda in favor of moving those units into the more urban development areas so the concept's been discussed at length at many of the workshops and i think you know folks that we've spoken with are generally in support of the concept uh future land uses we're proposing a couple of new classifications one's going to be conservation we already have a preservation future land use but unfortunately it allows very small floor area ratio so for example the circle will be education center you wouldn't be able to do that under preservation so the whole purpose of this land use would be to allow a little bit more limited floor area ratio to allow maybe an educational facility or something of that nature so it would really be tailored towards those environmental lands acquisitions so they don't have to give them you know some sort of you know parks and rec open space type of designation they can give them a conservation designation and then adaptive reuse there are a few structures within the county that you know don't really fit cleanly into any of the classifications based on their location maybe it's an old agricultural structure that the use has since gone away but having something that they can request to go through the process to do something a little bit more with their property recognizing that they shouldn't be required to tear their structure down to start over so that that would be that we're not proposing to map any of these designations these would just be options that folks can come through the process and request in the future looking at the parks level of service it's currently at 6.9 five five acres per thousand residents we're going to add a level of service for regional parks that's something when we talk to the folks in parks they really were interested in really finding a way to provide for those larger scale recreational opportunities as we grow so we've got a couple numbers that we've been discussing for that regional parks level of service so that's something you'll see moving forward and then level of service for preservation there are some goals related related to preservation for the environmental lands program in the plan today they're a little bit out of date so we are updating those and then backing into a level of service for preservation we're adding the as i mentioned fegn florida ecological greenways network one through five it's already on the pulp green map the one through three so there's just a couple additional areas that are going to be included that came out of discussions with the environmental community and staff and then there's references to a habitat conservation plan really throughout the comp plan that was an effort that lost momentum it was never completed so trying to re-energize that rather than striking the reference we're going to continue to encourage the development of that plan through the through the comp plan redevelopment areas this is uh these are areas these aren't necessarily cra's community redevelopment areas these are separately referenced in the comp plan based on area median income and so we've updated the map we're still fine tuning that as we go through the process but we also want to provide some flexibility based on surrounding properties today you know many of these areas were platted before the original comp plan so they have a future land use designation that you really can't split lots or you know develop a duplex i'm sure you see a lot of really small amendments to do those types of things so really acts more as a deterrent to redevelopment than something that encourages it so trying to incorporate some additional flexibility in there to allow those things to go through you know without having to go through the full map amendment process and pay consultants and pay the fees and go to hearings and just trying to make it a little bit easier for those areas uh to to redevelop uh and then intergovernmental coordination uh this is the first element that we're going to be talking about with the committee next week uh so there's already data analysis and policies that are on the the website those have been distributed to members of the committee as well um you know i it's it's a challenge in in the county to say the least when you have 17 municipalities they all have their own individual conference of plans they all have their annexation strategies they all have um you know their idea of how they want to grow in the future as well so as part of this effort mr ziskell and miss bennett uh you know reached out to all of those municipalities and offered to meet with them and i think the majority took them up and started those conversations about their long-term plans for the future and how that works in with the county's long-term vision so there's an opportunity for interlocal service boundary agreements you know that really cover the provision of utilities annexations uh and joint planning agreements which really i mean that would be focused more on land uses and in design standards uh so really encouraging that throughout this process uh the the county's plan and only governs the the properties that are within the the boundary of unincorporated county so for example you know i've told the story we were in frost proof for engagement and explaining the the rural nature of of the property surrounding the city uh to the the folks in attendance say well what about that subdivision down the street you know it's it's at four units or an acre unfortunately we have no control over that that's that's something that annexed into the city and the city made that decision so you know when you have multiple jurisdictions it's hard for residents to understand how the process works so really trying to just have a little bit more communication when it comes to those types of matters between the cities and the county from a transportation perspective as i mentioned we're looking at some standards for warehouse compatibility really limiting freight transportation near existing residential neighborhoods how we do that the transit development plan really needs to be incorporated into the policies the county's policies today do a really good job of planning for transit from a land use perspective i mean the the plan was pretty progressive when it was originally adopted to include the tsda and those development areas and tcco and all this stuff so really need to coordinate that a little bit better with the transit development plan and then updating to include the update to the lrtp the long-range transportation plan really need to address current and future level of service concerns from a transit standpoint we're also adding some policies to support the expansion of sunrail and brightline within the county we understand that's something it's more of an external factor but uh we think it's good policy to really coordinate for those premium transit services uh and then you know jumping into the the sap's we've got three sap's in the north east corner working to combine those into one to make it a little bit easier to to kind of administer policies within those sap's and then eliminating two that have either been annexed or not needed anymore kind of in the center of the corridor i4 corridor there was a request when discussing with utilities folks to prohibit future private wastewater facilities so that's something that's going to be contemplated i'm sure that's going to be debated at length at the committee um you know from our perspective we we do understand their concerns with uh long-term maintenance of such facilities and you know if folks aren't able to maintain them properly ultimately they become uh kind of an issue for the for the county to deal with and they have to take them over and bring them up to standards and things like that so that's something that will be discussed and then new communities we no longer have the developments of regional impact so there are policies needed to accommodate large-scale development projects you have new community standards in there today i don't believe anyone's come in under one of those i know there's been some chatter about uh at least one uh coming in in the near future so really looking at those policies to to fine-tune them and make sure that they are uh ready to accommodate growth and then in terms of the next steps we're going to finalize and transmit the evaluation and appraisal report so that's what you'll see at your next meeting so you'll see the ear memo with all those policies that i believe been submitted in draft form there will be a few changes just based on our internal conversations so it may look a little bit different than what you received before this meeting uh then we'll continue to work through the comp plan advisory committee process as i mentioned the first meeting is next week we're going to be talking about the intergovernmental coordination element the ideas that will kind of build up uh to the the really you know tough elements towards the end where we're going to go through future land use and conservation uh the goal also is to provide those you know a little bit further in advance so i mean there's going to be a lot of changes in those elements quite frankly um and you know we we understand that we're not going to be distributing those like a week or two before the meeting anticipating people read 100 pages and comprehend all those policies so the goal is to get those out a little bit early then we'll finalize the full rewrite once we get through the committee process that'll be committee schedule to run through the end of this year so we're looking at early 2026 to come back for the full rewrite adoption and of course that would go through the same process come here first and then we go to the board for for two hearings with that i'm here for any questions we also have staff here that can answer any questions you may have regarding the effort the policies or any feedback you may have that we need to take in consideration as we continue to draft so thank you any questions go ahead chair um quick question regarding whenever you guys try to calculate the uh carrying capacity can you talk about the development factor and how you guys came to those numbers great question and we about we have to add a development factor just because we understand just because something has a land use that may allow for four dwelling units per acre um people generally aren't hitting it based on development standards so for example um when you're factoring in that you're going to have to accommodate stormwater you're going to have to accommodate roads you've got new stormwater standards that you're going to be looking at it's going to eat away at the ability to hit that acreage um so you know we we work directly with staff and say what are you seeing in the community like what what are the densities that you see on the ground and usually you know for a single family you're seeing closer to three you know sometimes two uh so you have to look at it from that standpoint townhomes i mean are people hitting the full 10 or they end up eight so you have to factor that in to make it more realistic uh so we don't show that there's too much capacity on the map um in this case there was a surplus either way and there was a surplus over the medium high which um you know using kind of conservative math shows that there's probably even a larger surplus that's out there on the map today so good question though thank you this is the fault today now you got me curious um so is it different factors for different lean use types it is okay it is any other questions all right with that mr triscoll you have anything to add thank you so much we'll see you next month appreciate your hard work thank you and i failed to just give um a little more introduction about eric eric's worked for orange county prior to working for inspire so he's worked for counties before not just cities and come to a county so and he's got other uh other wealth of experience so i just want to let you know i should have said that that he's quite qualified thanks eric thank you eric good morning um for the record ben zisco land development director and as shonda mentioned i just want to give a little bit of an update on one piece of legislation in particular that that came out of this this year's legislative session of course the session just ended so now staff is evaluating what came out of tallahassee and how it impacts cities and counties and for us of course how it impacts our planning process and when i describe this bill it's going to sound like i'm on repeat because this is a a very similar discussion that i had with you about two years ago um so on friday both the senate and the house passed senate bill 180 um it has not been submitted to the governor for his signature yet but if you see on the screen here it had unanimous support in the house with a 106 to zero vote and in the senate was a 34 to one vote this is another hurricane or disaster relief bill that was was pushed through easily but it has a provision in it that local governments cannot pass an amendment to its comprehensive plan or its land development code that is determined determined to be more burdensome or restrictive um and this bill has a time period that that prohibits governments from adopting those amendments within a one-year time period of any name storm that ends up on the federal disaster list so when i say this may sound familiar if you were up here on this dais and heard me present to you in 2023 about senate bill 250 senate bill 250 was almost identical but it was related to the two storms that came through in 2023 namely hurricanes nicole and hurricane ian what the what senate bill 250 did is it drew a dot on the map of where those two storms made landfall and it drew a radius around that landfall point and said that you could not adopt an amendment that was more burdensome or restrictive around the landfall point of those two storms this bill has similar language about not being able to to adopt amendments but it simply says that you cannot adopt anything more restrictive in your comp plan or your land development code within one year period of any storm and instead of being the dot of where it makes landfall it is the path of where that storm comes across the state so we're evaluating this is is much more prohibitive that you know virtually every year we have something that crosses florida what regardless of where it makes landfall landfall it's going to cross the peninsula and we are going to be within 100 miles of that path um what it also defines is that your jurisdiction meaning the county needs to either be entirely or partially within 100 miles so one little clip of the county is within 100 miles of that path we then go into a period of a one-year waiting period where we're no longer allowed to adopt any amendments to the comp plan or land development code which could be deemed more burdensome or restrictive here's the challenge what is more burdensome and restrictive i think that that sandy can can weigh in but i think we're going to have a pretty conservative approach that anything that increases development standards anything that increases setbacks anything that adds more requirements to a development project could be considered more burdensome or restrictive so so let's talk about what we've done over the last several several months oh and and i'm i need to point out that this is retroactive this will go back to august of 2024 which is the season that we just went through with helene and milton um so we need to look back at what we've done since then i just want to remind the planning commission some of the ones that you've passed recently that probably fall into the category of more burdensome and restrictive recently we adopted a land development code text amendment that provided enhanced buffers between warehousing and residential enhanced buffer more restrictive more burdensome on warehouse developers recently we passed an amendment that increased the setbacks for accessory structures namely sheds we moved them from a zero setback to a three-foot setback more burdensome and restrictive most recently we adopted or this board uh this commission recommended that the board adopt an ordinance increasing our stormwater um standards increasing standards more burdensome and restrictive um so i say all that to say we're in a waiting period because this this has not been to the governor's desk yet with the unanimous support of the house and almost unanimous support of the senate there's sentiment that we believe he will sign the bill and then we will sort it out we expect some challenges and some discussions among legal circles just like we did with senate bill 250 but this could put it could put a wrench in in some of our efforts that we're we're trying to accomplish here um so yesterday at the board meeting the ordinances that were before the board uh the board made a decision to continue those until june which would should which should get us past the governor either signing or or vetoing the bill um mr rosh had mentioned that we are are hoping to kick off the comprehensive planning advisory committee um after this meeting i'm going to have a meeting with some county staff most likely we are going to be postponing that first meeting until june as well to see what the governor does with this with this bill um but if it is signed we're going to have to navigate through how we amend our comp plan our land development code over the next the upcoming foreseeable future um so it's it's it's a big thing that hit on friday we were we're all trying to discuss it monday and tuesday i wanted to to give you an update on that and what that means for for our efforts be happy to answer any questions or or certainly can defer to sandy for the legal answer go ahead mr oh it's likely the governor's going to pass that and then uh all of those uh amendments that you made would be on hold then and until you have that window of opportunity and then what what you would just come forward and say everything for the last year you know that's an interesting question mr hickman and how we navigate through that we we dealt with something similar for senate bill 250 and how we did that there is a provision in the bill that says that anything we did pass that is in conflict with this is null and void so how we go back and re-adopt things we've already done would be a legal procedural question but but you're absolutely right that if we're if we're on a one-year clock every year we could be in a situation of waiting until a year passes but here's what here's an interesting thing that we need to sort out too that the language in the bill says that we're not allowed to propose or adopt i i don't know what propose means does that mean we can't ask the board if they support it does it mean we can't take it to our drc does it mean we can't come to you does it mean we can't take it to the board what what defines propose and when does that one-year clock then start but you're absolutely right if we've got a slew of things and we're fortunate enough to get a storm early in one season and then get through the next season and not get a storm at the beginning there could be a rush to get some things past yeah and one point of clarification we're talking about a year um going forward but there is a provision in the bill that um takes us through 2027 um for and it's been has it listed up there for debbie helene and milton so um we actually aren't able to do anything until october 1st of 2027 and then the year provision kicks in if you don't have a hurricane another one right how does that affect proposals from developers those are exempted right so this is just um county initiated there is a there is a provision in there that an applicant initiated amendment so um if if someone wanted to propose a land use change and do a conditional cpa where they added additional restrictions to their property that would be okay we have had some legislative items that are proposed by an applicant but apply county-wide i think we'd have to sort through that what what is what is the applicability of that one that you just saw a couple months ago was a change to the i-4 selected area plan where someone an applicant wanted to make changes but it certainly applies to more than just their property i think that one was less restrictive but if someone were to propose something and it applied to more properties than just theirs i don't know how that would fall into that that particular provision oh an applicant comes forward and usually there's a give and take in in what they're asking for does that limit the the board from uh asking for more restrictive requirements on that project the board yeah the county cannot propose or adopt anything more restrictive so if the applicant is asking for it and and consents to it it's okay but we can't require anything more restrictive he would be if he wants project where he has to consent to and then yes and i'll tell you the county attorney's office is going to take a conservative approach just because um also included in this bill which is a little unique is uh prevailing um not prevailing party but prevailing plaintiffs um attorney fees so um never could the county be the prevailing party so if someone challenges something that we don't so say we're going through the comp plan amendments and we think a particular provision like preserve the natural environment maintain existing infrastructure isn't necessarily more restrictive but someone challenges us and says no that is because it impedes my development rights they take that to court and are successful that now we have to pay their attorney's fees so we're gonna um i mean the county attorney's office is obviously looking at this closely but um without further guidance we're going to take a we're going to advise the board to take a cautious approach it's going to go by the book whatever the existing land use is is what you've got to adhere by you're not going to be able to change it so our chickens and roosters are safe for now right that's an interesting one because we we have discussed that one in particular there were two components of that bill or that that text amendment one was less burdensome and restrictive one was more burdensome and restrictive so we we lessened the setbacks from 50 feet to 10 feet that part of the provision is less restrictive currently we don't prohibit roosters on half acre or less if that provision is in the land development code that could be determined to be more burdensome and restrictive if it's not in the land development code and it's a part of the normal county court of ordinances that's not governed by this bill so a lot of nuances again this is the this is what we deal with when a i think 70 page bill that deals mostly with hurricanes and disaster relief sneaks in a land use or zoning provision into it and we have to try to to sort it out after the fact so there's no language or guidance or hint in the bill as to what is more burdensome and restrictive well and i've seen on the news some things that local governments have done that i just like i can't believe they're doing that i mean that's it's almost like local governments have done it to ourselves or some local governments have done it to themselves because some local governments have been have done stuff that i would never have allowed my staff to do it sounds like i don't of course i don't know the whole story but i i get it i mean i understand why the the uh i guess support or the push to do something like this is to overcome what is obvious more burdensome and restrictive and we're speaking of planning but does this include building code i know building code has been you have damaged more than 25 percent you have to build back the whole structure to current building codes if it was an old structure that was just you know absolutely cost prohibitive but that's federal well this bill doesn't address the building code but i think it does i think to mr bishop's point the building code is governed at the state level so they have control at the state level on the florida building code whereas this bill was to limit local governments and you're right there were news stories of following hurricane ian in particular right the ones that i saw maybe some for hurricane nicole as well where the areas that were devastated mostly in in fort myers and lee and in some of those other southwestern counties and cities were changing codes quite drastically that impacted the ability of those communities and those properties to rebuild um in that particular case we were able to and we were a big part of the discussion we were able to convince the legislature to narrow that radius and we explained that that we didn't see the same impacts here in polk that fort myers did and to have that that large of a radius that covered almost the whole southern peninsula of florida wasn't really doing what the the intended language was was sought to do we kind of feel the same way here with 100 miles from the the path wherever some if it starts and crosses at miami or goes all the way up to daytona some portion of polk county is going to be within 100 miles so um hopefully after this is is passed and and the follow-up discussions hopefully there's some some other either uh fact or league of cities discussions or or some of the attorneys groups can talk and try to get it refined to get it to meet the intent as mr bishops mentioned of cities and counties not not harming communities they're trying to rebuild after a disaster but also not completely completely changing the name for comp planning and land use authority throughout the state can i ask a quick follow-up question i understand the 100 miles and the little piece of it being possibly but then it also says you have to be in a federally declared county is it possible that can conflict with each other i mean could you not be declared a federal disaster your county is not declared for that storm and be within that hundred miles i think you certainly could and i guess that that is maybe the silver lining is that you're within you're within the hundred miles but but if the the the destruction or the the impacts are limited to a smaller area and the federal declaration doesn't include your jurisdiction then you'd have you'd have a little bit of grace there and for at least through 2027 i mean we're impacted for helene debbie milton those were federal we're in that category but going forward yeah yeah going forward yep what you're saying um it would be up to the at the federal level to say whether polk county was included in that and i assume this becomes effective if the governor immediately signs it immediately becomes effective right yeah i i didn't read if the effective date was immediately being that it's retroactive yeah i would guess it is yeah okay thank you go get your attorney's license too bill lots of population lots of issues all right any other questions for staff anything else we have the only other thing i wanted to do is just point out a little privilege we have a gentleman in the white shirt his name is julio just wanted to introduce him he's a student intern that's going to be with us for the summer so he just joined us um monday was his first day he joins us from usf and then next monday we'll have another intern coming all the way from muncie indiana a ball state university intern uh so we'll have two planning interns you'll see them june and july and maybe august before they return back to school so happy to have them with us for the summer welcome welcome and go bulls right yes jonda anything else one last thing i forgot to mention so for the year-based amendments my goal is by the end of the week to email you just the elements they're not going to be in ordinance form or anything like that it's just so you can start reading it i think you'll actually be able to get through them pretty quickly some elements you might get through in five minutes the future land use element may take you 10. it's very minor hopefully it meets the test if not burdensome or but we'll have to figure that out yeah we're working on that as well we'll figure that out but at least we'll give you a draft by the end of the week that uh you can start looking at and then when you get your packet for june it'll be in the proper ordinance format perfect any other questions for staff or any other items to discuss before we close with that i'll take a motion to adjourn so so moved on favor all right meetings adjourned